thoughts

SACRAMENTO — The man who brought California the top-two open primary now thinks it needs a drastic overhaul. In fact, he says the “top-two” part should be trashed.

Former state Sen. Abel Maldonado advocates returning to a “top-one” system where the winning vote-getter in each recognized political party — major or minor — qualifies for the November general election.

But he’d keep the “open” part that allows citizens to vote for any candidate on the state ballot, regardless of party.

Maldonado says he crafted the current system 16 years ago believing it would produce “pragmatic and commonsense” officeholders. But that has failed, he acknowledges.

The ex-politician, a Republican centrist who runs a Santa Maria farm operation, is one of several people from both major parties who contend the top-two system should be significantly altered or eliminated.

The movement gained momentum during the recent California primary. And I’ve got some other suggestions for reform that sprang from that election experience:

• We shouldn’t allow 61 people to “run” for governor. That many people, the vast majority of them on a laughable lark, clog the ballot and create a nuisance for voters. Just so they can tell a grandkid or a guy on the next barstool, “I once was a candidate for California governor.” Each got roughly 0% of the vote.

A solution: Quadruple both the current $4,900 candidate filing fee and the alternative collection of 6,000 voter signatures. That might dissuade frivolous “candidacies.”

• Hate language should be banned from the state’s Official Voter Information Guide. One so-called gubernatorial contender got a blatantly antisemitic “candidate statement” inserted into the information guide that was mailed to all voter households.

“It was disgusting. Horrible,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), chairwoman of the Assembly Elections Committee and a member of the Legislative Jewish Caucus. She’s pushing legislation to prohibit such language in the guide.

You’d think that the secretary of state’s office would have burned the crud without needing a new law, but somebody dropped the ball.

• This has nothing to do with the primary, but the office of lieutenant governor should be abolished. It’s a non-job. The only real purpose is to wait for the governor to vacate the office by resignation or death. The last time that happened was 73 years ago when Gov. Earl Warren left to become a Supreme Court chief justice.

If another governor did ever depart — many fantasize about being elected president — the job could be assumed by, perhaps, the attorney general.

• Two other elective state offices should also be scratched: superintendent of public instruction and insurance commissioner. Those posts should be appointed by the governor, who is the logical person to be held accountable for education and insurance policies.
• And the state board of equalization. Junk that too. Hardly anyone knows what it does. Not much, after the scandal-plagued board was stripped of most of its tax duties a decade ago. They were shifted to two entities that report directly to the governor, rendering the board essentially superfluous.

But don’t expect any elective office ever to be eliminated by politicians. They desperately protect them as potential landing spots.

Back to the top-two open primary.

Maldonado jockeyed California’s oft-called jungle primary system onto the 2010 ballot as part of a late-night budget and tax deal. The senator agreed to vote for a gridlocked state budget and a hefty tax hike in exchange for legislative approval of the ballot measure.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pushed hard for the proposition and voters passed it.

Voters, regardless of party affiliation, can vote for any candidate. And the top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the general election.

The idea was that candidates would be forced to appeal to centrist voters — not just party idealogues — and more moderates would be elected.

“Can you seriously say that the top-two system has led to more moderation? No, that’s asinine,” asserts Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, who strongly supports returning to party nominations.

A few additional moderates have been elected to the Legislature, and some districts have become more competitive. But that’s mainly because of independent, nonpartisan redistricting, according to Eric McGhee, an elections expert at the Public Policy Institute of California.

Actually, the electorate has become so polarized in recent years — particularly during the Trump era — that very few centrist voters seem to be left.

The move toward abolishing or severely reshaping the primary system is nonpartisan.

Democrat Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, favors dumping the top-two.

For one thing, she says, there was too much focus this spring on whether any Democratic gubernatorial candidate would qualify for the November ballot. Fear spread that so many Democrats were running that they’d splinter the party vote and two Republicans would finish first and second.

She wanted to hear less talk about the horse race and more debate over substantive issues.

