New Mexico Open Primaries Board Meeting Minutes 7/26/2015




07/26/15 3:00 p.m.



2309 Renard Place, Albuquerque, New Mexico



Bob Perls, Bill Adkison, Sarah Cobb, George Richmond, Eddy Aragon, and Ed Hollington


Absent: Barry Bitzer



David Walker, Ben Blackwell, and David Nelson


Call to Order by Bob Perls at 3:00 p.m., MDT.



A quorum was present.






1. The bylaws of the New Mexico Open Primaries, a New Mexico non-profit corporation were presented to the Board of Directors and upon a motion duly made and seconded, the bylaws were unanimously adopted.


2. Election of Officers


The following officers were unanimously elected by the Board of Directors:


i. Bob Perls, President

ii. J. Edward Hollington, Secretary

iii. George Richmond, Treasurer.


Bob Perls, President, presided over the Board of Directorsmeeting.


3. Finances


President Perls presented a report of income and expenses to date and a motion was duly made and seconded and by unanimous vote approval was given to reimburse the President for expenses which were incurred by the President on behalf of the corporation.


Treasurer Richmond presented a form of Tax Deductible letter to be provided to contributors and also reported that he would contact a CPA regarding the time requirements for completing a 501[c][3] application with the IRS.


4. Volunteer Coordinator

A motion was made and seconded and by unanimous vote, Sarah Cobb was appointed to serve as Volunteer Coordinator.


5. Meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m. The Board of Directors adjourned to convene a general membership meeting in addition to the Board of Directors being present, David Walker, Ben Blackwell, and David Nelson, general members, were also present for discussions regarding the mission, goals, and objectives. Messaging were discussed with excellent input from Board of Directors and general members. The Mission Statement was reviewed and discussed and revisions will be made by the President as discussed with the goal of keeping the message simple and non-confrontational. It was also agreed that for the time being, the President will be the official spokesman on behalf of the corporation.


6. Opportunities for speaking engagements were discussed and it was agreed that Sarah Cobb would assist in the vettingprocess for speaking engagements for the President.


7. The meeting of the Board of Directors reconvened at 4:15 p.m.


8. Business Plan


President Perls discussed the need for a detailed business plan and provided a template Business Plan that had been provided by John Opdycke, of the National Open Primaries organization. The President explained a business plan was necessary and helpful in soliciting contributions, especially from foundations. Board member Aragon graciously volunteered to take the lead in preparing a business plan. Board member Adkison emphasized the importance of establishing a 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month organizational plans with objectives.


Treasurer Richmond provided a hand-out from Fair Vote organization and prompted a general discussion about association with other organizations, particularly national organizations involved in similar open primary projects. It was agreed that communications with those organizations could be an important resource and should be continued.


9. Crum vs. Secretary of State - lawsuit


This lawsuit is to declare closed primaries unconstitutional. Secretary Hollington gave an update on the case explaining the district court judge had ruled against Plaintiff Crum but in doing so, had failed to address the constitutional arguments. This case is now before the NM Court of Appeals. Secretary Hollington will provide copies of the brief filed in the NM Court of Appeals to all board members and has volunteered to make himself available for any questions and more detailed explanations when needed about the lawsuit.



10. Outreach and marketing


Board members and general members in attendance engaged extensive discussions regarding outreach including reviewing the website, giving constructive criticism, and hosting private home/open primary neighborhood meetings. It was also agreed the corporation should extend outreach to involve more diverse members. President Perls presented handouts which his wife produced and various comments and suggestions were made regarding messaging and it was agreed that having handouts, particularly when attending neighborhood meetings, and giving talks would be very beneficial.



The next meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for September 9, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. at a restaurant to be announced.



Upon a motion duly made and seconded, and by unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.





Add your reaction Share

“A Quiet Revolution”

The National Open Primaries organization ( just released a study:


“A Quiet Revolution” 

The Early Success of California’s Top Two Nonpartisan Primary

By Jason D. Olson, Founder of and Omar H. Ali, P.hD., Associate Professor at University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

The full text can be found here and downloaded as a PDF  from the website.

The following is the text, courtasy of the original can be found by following this link.



The enactment of the Top Two Nonpartisan Primary in California has had three significant consequences since it went into effect in 2012:

1) More competitive elections. California elections are now the most competitive in the nation, with a record number of incumbents defeated under the new system. Additionally, the nonpartisan nature of Top Two has created competition even in districts where one major party holds a significant advantage over the other with the introduction of “same-party races”.

2) All voters have the right to equal participation. Under the old partisan system, nearly 80% of California’s legislative and Congressional races were decided in the primary. This discouraged participation from or outright excluded voters not associated with the majority party of their district. Under the new system, all voters now have full access to both the first and final round of the election process. This has forced candidates to appeal beyond their party’s base.

3) A functional legislature. California is no longer a national symbol for legislative dysfunction. Members of the legislature, who must now be elected by building diverse coalitions of voters rather than toeing the party line, head to Sacramento incentivized to continue similar outreach while in office.

We believe that the rapid and transformative impact of Top Two in California can serve as a blueprint for others looking to reduce legislative dysfunction and voter disengagement. 







Graphic_Two2.jpgCalifornia voters enacted comprehensive campaign finance and disclosure regulations in 1974 after the Watergate scandal.[1] While these regulations provided voters, academics, and journalists with a comprehensive view of the individuals and organizations funding electoral activity in California, they did not prevent or diminish the “partisanization” of the political and legislative environment. To the contrary, by 2009, California’s legislature was ranked among the most dysfunctional in the nation and voter approval was in the teens. 

