Politician behind ‘top two’ primary has second thoughts

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

• To begin, the article highlights that former state Sen. Abel Maldonado, architect of California’s “top-two” open primary, now believes the system has failed and urges a shift to a “top-one” model in which the highest vote-getter from each recognized party advances to November, while keeping the primary itself open to all voters regardless of party.

• Building on Maldonado’s reversal, the column contends that the top-two primary has not delivered the “pragmatic and commonsense” officeholders that reformers promised; instead, it argues that California politics remain highly polarized and that there are too few centrist voters left for the system to work as intended, echoing research that attributes limited moderation more to independent redistricting than to the primary rules themselves.^[4][3]

• The piece stresses that disillusionment with top-two is bipartisan, noting that Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio derides the idea that the system promotes moderation as “asinine,” while Democratic labor leader Lorena Gonzalez and Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio also favor scrapping or fundamentally altering the system, reflecting a broader reform push that emerged during the recent primary.

• Furthermore, the article faults top-two for regularly shutting one major party out of November legislative and congressional contests, leaving some districts with only Democrats or only Republicans on the general election ballot and no write-in option; the column argues this denies many voters a meaningful ideological choice.

• In response, the column endorses Maldonado’s “hybrid” fix: preserve an open primary ballot for all voters but guarantee each qualified party a place in the general election by advancing its top vote-getter, which would restore party representation in November while maintaining voter flexibility earlier in the process.

• Turning from primary mechanics to ballot access, the article criticizes the spectacle of 61 candidates running for governor, asserting that most were frivolous entrants seeking notoriety rather than viable contenders; it proposes sharply increasing filing fees and signature requirements to discourage “on a lark” candidacies that clutter the ballot and burden voters.

• The piece also calls for banning hate language from the state’s Official Voter Information Guide after an antisemitic candidate statement appeared in the mailed pamphlet; citing Assemblymember Gail Pellerin’s reaction and pending legislation, the column argues election officials should prevent bigoted content from being distributed at taxpayer expense rather than treating it as protected campaign speech in that official forum.

• Beyond elections, the article urges structural changes to state offices, insisting the lieutenant governor’s job is essentially a “non‑job” whose only real purpose is waiting for a gubernatorial vacancy; it suggests that in the rare event of a departure, succession could be handled by another statewide official such as the attorney general.

• In the same vein, the column advocates eliminating the elected superintendent of public instruction and insurance commissioner posts, asserting that these positions should be appointed by the governor so that voters can hold a single, clearly identifiable official accountable for education and insurance policy.

• Additionally, the article argues the state Board of Equalization should be abolished because most of its tax powers were transferred a decade ago to agencies reporting directly to the governor, leaving the elected board largely superfluous and poorly understood by the public.

• At the same time, the piece is skeptical that any of these elective offices will actually be eliminated, asserting that politicians jealously guard such posts as potential “landing spots” for themselves or allies, which, in the columnist’s view, keeps an outdated institutional structure in place.

• Ultimately, the column concludes that California “gave [top-two] a try and it didn’t work out,” and, echoing critics who argue the reform never met its promises, declares it is “time to try something new” by adopting Maldonado’s revised open primary with party-based general election slots rather than continuing with the current top-two system.^[4]

Different views on the topic

• In contrast to the article’s call to abandon top-two, many of the reformers who helped place California’s nonpartisan primary on the ballot, including good-government and business groups, have argued that the system was a logical extension of the state’s broader reform agenda—alongside independent redistricting—and was designed to weaken party bosses and give all voters, including independents, more say in choosing viable candidates.^[4][3]

• Relatedly, some political scientists and policy analysts contend that while top-two has not transformed Sacramento, it has modestly increased competition in certain districts and, in combination with independent redistricting, may have nudged some legislators toward the middle, leading these observers to view the system as imperfect but worth refining rather than discarding outright.^[4][3]

• Moreover, earlier commentary from the same columnist once urged patience with the reform, arguing that California should “give [the] top-two primary some more time” and only consider junking it if it did not improve over the longer run, a stance that reflected confidence that incremental adjustments could eventually make the system work better instead of requiring a wholesale reversal.^[2]

• Election law scholars have also warned that proposals resembling a “blanket primary”—in which all voters can help choose each party’s nominee—have previously been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that forcing parties to let nonmembers pick their nominees infringed on associational rights, raising concerns that Maldonado’s preferred open, top-one party primary could face similar constitutional challenges.^[1]

• Supporters of nonpartisan primaries further argue that reverting to party-based November ballots, as the article recommends, would restore partisan gatekeeping and reduce incentives for candidates to appeal across party lines, undermining the original reform goal of encouraging broader, districtwide coalitions rather than narrow party bases.^[4]

• On the question of ballot access, civil-liberties and voter-participation advocates have long maintained that high filing fees and steep signature thresholds function as barriers that disproportionately exclude lesser-known, low-resource, or outsider candidates, arguing that even seemingly “frivolous” candidacies can inject new ideas and that voters, not administrative hurdles, should decide which hopefuls deserve support.

• Likewise, critics of banning “hate language” from official voter guides caution that such rules can be difficult to define and enforce in a viewpoint-neutral way; First Amendment advocates note that restrictions on offensive political speech in government publications risk subjective application, potential litigation, and a chilling effect on robust debate, and instead often favor counterspeech or clearer disclaimers over outright content bans.

• Governance experts who favor elected executive officers also push back against the article’s call to eliminate positions such as lieutenant governor, superintendent of public instruction, and insurance commissioner, contending that independently elected statewide officials provide an important check on gubernatorial power and give voters more avenues to express preferences on education, consumer protection, and other critical policy areas.^[3]

• From this perspective, shifting these offices to gubernatorial appointments could reduce transparency and democratic accountability, especially in a state as large and diverse as California, where direct election is seen by some analysts as a way to ensure that multiple regions and constituencies have distinct voices in statewide policymaking.^[3]

• Finally, some defenders of the Board of Equalization’s continued existence argue that even after its core tax functions were reassigned, an elected board can still play a role in representing regional concerns on complex tax and fee issues; these critics see the push to abolish the board as part of a broader trend toward consolidating authority in the executive branch, which they view more warily than the article does.^[3]