“People were obsessing about a Democratic shutout,” Gonzalez said. “And people were waiting until the last minute to fill out their ballot because they wanted to vote for the candidate who was ahead to make sure someone made the top two. We didn’t have a policy discussion.”

A top-two problem from the beginning has been that one party, usually the GOP, always gets locked out of some legislative or congressional elections.

In November, there’ll be eight congressional races with only Democrats running and one contest with just Republican candidates. And no general election write-ins are allowed.

That’s unfair to voters. They deserve a clear ideological choice.

Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio is pushing a proposed ballot initiative to wipe out the top-two. “It hasn’t delivered what it promised,” he argues.

Agreed. We gave it a try and it didn’t work out. Time to try something new–like Maldonado’s hybrid idea.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Behested payments aren’t illegal, but they are a problem. Especially for Newsom
Money for nothing: Billionaire tax proposal faces hurdles as it moves closer to November ballot
The L.A. Times Special: People are betting on elections in prediction markets. Congress is watching

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

With families growing faster than bedroom numbers, an intriguing trends in staycations sees friends meet in the middle with their families instead of having each other to stay

“I’d love to get together, but we just have no room for you all.” Sound familiar? It’s certainly true for me. And I’m by no means alone. As longtime friends grow their families, leading to limited space for guests in their own homes, a rising staycation trend is emerging that sees both parties meet in the middle at a holiday rental. Dubbed “nesting holidays”, the idea is simple. No space? No problem. Families avoid the squeeze by booking somewhere big enough for everyone at an equidistance from both homes.

I’m a mum to two girls, and I came across the idea of a nesting holiday by chance when trying to book in my best friend Emily to stay with us. She’d recently had twins, adding to her brood to take her tally up to three children. Along with her husband Mike, they were a family of five – too many for our small spare room. And with them in the middle of a house renovation, there was no room at the inn for our family of four there either.

Just what were a pair of Millennial mums to do? “Why don’t we meet in the middle?” I offered. “Somewhere wipe clean…” And, reader, I found the perfect place. Browsing Sykes Cottages, I came across Bears Court in Little Rissington in the Cotswolds. On first glance, I’ll admit looks a bit soulless. A plant wouldn’t go amiss…

It’s a newly built complex of holiday houses, each one identical to the next. There’s nothing traditionally “Cotswolds” about them. But – and it’s a BIG but – boy oh boy is there method in their madness. Where Bears Court lacked in country charm it made up for it in spades with space and amenities. And for parents looking for a wipe-clean “nesting holiday” they are nigh on perfect.

Set overlooking the stunning Cotswold countryside, albeit with fences too high to see any of it from the garden, they are slap bang in the middle of the action. It’s close enough to all the bustle of local villages, like Stow-on-the-Wold, for easy exploration, but remote enough for complete and utter peace. Five minutes in the car will take you into Bouton-on-the-Water to paddle in the low river, and feast on local ice cream.

15 minutes in the car will take you to The Plough Inn at Ford, a brilliant pub with an even more brilliant pub garden with kids menu and adventure playground. And right out of the front door are public footpaths to take you through the fields and meadows that surround the complex. Within seconds you are in nature. The Cotswolds Way is yours for the taking if you fancy a scenic hike.

The house itself (we had number five Bears Court) is minimal to say the least, but has everything you need for a relaxing weekend away as a group: big table, large lounge area, four bedrooms, multiple toilets, a ping pong table, dart board and – everyone’s highlight – a hot tub in the yard. The cavernous downstairs area was big enough for all five children to run around in, and the yard area was nice and secure with a bolted gate. There was nothing for the children to break or destroy, yet everything we needed from plentiful towels and a washing machine, to a fully equipped kitchen and picnic-style bench outside.

“Dare I say it, I feel relaxed,” said Emily as we sat in the sun with a cold beer and had our first face-to-face conversation in months. I couldn’t help but agree. Wipe clean and wonderful. As two tired parents in need of a natter, we couldn’t have asked for more.

*Seven nights at Bears Court starts from £1,722.