Still, members of the legislature enjoyed a very high incumbency return rate. Party leaders used a complicated system of gerrymandering and semi-closed partisan primaries to ensure that incumbents were guaranteed reelection and would vote the party line.

Seeking an answer to partisan tensions and gridlock in the 1990s, Californians had enacted a blanket primary measure via ballot in 1996. The blanket primary allowed all voters to participate in any party primary race.[2] However in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the blanket primary design ruling that parties, as private entities, had a right to exclude non-party members from participating in their nominating process.

After the blanket primary was dismantled in 2000, public confidence in the state’s governing institutions plummeted. The impact was negative and far reaching.[3] There were protracted budget battles, near government shutdowns, and other crises manufactured for partisan gain. During this time, elections were largely noncompetitive. Only two incumbents in the entire state were defeated in all elections between 2002 and 2010.[4] The legislature’s public approval rating sunk to a record low of 14% by 2010.[5]

In 2003, California voters revolted. In that year, Governor Gray Davis was recalled. He was replaced by the iconoclastic and nonpartisan Arnold Schwarzenegger. A broad left/right reform coalition evolved to eliminate the structural partisanship built into the electoral system. This coalition remade California politics by creating a nonpartisan and fully independent redistricting commission and enacting a nonpartisan Top Two primary.[6]

The Top Two Nonpartisan Primary coalition included independent voter associations, business leaders, the AARP, Chamber of Commerce, Common Cause, issue advocacy organizations, philanthropists and reform-minded elected officials—most notably State Controller Steve Westly, Governor Schwarzenegger, Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado, and former Assemblyman Steve Peace. These disparate forces came together to bring a constitutionally sound open primary system back to California. They recruited nationally known constitutional scholars and election law experts, studied the Supreme Court’s decision, and drafted a new open primary initiative to meet the Court’s specific tests.

In 2010, despite being opposed by every political party in California, the California Top Two Primaries Act (Proposition 14) passed with 54% of the vote.[7] The state has used the system to conduct all statewide and congressional elections since 2012.






Graphic_Three2.jpgPrior to the implementation of Top Two nonpartisan primaries, California was considered one of the most partisan political environments in the nation. Runaway deficits and gridlocked budgets were standard. Lawmakers brave enough to work across party lines found a system rigged against them.

When former Assemblymembers Joe Canciamilla, a Democrat, and Keith Richman, a Republican, established a bipartisan working group to discuss solutions for pressing problems facing the state, they were forced to meet in secret. Members of the group refused to publicly acknowledge their participation in the effort for fear of retribution from party leadership. The working group was ultimately forced to dissolve.[8]



Partisan Dysfunction in the Legislature . . .

The performance of the legislature was described by analysts and the general public as dysfunctional and extremely partisan:

  • A 2005 Government Performance Project of the Pew Charitable Trust graded the California government a “C-minus;” the lowest grade in the nation.[9]
  • A 2009 National Journal review of state governments named California among the most dysfunctional state governments.[10]
  • In 2010, the California State Legislature broke a record for consecutive days without a budget and missed its constitutional budget deadline in 16 of the previous 20 years, largely due to partisans acting as a bloc to take advantage of the state’s two-thirds budget requirement.[11]
  • The 2010 legislature had a record-low 14% public approval rating and record-high 72% disapproval rating.[12]
  • An analysis of the 2011-2012 State Legislature, the last elected under the old system, showed that Democratic officials voted “the party line” 99% of the time while Republican officials similarly took a partisan position 94% of the time.[13]


. . . Caused by Partisan Control of Elections

Under the old system, partisan gerrymandering and long-term demographic shifts had solidified most of California’s election districts as one-party districts. For instance, in 2010, 79% of the members of the California Legislature and the California Congressional delegation did not face competitive November elections.[14] This meant that once the candidate of the dominant major party in a district won their primary, which under the old system was limited primarily to members of their own party, they did not face a real challenge in the November election.

Essentially, in realpolitik terms, 79% of California elected officials won office without having to communicate with voters outside of their own party. Furthermore, this led to a system that incentivized toeing “the party line” over what was best for all voters. This was a structural flaw – not a personal failing on behalf of individual elected officials. 





Graphic_Four2.jpgSince enacting the Top Two primary system, political observers around the country have been impressed with the relative lack of acrimony in California’s legislature, compared with both Congress and California's own recent history. As we will discuss later, the state has passed balanced budgets on time in each year since 2012 and has enacted legislation on issues that previously would have triggered partisan intransigence. Such issues include education financing, immigration, and gun control.[15]

What changed? In a word, “competition.” California’s legislature transformed because a growing number of its members are elected in competitive elections. This may sound like a trivial point. It is not.


Under Top Two California Boasts Most Competitive Elections in America

An annual study by the Lucy Burns Institute of all state legislative elections in the country from 2008 to 2014 shows California as the most competitive for the 2012-2014 period and shows a 25% increase in competition over California’s 2010 score (the last year of partisan elections), which ranked the state ninth.[16]

Analyzing elections based on the margin of victory also shows a dramatic increase in electoral competitiveness. The number of races deemed “close,” with a margin of victory of less than 5%, increased from less than 3% in 2010 to about 10% in both 2012 and 2014. Races deemed “competitive,” with a margin of victory between 5% and 10%, more than doubled from 4% in 2010 to 8.5% in both 2012 and 2014.


competitiveelections.jpg Source: Statewide Election Results for 2010, 2012, and 2014, California Secretary of State


Moreover “blowouts,” races with margins of victory of more than 20% and uncontested races, decreased significantly from 79% in 2010 to 56% in 2012 and to 63% in 2014.[17] Similarly, a Public Policy Institute of California study of the 2012 election found a significant increase in competitiveness—especially among Congressional races.[18]

Today, approximately 50% of all races in California are competitive.[19] The legislature is filled with elected officials who have, by virtue of the design of the Top Two system which allows all voters to participate in both the primary and the general election, built broad coalitions in order to win their seats.


