I am a lifelong Democrat. I served 22 years in the California Legislature as a Democrat and as California's Director of Finance in a Democratic administration. So let me offer some perspective that the current party chair appears to have forgotten.
When Democrats and Republicans teamed up in 2010 to oppose Proposition 14, voters rejected them both. Since then, Democrats have generally prospered over Republicans in California for one straightforward reason: Democrats exercised their right to include No Party Preference (NPP) voters in their Presidential Primaries. Republicans excluded them.
The National Republican Party has effectively hamstrung California Republicans on this question by threatening to cut their delegate allocation in half if California adopted a policy allowing NPP voters to participate in their Presidential Primaries. Both parties have lost followers over the years, but Democrats' openness to voters who prefer not to disclose a party affiliation has given them a structural advantage that should not be taken for granted.
This week, the Democratic Party chair chose to abandon more than 5 million of those voters to embrace a regressive proposal to roll back voter rights.
I asked @rustyhicks, chair of CADEM if he would support @stevenmaviglio's ballot measure effort to repeal CA's top two primary system
— Jenny Jiin Huh 🇰🇷🇺🇸 (@jenny_huh) May 19, 2026
Hicks said he has been very vocal about concerns and opposition to top two primary system and that it warrants and merits a close scrutiny and… https://t.co/oOAKdtaJte
What "Voter Nominated" Actually Means
California's current system is called a "Voter Nominated" primary. That is not branding. It is the precise legal term in the statute, and it is the foundation upon which the United States Supreme Court upheld the law.
What Maviglio's initiative would replace it with is a "Party Nominated" system, one in which private political organizations decide which candidates advance. Not voters. Parties.
Here is the part neither Hicks nor Maviglio has explained: California does not have voter registration by party. When someone marks a party preference on their registration form, that disclosure is voluntary. It is not an affiliation. It is not membership. The statute calls it a "preference" deliberately.
The only provision protecting a party's private right of association allows, but does not require, parties to restrict participation in their own internal contests, like Central Committee races and presidential convention delegates. Not the top-two primary for any public office.
Chad Peace
What Repeal Would Actually Do
Under the current system, private political organizations get publicly funded election infrastructure. The state prints their ballots, runs their polling operations, and administers the entire process. In exchange, nominations stay open to all voters.
IVN Editorial Board
Repeal flips that. Parties decide who gets on the ballot before a single public vote is cast, and taxpayers still foot the bill.
According to the secretary of state's April 2026 report, more than 5 million Californians are registered with No Party Preference. That is the largest and fastest-growing segment of the electorate. Under a closed primary, they are out unless a party decides to let them in.
This “voter nominated” legal architecture has withstood dozens of court challenges since 2010. It is not vulnerable. The courts have looked at it repeatedly and affirmed it.
Before signing any petition to undo it, voters deserve a straight answer to a simple question: under the old closed primary system, who decides who makes it onto the general election ballot?
The answer is not you.