California Democrats Consider Overhauling Top-Two Primary System

The California Democratic Party, which controls supermajorities in both legislative chambers and holds every statewide office, is now openly campaigning to dismantle the election system that governs how candidates reach the general ballot. Party Chair Rusty Hicks declared on April 30 that "the top-two system should be repealed," setting off a debate that pits party control against voter access in the nation's most populous state [1].

The immediate catalyst is the June 2, 2026 gubernatorial primary, where a fragmented field of nine Democratic candidates raised the specter of two Republicans advancing to the November general election — an outcome that would lock Democrats out of competing for the governor's mansion despite holding a nearly two-to-one registration advantage over the GOP [2].

How the Top-Two System Works — and How It Got Here

California voters approved Proposition 14 in June 2010 with 54% support, establishing a nonpartisan "top-two" primary for all state and congressional offices except the presidency [3]. Under the system, all candidates appear on a single ballot regardless of party, and the two highest vote-getters advance to the general election — even if both belong to the same party.

The reform was born of a political deal. Republican State Senator Abel Maldonado made his vote for a 2009 budget package contingent on placing the measure before voters. Then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger championed the effort, arguing it would reduce partisan gridlock by forcing candidates to appeal beyond their base [4]. Democrats largely opposed it at the time.

The Governor's Race: Catalyst for Reform Talk

The 2026 governor's race crystallized Democratic anxieties. With Republicans coalescing around Fox News commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, while Democrats split support among candidates including Xavier Becerra, Tom Steyer, and Katie Porter, early polls showed a plausible path to a Republican-only general election [5].

However, polling closer to the primary paints a different picture. An Impact Research survey conducted April 20–May 3 showed Becerra and Hilton tied at 23%, with Steyer at 14% and Bianco at 13% [6]. "Not a single recent poll shows either party getting locked out," noted the Independent Voter Project, accusing both parties of using manufactured crisis narratives for fundraising [6].

Governor Gavin Newsom and top Democrats including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have moved behind the scenes to consolidate the field, with Congressman Eric Swalwell dropping out in April and endorsing Becerra [7].

Same-Party Races: The Data

Since the system's first use in 2012, California has seen scores of same-party general elections at both the congressional and state legislative levels. In 2012 alone, 28 such races occurred across legislative and congressional contests. That number remained high through 2016 (27 races) before declining as parties adapted their candidate recruitment strategies [8].

Source: Ballotpedia / California Secretary of State

Data as of Nov 1, 2024CSV

From 2012 to 2016, 80 state legislative general elections featured two candidates from the same party. In 25% of those races, the second-place primary finisher won the general election — meaning the eventual winner would not have advanced under a closed partisan primary [8]. At the congressional level, California saw eight same-party matchups in both 2012 and 2014 [9].

A USC Schwarzenegger Institute analysis found that in 34% of competitive same-party general elections, the ultimate winner would not have survived the old closed primary system [10]. This represents what reformers call the system's core achievement: giving general election voters, rather than primary electorates, the final say.

Who Is Driving the Repeal Push

Hicks has been the most vocal proponent, but the effort reflects broader frustration among Democratic establishment figures. The party chair explicitly stated the reform "could be done as early as 2026," though the timeline for a ballot measure is tight given signature-gathering requirements [1].

Former state legislative leader Ian Calderon pushed back, defending voter choice and criticizing pressure on lower-polling candidates to withdraw [2]. The intra-party split broadly tracks a factional divide: party insiders and labor-aligned Democrats who prefer the gatekeeping function of partisan primaries versus newer, more electorally flexible members who benefited from the open system.

Democrats have not publicly specified which races they consider most damaging to their caucus. The system has occasionally produced outcomes where moderate Democrats won with Republican crossover support — outcomes the progressive wing views as diluting the party's agenda. But concrete race-by-race evidence remains thin in the public debate.

The Moderation Question: What Does the Evidence Show?

The empirical case for top-two primaries producing moderation is contested but leans positive. Research compiled by the Unite America Institute found that California legislators under the top-two system are more than 6 percentage points more moderate than incumbents in states with closed or semi-closed primaries [11]. Newly elected congressional members from top-two states (California, Washington, and Louisiana) were up to 18 percentage points less extreme than peers from partisan-primary states [11].

California was one of only five states to depolarize between 2013 and 2018, a period when most state legislatures moved toward greater partisan extremity [11]. The mechanism appears to be same-party general elections, which force candidates in safe districts to appeal beyond their partisan base.

However, a pre-2012 study found that voters sometimes failed to distinguish moderate from extreme candidates on the new ballot format, occasionally selecting more ideologically distant candidates [12]. New America's analysis noted the reform "hasn't been as transformative" as advocates hoped, with party-line voting patterns persisting in most races [12].