Record Number of Incumbents Defeated Under Top Two


The switch from semi-closed, partisan primaries to Top Two nonpartisan primaries has led to a dramatic increase in the number of unseated incumbent elected officials.

Under California’s old partisan system, only two incumbents were defeated in all State Legislative and Congressional elections between 2002 and 2010 (five election cycles). The “unlucky” two included Democratic Congressman Gary Condit, who was caught up in the Chandra Levy murder investigation in 2002, and Republican Congressman Richard Pombo who was caught up in the 2006 Jack Abramoff bribery scandal. During this period in California, unless they were being investigated for murder or caught in a national bribery scandal, a political incumbent’s chance of re-election was 100%.

The implementation of Top Two saw incumbents defeated in record numbers. In 2012, 10 incumbents lost their reelection bids, including Pete Stark, who was unseated by fellow Democrat Eric Swalwell in a same-party general election. He had never once faced a competitive November re-election during his nearly 40 years in Congress. In 2014, another four incumbents were defeated.[20] In addition, many long serving incumbents retired ahead of the 2012 elections rather than face the new political landscape.[21]


Source: Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State


Top Two “Same Party” Races Bring Competition to Formerly Noncompetitive Districts

Same-party races, a new feature under Top Two, also significantly increased competitiveness by introducing actual contests in districts where one major party holds a significant advantage over the other (e.g., election districts in the largely Democrat- held San Francisco Bay Area). Ironically, while opponents of Top Two often point to same-party races as evidence of a lack of competition under the system, same-party races actually produced 50% of the total incumbent defeats from 2012 to 2014 and forced many formerly “safe” elected officials to face legitimate challenges.

Under the old partisan system, election districts controlled by a single political party (a significant number under the previously gerrymandered 2001 district boundaries) produced completely noncompetitive general elections and effectively sidelined any voter not registered with that majority party. Under the new Top Two system, election districts with high Democratic or Republican voter registration now have a significant chance of producing a general election between two candidates of the dominant party, thus forcing those candidates to reach beyond their party’s base and speak to all the voters.

 The results have been dramatic. In 2012, incumbents in districts dominated by one party were more than twice as likely to face an intra-party challenge than in prior elections when a closed primary system was in place.[22] In 2012, there were 28 same-party general elections in California (18.3% of all U.S. House and State Legislative races) and same-party general elections accounted for six out of the ten incumbents defeated that year.[23] According to the Public Policy Institute of California, all but one of the same-party general election races occurred in districts that were unlikely to have hosted competitive races in the past.[24] In 2014, there were 25 same-party general elections in California (16.3%), and they accounted for one of the four incumbents defeated.[25]

Opponents of the Top Two nonpartisan primary point to the races illustrated above and the growing number of Democrat-on-Democrat and Republican-on-Republican general elections as evidence that Top Two restricts voter choice. They assert that a general election in which the two candidates are registered members of the same party is, by definition, restrictive. This is false and misleading. In fact, the incumbency rates previously cited show that under the old system, the Democrat vs. Republican general elections in the vast majority of California legislative districts were the very definition of restrictive and noncompetitive. Same-party general elections actually allow the voters, rather than party insiders, to decide who represents a particular district.

Same-party contests of this kind also demand more from the electorate. The California Journal of Politics and Policy notes that Internet searches about candidates on Google increased 15% in areas with same-party races. The researchers concluded that without the ability to rely solely on party identification, “many California residents subsequently searched online for additional information.”[26]





While the old, partisan system was highly restrictive in terms of which voters were able to cast meaningful votes, Top Two has expanded that universe to include all voters. This is especially impactful as the number of independent voters (called “No Party Preference”) continues to overtake both major parties in total share of the electorate.[27] Close to 43% of Americans currently self-identify as independent.[28]

The percentage of California voters that identify as independent has been rising steadily for the last fifteen years. In 2007, independent voters comprised 18% of the California electorate. Today, they represent close to 25%.[29] The growth of minority voters identifying as independent has followed a similar course with the fastest growth among Latinos; 17% of Latino voters now identify as independent.[30]

Under the old system, these voters were second-class citizens. Their tax dollars were used to conduct semi-closed primary elections that they, themselves, could neither participate in, or faced significant hurdles to do so.[31] In practice, only major-party voters living in a district that their party controlled could have a meaningful vote. Major party voters “marooned” in districts controlled by the opposite party, as well as third party voters, almost never had a meaningful opportunity to participate under the old system.

All voters in California are now able to participate meaningfully, whether they opt to join a political party or not. Every voter has access to the primary round where the issues are often shaped and the two front runners are selected. Every voter can select from among all the candidates, not just members of their own party. Voters are afforded general elections which are increasingly competitive. Moreover, the votes of independents and minority party members matter in ways that they did not before because all voters are able to join the political conversation during the first round.






Two vivid examples of Top Two’s dramatic impact are the 2012 election between Democratic incumbent Michael Allen and Democrat Marc Levine, vying for the 10th Assembly District seat in Marin County, and in the 2015 special election between Democrats Steve Glazer and Susan Bonilla for the 7th State Senate District seat in the East San Francisco Bay Area.


