New Electoral Rules Threaten Incumbent Pete Stark
By Shawn M. Griffiths on September 27, 2012 with 7 CommentsRead Time: 3 - 5 minutes
Credit: San Francisco Chronicle
US Representative Pete Stark is facing his first serious reelection challenge in years against a fellow Democrat for the redrawn 15th Congressional District. Eric Swalwell hopes to unseat an incumbent that has been in office since Richard Nixon’s second presidential term.
The new open election system in the state, implemented after Proposition 14 was passed in 2010, allows the top two vote-getters during the primary election, regardless of party affiliation, to face each other in November. One possible result of the nonpartisan primary system is that the general election could feature two candidates from the same party. This means that some campaigns have to abandon a partisan strategy that may have been considered safe in the past
Pete Stark was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1972 in California’s 8th Congressional District and has easily won reelection nineteen consecutive times after multiple rounds of redistricting. Rep. Stark, now 80, hasn’t been forced to run a campaign against a serious candidate in decades. From 1992 to 2010, after the second round of redistricting, he won every election for CD-13 with over sixty percent of the vote.
Gerrymandering has helped Stark during his political career. He was accustomed to running in a congressional district where Democrats outnumbered Republicans 3-to-1. However, new electoral rules make the CD-15 race competitive. Stark is forced to run for reelection in a district that includes more independent and moderate voters. Due to the “top two” system, these voters are in a position to decide the election.
Eric Swalwell, Dublin city councilman, finished second in the primary election on June 5 with 35.3 percent of the vote. Rep. Stark beat Swalwell by over seven percentage points. However, Mr. Swalwell sees an opportunity for victory in the general election and believes he wouldn’t have had a chance if not for the “top two” system.
“It [open primary] is the reason we are in the top two right now,” He said. “For us, it was the factor that allowed us to get into the race. I would not be running if the open primary did not exist.”
Proposition 14 created a system that inevitably leads to more competitive races. Voters also have an opportunity to ensure their voice is heard, especially in districts where certain segments of the voting age population may have felt disenfranchised in previous elections because elected officials knew they didn’t need their vote to win.
“The voters in our district have a chance at a new direction because of the open primary,” Swalwell added.
By advancing out of the primary, the success of Eric Swalwell’s campaign has put pressure on his opponent. Rep. Stark can no longer rely solely on a partisan message to keep his congressional seat. His campaign must reach out to independent voters and Republicans, because they will ultimately swing the election one way or the other.
Swalwell believes his campaign has built a solid coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. By bringing these three groups together, he said nonpartisan, open primaries are part of the solution to gridlock on Capitol Hill. He called the electoral system the “silver bullet” to eliminate hyper-partisanship in Washington and said he will gladly support open election initiatives across the US:
“Not only would I support it, but I would like to be a part of the torch carrying nationwide.”
Before California had open primaries, candidates in decisively polarized districts knew they only needed a certain group of voters to win the election. If the candidate was in the party that the majority aligned with, they didn’t have to reach out to other voters. Their message could be purely partisan.
However, nonpartisan elections allow candidates to broaden their message. Many voters want elected officials to focus on the fact that, while people have different political philosophies, all Americans have the same needs. Elections like the congressional race for CD-15 require candidates to speak to Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters.
[The Pete Stark campaign was contacted for comment, but have not responded yet. The article will be updated accordingly if a response is received]





Leave Your Comment →
7 Comments
Chad Peace
09.27.2012
@Chad_Peace
This is one of the “hidden secrets” of open primary. Partisans hate it because guys like Swallwell, who dont have a history of bowing to the party, can actually get passed the primary and then actually be favored to win because they don’t totally turn off the rest of the electorate like guys who have been lock-step with anything the leadership says for the passed X number of years.
Matt Metzner
09.27.2012
@mmetzner
Stories like this show that the open primary is prying control of the elections from the parties and putting it directly in the hands of voters on the other side.
Lucas Eaves
09.27.2012
@lucaseaves
Matt, not necessarily in the hands of the other sides, we know that 40% of Californians considered themselves independent. The election will be in the hands of these voters too. The turnout will be more in important in that part of the electorate as some republicans might think, whoever wins is from the other side, i might as well not bother voting.
ballot_access
09.27.2012
@ballot_access
The story is factually incorrect when it says Stark’s new district has more independent voters. The Secretary of State’s Report of Registration, which is on-line, says Stark’s old 13th district had 24.39% registered independents in October 2010 (the last tally before the November 2010 election), but Stark’s new 15th district has 22.20% registered independents.
Michael Higham
09.27.2012
@michaelhigham
In Congress since Nixon’s second term? He’s either really good or every other candidate has been really bad. Open primary can help get safe-seat politicians to be a little more active in their districts. If Rep. Stark is really that good, he shouldn’t have to worry about losing.
Alex Gauthier
09.27.2012
@alexg
Stark, gerrymandering before gerrymandering was called gerrymandering
Dan Carleton
10.10.2012
Pete Stark,
Please step down and bow out of the race for Congress. You have been in that position “LONG ENOUGH” !!!!!!!! Thank you.