Reform advocates argue the moderation effect is real but modest, and that even modest depolarization in a legislature as large as California's has meaningful policy consequences. Critics dismiss the evidence as cherry-picked, noting California's Democratic supermajority makes moderation within the caucus largely irrelevant to legislative outcomes.

What Independent Voters Stand to Lose

California's 22.3% of voters registered with no party preference represent a constituency with direct stakes in this debate [13]. Under the current system, these voters participate equally in every primary on an identical ballot. A return to closed or semi-closed partisan primaries would either exclude them entirely or limit them to choosing among candidates in a single party's contest.

Source: California Secretary of State

Data as of Feb 1, 2025CSV

Among no-party-preference voters, approximately 40% lean Democratic, while 34% lean toward neither major party [6]. These voters currently hold meaningful influence in determining which candidates advance to November — an influence that would vanish under a traditional partisan primary.

PPIC research has found that independents are the voter category most supportive of primary reform in principle, with solid majorities favoring open primary systems [14]. However, no recent poll has directly measured no-party-preference voter sentiment on the specific question of repealing Proposition 14.

The Independent Voter Project has argued that any repeal would constitute disenfranchisement of nearly a quarter of the electorate, framing the Democratic push as prioritizing party interests over voter access [6].

Comparisons: Washington State and Alaska

Washington State adopted its top-two system in 2004, predating California by six years. Approximately 7% of Washington's nearly 1,000 top-two primaries since 2008 have produced same-party general elections — a lower rate than California's, reflecting Washington's more politically competitive statewide landscape [15].

Alaska took a different approach with its 2020 ballot measure establishing a top-four primary with ranked-choice voting in the general election. Research published in 2025 found the Alaska system "promoting greater choice for voters, more accommodative campaigning, and generally more moderate outcomes" [16]. The composition of Alaska's nonpartisan primary electorate showed disproportionately greater participation among independents, liberals, and younger voters compared to the old partisan primary [16].

Critics of California's top-two system, including FairVote and the Sightline Institute, have argued that advancing only two candidates creates "false binary" choices and disadvantages third parties more severely than Alaska's four-candidate model [17]. The Independent Voter Project has proposed a compromise: retaining the nonpartisan primary but advancing four candidates and using ranked-choice voting in the general election [6].

Procedural and Legal Barriers

Repealing or modifying Proposition 14 requires amending the California Constitution. Two paths exist:

Legislative referral: A two-thirds vote in both the State Assembly and Senate can place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Democrats currently hold the required supermajorities (more than 54 of 80 Assembly seats and 31 of 40 Senate seats), making this route theoretically available [18].

Citizen initiative: Proponents must gather signatures equal to 8% of votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election — approximately 874,641 valid signatures based on 2022 turnout — within 150 days of receiving official ballot language from the Attorney General [18].

Either path requires simple majority voter approval in a general election. Given that Proposition 14 passed with 54% support in 2010, repeal proponents would need to convince a substantial portion of the electorate that supported the original measure to reverse course.

A longtime Democratic consultant has already filed a ballot initiative to scrap the system [4]. Federal Voting Rights Act scrutiny could arise if a replacement system were shown to dilute minority voting power, though legal experts have not flagged this as a primary concern given California's majority-minority demographics.

Minority Representation and the Racial Dimension

California has no single racial or ethnic majority. Latinos constitute 36% of adults (though only 25% of likely voters), while 42 of 176 state legislative and congressional districts were drawn specifically to address Voting Rights Act obligations [19].

The top-two system's impact on minority representation is indirect but real. In heavily Democratic districts with large communities of color, same-party general elections have sometimes allowed Latino or Asian American candidates to compete in November rather than being eliminated in low-turnout partisan primaries dominated by older, whiter electorates.

Since 1990, Latino state legislators have grown from 7 to 37 (out of 120 seats), and Asian/Pacific Islander legislators from zero to 14 [19]. Attributing these gains solely to the primary system is impossible — redistricting, demographic change, and increased political organizing all contributed. But civil rights organizations have not publicly endorsed repeal, and some redistricting advocates have expressed concern that reverting to closed primaries could reduce competitive pathways for candidates of color in districts that are diverse but not majority-minority.

What Comes Next

The June 2, 2026 primary will likely determine the political energy behind repeal. If a Democrat advances to the general election for governor — as recent polls suggest is probable — the urgency driving the reform effort may dissipate. Schwarzenegger, now 78, has already signaled he will fight any repeal, stating that "the politicians want to undo reform that is good for the people and not for the politicians" [4].

The deeper question is whether California Democrats, having benefited from the system's moderation effects when they needed Republican crossover votes to build supermajorities, will now seek to lock in their dominance through a system designed to exclude other voices from the process. The answer may depend less on political science and more on whether the party's progressive base or its pragmatic wing controls the agenda in Sacramento.

For California's 5.1 million no-party-preference voters, the stakes are concrete: the difference between a ballot that treats them as full participants and one that relegates them to spectators in someone else's nomination contest.