2012 Assembly District 10: Incumbent Michael Allen (D) vs. Insurgent Marc Levine (D)

Under the old partisan system, incumbent Democrat Michael Allen would have been assured an easy general election victory against an “also-ran” Republican in his majority Democratic district in Marin County. Instead in 2012, under the new Top Two system, Allen found himself facing fellow Democrat Marc Levine in the general election. Levine had finished second in the primary. In addition to speaking to Democrats, Levine reached out to the independents and Republicans in his district; voters who had been ignored for the past decade. Allen conducted a highly partisan general election campaign by labeling Levine “not a real Democrat” for his outreach efforts among non-Democrats. Levine’s broad outreach proved the winning strategy. He was able to win the race by creating a coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents.[32]


2015 Special Election: Steve Glazer (D) vs. party-endorsed Susan Bonilla (D)

The special election for State Senate District 7, located in the Democratic Party-dominated San Francisco Bay Area, produced a similar dynamic to the Levine vs. Allen race. The election featured a Top Two showdown between Democrat Steve Glazer and Democrat Susan Bonilla.[33] In the primary campaign, Glazer reached out to independents and Republicans, as well as Democrats while Bonilla campaigned exclusively to Democratic voters. After Bonilla and Glazer finished in the top two, Glazer increased his outreach to independents and Republicans by appealing as widely as possible. The State Democratic Party endorsed Bonilla. The party and select unions spent millions of dollars attacking Glazer as “not a real Democrat” for conducting a campaign designed to appeal to a diversity voters. Bonilla ran a traditional campaign designed primarily to appeal to the Democratic Party base, a strategy which would have been more than sufficient to assure her victory under the old system against an “also-ran” Republican challenger. Glazer won the race by 10 points.

Both these examples demonstrate that the Top Two primary system in California is offering candidates more independence from party leaders and more opportunities to build coalitions which not only win elections but better represent, and are more accountable to, the actual make-up of their districts. Neither major party has been immune from such forces; 2012 races for California State Assembly alone saw seven districts with Republican same-party races.[34]





Graphic_Five2.jpgThe impact of Top Two’s competitive elections and voter inclusion on the behavior of the State Legislature was immediate. While legislative performance is extremely difficult to quantify, political observers and legislators themselves have pointed to a number of examples of functional governance replacing partisan dysfunction. In addition to those examples and statements made by key political figures, the Legislature’s public approval ratings have soared.


Governance, Not Partisanship, in the Legislature 

The legislature that took office in January 2013, while two-thirds Democratic (California’s first two-thirds majority since 1933), was populated by many Democratic legislators who owed no debt to party insiders and special interest groups. Similarly, many Republicans in the chamber were, by virtue of the diverse coalitions they had constructed during their election campaigns, able to challenge their own party leadership and enter into issue-by-issue conversations and coalitions with their Democratic colleagues.

Quantifying the performance of a state legislature is a notoriously difficult task. “Performance” is, by definition, subjective. We can assert that legislators who win office by building broad coalitions do the same once in office. An electoral system that incentivizes candidates to reach beyond the activist base of their own party produces similar behavior once in office.

Without attempting to pass judgment on whether the bills passed by California’s new cooperative legislature are beneficial to the state (which is an ideological question) we can cite accomplishments noted by political observers and politicians as evidence of a new environment in the legislature. Some of these include:

  • Several legislators publicly broke with their party on critical votes. Democrat Marc Levine, who had defeated fellow Democratic incumbent Michael Allen in a same-party general election, angered environmentalists (a strong Democratic constituency) when he helped scuttle a measure that would have given the Coastal Commission authority to levy additional fines. Three Assembly Democrats broke with the labor unions when they voted against new regulations aimed at curtailing additional big box stores, defeating the measure.[35]
  • The California Legislature has met its Constitutional deadline for budget approval in each year under Top Two. While some might assert that is due to the lowering of the number of votes required to pass a budget, it should be noted that many government functions can be “hijacked” by partisans for partisan gain (for instance judicial and cabinet post approvals currently held up by Republicans in Congress), and that Top Two has removed both the incentive to do so as well as the power of the party leadership to command it because legislators must now answer to all voters.[36]
  • Republican State Senator Anthony Cannella put it bluntly when he stood with Democrats to co-sponsor legislation allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. He remarked that the redistricting and nonpartisan election changes were freeing lawmakers from obedience to their party bases and allowing them to engage more broadly on specific issues. “It’s given more courage to my Republican colleagues,” he said. “They were afraid of getting primaried. Now, it’s not just their base they have to appeal to.”[37]


Legislature’s Public Approval Ratings Rebound

California’s new legislative environment, which is less partisan-controlled and more cooperative, has led to a dramatic increase in public approval ratings for its state legislature. Public approval has risen to its highest levels since 2001. So, while Congressional approval ratings among Californians remain low at 18% approval and 73% disapproval (virtually unchanged since 2010), 42% of Californians now approve of their state legislature (up from 14% in 2010) and 44% now disapprove (down from 72% in 2010).[38]



Source: Field Research Corporation, The Field Poll #2498 and #2500, February 21-25, 2015.


Current and Former Legislators See Top Two Change

In addition to Senator Canella, other members of the legislature, both past and present, have commented upon the culture change in Sacramento.

  • Assemblywoman Autumn Burke of the California Legislative Black Caucus, which has expanded its membership from eight to twelve under the Top Two primary system recently stated, “as challenging as the open primary system has been for many of us, it’s kept us in touch with our constituents.”[39]
  • Democratic Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins told one reporter that the combination of Top Two and term limits has created “wholehearted change in how the legislature is structured and comes together.”[40]
  • Legendary Democratic politician Willie Brown, the former Assembly Speaker and the 41st Mayor of San Francisco, declared Top Two a game-changer for the state. “Like it or not,” notes Brown, “the Glazer-Bonilla battle is likely to be the template for future elections statewide. The top-two primary system has taken elections out of the hands of party insiders and allowed competing Democrats and Republicans to strike out on their own to attract crossover voters.”[41]






Since Top Two’s implementation in the 2012 election cycle, California’s elections have (1) become the most competitive in the nation, (2) expanded the power of meaningful voting to all citizens, and (3) transformed the state’s once hostile partisan climate into one focused on functional governance. California’s Top Two experience offers a path forward to transform America’s partisan paralysis into a system focused on functional governance that benefits the people, not the political parties.

The increase in electoral competitiveness in California has been significant. Independent studies cite California’s elections as the most competitive in the nation; incumbents have been defeated in record numbers after decades of near-invulnerability; and same party races, despite being cited by opponents of Top Two as a sign of lack of competition, have empowered voters, especially those in election districts dominated by one party, compelling candidates to appeal to all voters. Moreover under Top Two, not only has California’s Legislative Black Caucus grown, but Latino voters, a growing number of whom are registered independents, now have full access to the electoral system.[42]

For those seeking a way forward from the partisanship and polarization that has enveloped Congress, state legislatures and the country as a whole, the early success of Top Two in California can serve as a national model. In a number of ways such structural political reform efforts are part of the nation’s long struggles, from the Populists, Women’s Suffragists, and Civil Rights activists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to expand democracy in the nation.[43]

The empowerment of all voters, particularly independents, to participate equally in the process has had profound effects on the state’s political culture. In several case studies, candidates in same party races who pursued strategies to engage all voters won significant victories over party endorsed candidates who conducted partisan campaigns. Voters, independents, and members of parties alike now have full access to the first round of elections and the opportunity to cast ballots in genuinely competitive contests in November.

The direct impact of increased electoral competitiveness and equal participation among all voters has changed the environment in the State Legislature. A number of examples have been cited by politicians and political observers as signs of governance winning out over partisanship: passage of on-time budgets, legislators breaking with their parties on key votes, and bipartisan measures to solve formerly intractable problems. In addition to the many current and former legislators commenting positively on the new environment, the legislature’s public approval ratings have significantly rebounded from their rock-bottom lows under the old partisan system to the highest level since 2001.

 In conclusion, it can be confidently asserted that the old system sent elected representatives to Sacramento and Washington with no incentive to cooperate with representatives from the opposing major party. The new system, by contrast, rewards candidates who build diverse coalitions during their election campaigns and who arrive in Sacramento and Washington with a mandate from their constituents to do more than toe the party line.

For Americans fed up with the partisan paralysis of their government, the Top Two Nonpartisan Primary offers real hope for the future. The early success of Top Two in California, what the San Francisco Chronicle has described as a “quiet revolution,” serves as an important model nationally to engage partisanship and government dysfunction.[44] However, given the degree of partisan control of government and the political parties’ hostility toward relinquishing their power to voters, it will require a concerted long-term effort to win this reform across the nation. The benefits of that labor, however, are promising.



jason.pngJason D. Olson is Director of IndependentVoice.Org and was a key leader in the passage of California’s Top Two Nonpartisan Primary (Proposition 14) in 2010. He was also instrumental in helping to pass redistricting reform (Proposition 11) in 2008 and (Proposition 20) in 2010 as part of a broad coalition. A graduate of the University of California at Santa Barbara, he is an op-ed writer and independent political analyst in California who has appeared on CNN, Fox News, and various California radio stations.




Omar.pngOmar H. Ali, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and serves on the national Board of Directors of A graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science, he received his Ph.D. in History from Columbia University and is the author of In the Balance of Power: Independent Black Politics and Third Party Movements, described as a “landmark work” by the National Political Science Review. Ali has appeared on CNN and NPR.







[1] California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, “Campaign Finance and Lobbying Activities.” 

[2] Over 433,000 valid signatures were required to place the measure on the ballot. See California Constitution, Article II, Section 8 (b)

[3] “The State of California Voters”, Public Policy Institute of California, September, 2008.

[4] Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State.

[5] “Californians and their government”, Public Policy Institute of California, March, 2010.

[6] Closed primaries are part of several ways in which competition has been limited by party control of the electoral process through legal measures. For a detailed history and analysis of the structural barriers placed on voters, see Mickey Edwards, The Parties Versus the People (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012), Jacqueline S. Salit, Independents Rising: Outsider Movements, Third Parties, and the Struggle for a Post-Partisan America (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), and Omar H. Ali, In the Balance of Power: Independent Black Politics and Third-Party Movements in the United States (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2008).

[7] Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State.

[8] Daniel Weintrub, “Working across the Aisle: Stories from the California State House,” Saint Mary’s Magazine, June 30, 2011.

[9] Government Performance Project, “Grading the States 2005: A Look Inside,” Pew Charitable Trust, 2004-2006.

[10] Louis Jacobson, “The Six Most Dysfunctional State Governments,” National Journal, July 13, 2009.

[11] Chris Weigant, “'No Budget, No Pay' Works Once Again in California,” Huffington Post, June 16, 2014.

[12] "Californians and their government”, Public Policy Institute of California, March, 2010. 

[13] Phillip Reese, “California legislators rarely break from party line in floor votes,” Sacramento Bee, October 11, 2012.

[14] Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State.

[15] Chris Weigant, “'No Budget, No Pay' Works Once Again in California,” Huffington Post, June 16, 2014.

[16] Carl Klarner, "Democracy in Decline: the Collapse of the 'Close Race' in State Legislatures," Lucy Burns Institute, May 6, 2015.

[17] Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State.

[18] "California's New Electoral Reforms: The Fall Election,” Public Policy Institute of California, November 2012.

[19] Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State.

[20] Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State.

[21] Michael B Marois, “California Nonpartisan Districting Ousts Life Incumbents,” Bloomberg, March 19, 2013.

[22] “Test-driving California's Election Reforms,” Public Policy Institute of California, September 2012.

[23] Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State.

[24] “California's New Electoral Reforms: The Fall Election,” Public Policy Institute of California, November 2012.

[25] Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State.

[26] Sinclair, Betsy; & Wray, Michael. (2015). Googling the Top Two: Information Search in California’s Top Two Primary. California Journal of Politics and Policy

[27] In 2010, the last year under which the old partisan primary system in California was in place, of the state’s approximately 17 million registered voters, around 44% were registered Democrat, 31% Republican, 20% independent (previously termed “Decline to State”), and 5% third party voters. “Report of Registration–October 18, 2010,” California Secretary of State.

[28] Jeffrey M. Jones, “In U.S., New Record 43% Are Political Independents,” Gallup, January 7, 2015.

[29] California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, Odd-Numbered Year Report of Registration, February 10, 2015.

[30] “Latino Likely Voters in California,” Public Policy Institute of California, August 2014.

[31] Kim Alexander, “The California Voters’ Experience”, California Voter Foundation, October 29, 2008. 

[32] Nicole Ely, “Levine Holds Edge on Allen in Tight State Assembly Race,” San Rafael Patch, November 7, 2012; Barry Donegan, “Partisan Attack in California 10th Assembly District Race,” Independent Voter Network, October 3, 2012.

[33] John Wildermuth, “Glazer wins easy victory over Bonilla in state Senate runoff,” SF Gate, May 19, 2015.

[34] Statewide Election Results for 2002-2014, California Secretary of State.

[35] Gary Cohn, “In Plain Sight: The Rise of Corporate Democrats in California,” Capitol and Main, April 15, 2014.

[36] Chris Weigant, “'No Budget, No Pay' Works Once Again in California,” Huffington Post, June 16, 2014.

[37] Adam Nagourney, “California Sees Gridlock Ease in Governing,” New York Times, October 18, 2013.

[38] Field Research Corporation, The Field Poll #2498 and #2500, February 21-25, 2015. 

[39] Hannah Glover, “Black Caucus Grows Stronger under Calif.’s Nonpartisan Primary System,” Independent Voter Network, April 28, 2015.

[40] Jeremy B. White, “California campaign spending boosts business-friendly Democrats,” Sacramento Bee, November 23, 2014.

[41] Willie Brown, Jr., “Wake up, Democrats: Steve Glazer’s win is no fluke,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 22, 2015.

[42] “Latino Likely Voters in California,” Public Policy Institute of California, August 2014.

[43] For a brief overview of this history see Omar H. Ali and Harry Kresky, “Independent Voters,” American Political Culture: An Encyclopedia, Michael Shally-Jensen, ed. (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2015), 553-558.

[44] John Diaz “California’s old political machine is losing steam,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 23, 2015

Add your reaction Share

New Mexico Open Primaries Elects First Board

The first meeting of the NMOP Board was held July 26, 2015. Newly elected president Bob Perls harnessed the considerable energy in the new board members, and a clear mission statement and goals of the organization were established. Go for ongoing activities, and to learn how you can become involved.

The first meeting of the NMOP Board was held July 26, 2015. Newly elected president Bob Perls harnessed the considerable energy in the new board members, and a clear mission statement and goals of the organization were established. Go to: for ongoing activities, and to learn how you can become involved.

Add your reaction Share

Independent Redistricting Panel Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

Jun 29, 2015 8:27 AM MDT
The 5-4 ruling is a setback to Arizona Republicans.

The U.S. Supreme Court bolstered efforts to make federal elections more competitive, upholding an independent commission set up by Arizona voters to draw congressional districts.

The 5-4 ruling rejected contentions that the Arizona law, approved in a 2000 ballot initiative, strips state lawmakers of power reserved to them by the U.S. Constitution.

The decision opens a new path for efforts to limit gerrymandering -- the practice of drawing irregular district lines to gain a political advantage. The Supreme Court has previously refused to put constitutional limits on partisan districts.

“Arizona voters sought to restore the core principle of republican government, namely, that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.

The ruling is a setback to Arizona Republicans, who had hoped to redraw that state’s district map and potentially capture two more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. At the same time, the decision buttressed a similar commission in California and may prevent Democrats from shifting district lines there.

Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s four Democratic appointees in the majority. Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Congressional Redistricting

The ruling applies only to congressional redistricting and doesn’t affect the Arizona commission’s role in drawing state legislative maps.

Arizona’s Republican officials argued that the commission violates the Constitution’s elections clause. That provision says the rules governing congressional elections are to be set in each state by “the legislature thereof” unless superseded by Congress.

A divided three-judge panel had backed the commission, saying past Supreme Court decisions established that the word “legislature” encompasses states’ entire lawmaking process, including ballot initiatives.

The lines drawn by the Arizona commission for the 2012 election helped Democrats capture five of the nine congressional seats in the state that year. Republicans seized an additional seat in 2014, giving them a 5-4 advantage.

Arizona and California are the only two states that effectively exclude lawmakers from the redistricting process, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

11 States

Eleven other states have commissions that either have more limited roles or that have members appointed by politicians.

The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is a five-member body whose commissioners come from a list of 25 candidates selected by a separate body that also handles judicial appointments.

Two commissioners are selected from that list by the state legislature’s highest-ranking Republicans, two by the top Democrats and the fifth by the four other panel members. Lawmakers themselves are barred from serving on the commission.

The panel’s criteria for drawing voting lines include the goal of having politically competitive districts.

Among those who supported the commission at the Supreme Court was Mike Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City and majority owner of Bloomberg LP.

The case is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 13-1314.

Add your reaction Share

New Press Release 6/25





Former State Rep. Bob Perls Changes Party Registration and Launches Independent Electoral Reform Movement for NM called New Mexico Open Primaries


Bernalillo, New Mexico – Former State Representative Bob Perls will hold a press conference at 2:00 pm on June 25, 2015 at the Sandoval County Administrative Offices, 1500 Idalia Road, Building D, Bernalillo, NM 87004, where he will change his party registration from Democrat to independent (decline to state) and announce the formation of a new movement dedicated to electoral reform.


In March, Perls attended Partnerships for Independent Power, the 8th National Conference of Independents, in New York City where he was joined by 500 independent voter activists from across the country.  The event, sponsored by, a national think tank and strategy center with organizations in 40 states, was broadcast by CSPAN.


Perls was joined at the conference by co-founder Joan Blades, former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, Fair Vote Executive Director Rob Ritchie, co-founder Lenora Fulani, Independent Voter Network’s Chad Peace, Open Primaries President John Opdycke, National Action Network general counsel Michael Hardy and Violence Interrupters founder Tio Hardiman.


“The political process is broken – that’s old news.  What I’ve come to see is the breadth of support for a new way of doing politics.  Independents are coming together to end the partisanship that is destroying our country.”


Partnerships for Independent Power was convened and hosted by President and author of Independents Rising, Jackie Salit.


“What independents are doing all over the country,” said Perls “is fighting for the structural reforms that are needed to open up our democracy so that voters have a meaningful voice.  The political parties should not be the gatekeepers to the election.  They are participants in public elections, but are setting the rules like it is their own, private affair. 


Examples of structural political reforms sought by New Mexico Open Primaries include: redistricting reform that ends the practice of gerrymandering and primary reform that ends the exclusion of independent voters while moving elections to a non-partisan basis.


New Mexico is a closed primary state. On June 3, 2014 Albuquerque lawyer Ed Hollington brought a lawsuit challenging the system on the basis of State of New Mexico Article 7 section 1 that lists qualifications for voters and affirms that all registered voters that meet the qualifications shall be allowed to vote.  Nowhere is party affiliation referenced.  The second basis for the lawsuit is Article 2, section 8, within the Bill of Rights, that states all elections shall be free and open and no power shall interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote.  In 1969, the NM state legislature passed a bill that says DTS voters shall not vote in any primary.  This is in direct conflict with constitutional guarantees. The case is on appeal.


Ed Hollington’s case lost at the district court level when the judge ruled that the legislature could impose prohibitions based on parties’ associational rights.  On appeal to NM Court of Appeal, Hollington’s argument is based on strict scrutiny so the state has to show compelling interest to take away the right to vote.






Sarah Lyons

[email protected]



Or Bob Perls

[email protected]



Add your reaction Share

Bob Perls of New Mexico Open Primaries Radio Interview

Here is the Link to Bob Perls's Recent Radio Interview on Rock of Talk.

Add your reaction Share

Appointment: June 21, 3 pm, NMOP

Hello Supporters:

Please come to the next New Mexico Open Primaries Meeting June 21, 3 pm.  Invite some friends to come with you!
Also, our web site is up and functioning!
Our web site:  Thank you to Aaron Perls for creating the web site and designing and promoting NMOP through social media.
Our guest speaker via Skype will be Jason Olson, who is the director of Independent Voice,  He will discuss how the movement was born in California and how it was successful at passing non-partisan primaries, top two voting and non-partisan re-districting.  I have had a number of requests to have someone explain what a movement on the ground here in NM might look like and he has been a central figure in CA success.  Please RSVP to me so we have an idea who is coming, but please come anyway if your plans change at the last minute and you are free.
We will have a discussion about our mission and goals, which in draft form look like this:

Mission:  To make sure that every vote counts by getting at the root cause of our political dysfunction.





1)    End state subsidization of parties including using public money for primary elections that are not open to all; people should not have to join a party to vote.

2)    Ensure that independents have equal ballot access as candidates; end discriminatory practices.

3)    Adopt non-partisan redistricting so that voters can decide for whom to vote before the incumbents get to decide who can vote for them.

4)    Start a public education campaign focused on “making every vote count” so that people think about all elections as a fundamental state function that can’t exclude anyone.

5)    Start a lobbying campaign directed at all elected officials and other interest groups to endorse platform.

6)    Draft a constitutional amendment for introduction in the 2016 legislative session that will ensure all voters can vote in all elections; no specific solutions, rather civil rights guarantees.

Other news:

I was on a guest panel at Conspiracy Brews, which is a right leaning organization that Janice Arnold co-founded and the topic on June 13 was party platforms, the relevance of parties, open primaries, etc.  Eddy Aragon, who owns a number of radio stations in town said in front of the 50 or so people there, “what Bob just described transformed the room”.  I got lots of very position feedback (and some negative).  It was very gratifying for my first public presentation as an advocate for NMOP.
I have been invited to speak to the Albuquerque Foreign Relations Committee on June 29 which should be quite interesting.  I will be speaking on “The Role of Partisanship in U.S. Foreign Policy”.  There has been a bit written over the years on this topic, but I am formulating some new thoughts combining my experience as a U.S. Diplomat with all that NMOP stands for.  They expect 50 or so attendees at the Tanoan Country Club.
Thanks to George Richmond for writing a check to NMOP and for getting me scheduled to talk in front of the League of Women Voters on September 2.  If you are a member of a group, please invite me to speak!
I had a great meeting with the folks at the Thornburg Foundation who might be in a position to fund our efforts.  The Foundation is already supporting groups like Common Cause and have 5 full-time people working on good government initiatives.  They are very interested in open primaries, non-partisan re-districting and other critical electoral reform measures that we are interested in.  I will be working on a complete business plan and budget with the help of some of our national supporters at Open Primaries and  It would be very exciting to have the financial resources to pull together a full time team to move this important agenda forward.  They only work through registered 501(c)3 organizations, hence the push to get some funding to file the paperwork soon.
I hope to see you at the meeting on June 21.  Call me at 505-259-2377 with questions or e-mail me.
Bob Perls
Add your reaction Share

Robert Perls Special Guest at Conspiracy Brews

Bob Perls will be a special guest and panelist at this event:
The 2016 Election is Coming!
Is the Media Ignoring Independent Voters, Major Party Platforms or Both?
Join us for a special discussion.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
9:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Southwest Secondary Learning Center
10301 Candelaria Rd NE 
(northwest corner of Candelaria and Morris)
First hour will include a panel discussion composed of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, DTS, and members of the media who will address some of the following questions.
·         What is the Republican or Democratic Platform?
·         What are the differences between these two platforms?
·         Do registered voters choose or stay with a party based on the platform?
·         Do candidates and elected leaders know of, and support, the majority of the platform?  Should they be required to do so?  If not, why not?  How will the public know what they stand for?
·         Are voters leaving the major parties because of the platform?
·         Are independents/DTS voters so because there is no platform that represents their views?
·         With the increase in independent voters, does the focus on the two-party system disenfranchise voters?  Is this the media’s intention?
·         And more…..
Party platforms and resource material are attached. The first hour will be a moderated discussion, followed by two hours of open discussion. As always ---
If you like your coffee and your politics flavorful, served with a heaping dose of civility by a diverse group of interesting people from all parts of the political spectrum then you should be joining us every Saturday.  Started in 2007 over coffee and lively conversation by a group of concerned friends and neighbors, ‘Conspiracy Brews’ is committed to finding solutions to some of our State’s toughest problems. Our zest for constructive political discourse is only equaled by our belief that the only way forward is to exchange our views in a relaxed and friendly setting.   For additional information or to be added to our e-mail list contact:  [email protected] .
Conspiracy Brews  

“Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none.”

Benjamin Franklin

Not your average political discussion group!

We think that government should be open and honest at all times.
People from all political parties are welcome.

 *** Quotes of the Week ***
--“It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”

James Madison
--“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of the day.”

Thomas Jefferson

 *** (Light Quotes of the week) ***

--“I find nothing more depressing than optimism.”

Paul Fussell
--“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.”

Bill Watterson (Cartoonist, “Calvin and Hobbes”)

--“I’ve had a perfectly wonderful morning.  But this wasn’t it.”

Groucho Marx (In honor of our discussion, a paraphrase)




Add your reaction Share

Dear Supporters:

Dear Supporters:

This has been another good week for our new organization. 


Social Media update


We have over 100 “likes” on our Facebook page.  If you have not done so, please “like” our FB page at  Also, post, ask questions, etc.  I am the administrator and will answer and keep dialogues going. This is important.


Our Twitter account is open @nmopenprimaries.  Please follow us.


Our LinkedIn account can be found by searching by our name.  Please think about how we can use the LinkedIn account.


Our web site is under construction and I will let you know when it is up in a basic form.  Aaron, our web master, is busy working on it.


NMOP Meeting Update


Our next meeting will be June 21 at 3 pm in Los Ranchos.  Please message me for the details.   Most importantly, we will have an important guest speaker arranged by, Jason Olson, who is the director of Independent Voice,  He will discuss how the movement was born in California and how it was successful at passing non-partisan primaries, top two voting and non-partisan re-districting.  I have had a number of requests to have someone explain what a movement on the ground here in NM might look like and he has been a central figure in CA success.  He will Skype in.  Please RSVP to me and feel free invite interested friends.


Public Launch of NMOP


I had a great phone conversation yesterday with Doug Johnson, former Mayor of Phoenix, and a nationally known, articulate advocate for electoral reform.  He offered great insight into how to organize on the ground in NM and helped me think through what our process might be.  I asked him if he would come to speak at our public launch and he agreed.  I want to discuss this at the June meeting and target August or early September for a public launch.  He is an amazing, thoughtful speaker and I am very excited that he has agreed to be our keynote speaker at the launch.  We will coordinate the date with his schedule.


Draft Platform


So, where do we go and what are we doing?  Through my conversation with Doug, it is becoming clearer and the first step is to adopt a platform.  For your consideration, please review this draft.  We will refine it at the next meeting and then post it on our web site and social media outlets for feedback:


NMOP Platform Draft

Mission:  To make sure that every vote counts.


1) End state subsidization of parties including the use of public money for primary elections that are not open to all; people should not have to join a party to vote.


2) Ensure that independents have equal ballot access as candidates; end discriminatory practices.

3)  Adopt non-partisan redistricting so that voters can decide for whom to vote before the incumbents get to decide who can vote for them.

4)  Start a public education campaign focused on “making every vote count” so that people think about all elections as a fundamental state function that can’t exclude anyone.

5)  Start a lobbying campaign directed at all elected officials and other interest groups to endorse the platform.

Add your reaction Share