• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Mark Baldassare"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Democratic Innovation"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "CC",
  "programs": [
    "Carnegie California"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Democracy",
    "Subnational Affairs"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Key Takeaways From the California Primary Vote

Turnout, the top-two primary system, and Proposition 1 all offer insights into voters’ mindsets.

Link Copied
By Mark Baldassare
Published on Mar 28, 2024
Program mobile hero image

Program

Carnegie California

Carnegie California links developments in California and the West Coast with national and global conversations around technology, democracy, and trans-Pacific relationships. At a distance from national capitals, and located in one of the world’s great experiments in pluralist democracy, Carnegie California engages a wide array of stakeholders as partners in its research and policy engagement.


Learn More

What did we learn from the California primary vote on Super Tuesday? The results point out several concerning trends in the condition of the state’s democracy and offer a preview of the major role that the nation’s most populous state will play in the November general election.

Political Participation

Of the state’s 22 million registered voters, 7.7 million (or 34 percent) cast ballots in the primary contest. Voter turnout is frequently a political wild card, and this vote was no exception. In a February survey from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), which I direct, Californians sent mixed signals by affirming the importance of voting while expressing a lack of enthusiasm. Despite the state’s efforts to increase political participation—requiring all counties to mail every registered voter a ballot and moving the primary date from June to March—Super Tuesday’s turnout remained low. By comparison, 47 percent of registered voters cast ballots in the March 2020 primary, and 48 percent voted in the June 2016 primary.

The state’s efforts to encourage voter participation will need some rethinking, with special attention to regions where turnout was below the state average, such as the Central Valley, Los Angeles, and the Inland Empire. These regions include the competitive races that will help to determine the party in control of the U.S. House of Representatives. The March primary also forebodes a November turnout that may underperform when compared with the record 17.8 million ballots cast in the November 2020 election.

Presidential Primaries

The lack of drama in the presidential contest likely contributed to the low turnout in the California primary, whose results mirrored other states. President Joe Biden won with 89 percent in the Democratic primary, and former president Donald Trump won with 79 percent in the Republican primary. These results are aligned with the findings of the February PPIC survey. Biden is expected to win in California in the general election, as Democrats outnumber Republicans 47 percent to 24 percent, GOP candidates have not won a statewide race since 2006, and Biden previously defeated Trump by a wide margin.

Two political wild cards raised by the California presidential primaries: the numbers and makeup of partisans not voting in the March primary who will cast their ballots in November, and whether the 29 percent of voters who are not registered Republicans or Democrats will opt for third-party candidates, continue to lean Democrat, or not vote.

Top-Two Senate Primary

The March senate primary raises issues about the unintended consequences of the top-two primary system. In this system, which was approved in a 2010 ballot initiative, voters cast primary ballots for all candidates in statewide and legislative races, not just those in their registered party, and the top two vote-getters appear on the general election ballot. The March senate primary was the most blatant example to date of a Democratic front-runner deliberately helping a Republican candidate to qualify for the top-two general election, knowing that any Republican has a slim-to-nonexistent chance of winning a statewide race. The primary ballot listed twenty-seven Senate candidates, but only Democrat Adam Schiff, Democrat Katie Porter, Republican Steve Garvey, and Democrat Barbara Lee were likely contenders, with Schiff and Garvey advancing. Schiff’s campaign aired a flurry of late commercials for Garvey, and Porter came in third. The political gamesmanship of a Democrat working to run against a Republican in the fall may increase cynicism at a time when some voters are feeling distrustful of democracy and elections. After a decade of experience with the open primary, it may be time for California to reconsider the process.

Top-Two House Primaries

California voters eliminated legislative gerrymandering when they voted for a citizens’ independent redistricting commission more than a decade ago. The primary outcomes for the state’s fifty-two U.S. House seats still include many lopsided victories that mirror California’s red and blue regions and the inland and coastal partisan divides. In addition, the top two winners in every legislative primary race are either Democrat or Republican, with no third-party or independent candidates on the November ballot. The March primary results in the competitive House districts point to four tight races in the CentralValley and OrangeCounty. These races include both Republican and Democratic incumbents and an open seat that will have national interest this fall, and all will help to determine the party that controls a closely divided Congress.

State Proposition 1

The single measure that was placed on the March primary ballot with bipartisan legislative support passed by a slim margin: 50.2 percent yes, 49.8 percent no. Proposition 1, the government’s response to broad public recognition of major problems facing California, includes a $6.38 billion state bond for mental health treatment and funding for homelessness programs.

There were warning signs in the February PPIC survey that the Proposition 1 vote could be close. In the survey, 48 percent said that now was a “bad time” to issue this state bond, and 50 percent said they disapproved of Governor Gavin Newsom, who championed the measure and made the final pitch for yes in television commercials. The Proposition 1 vote is consistent with the narrow defeat of a state education bond in the March 2020 primary.

In addition, the vote is a reminder that many Californians are fiscal conservatives when it comes to state spending. The latest proof is the mix of red and blue counties where Proposition 1 had difficulty gaining traction. The measure is a wakeup call for legislators’ plans for other state bond measures, and a citizens’ initiative that would limit state and local tax increases may be on the November ballot. 

About the Author

Mark Baldassare

Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie California

Mark Baldassare is a nonresident scholar at Carnegie California. He is an authority on elections, voter behavior, and political and fiscal reform.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Affordability Is the Top Issue on California’s November Ballot

      Mark Baldassare, Ian Klaus

  • Commentary
    AI’s New Test on California’s Direct Democracy

      Ian Klaus, Scott Singer, Mark Baldassare

Mark Baldassare
Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie California
Mark Baldassare
DemocracySubnational AffairsNorth AmericaUnited States

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Less of America is More

    Middle Eastern states should welcome an accelerated U.S. disengagement from their region. 

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Strategic Disaster that Devalues U.S. Military Prowess

    In an interview, former ambassador Charles Freeman assesses the Trump administration’s war against Iran.

      Michael Young

  • Pituffik base greenland US Denmark
    Article
    Europe’s Overseas Countries and Territories as Geopolitical Assets

    European states control several Overseas Countries and Territories around the world that carry strategic, economic, and environmental weight. As great powers challenge the rules-based order, defending them is a geopolitical imperative for Europe.

      Marc Pierini

  • military personnel on a boat
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Achilles’ Heel of the Shield of the Americas

    By focusing only on hard security, the Shield ignores the conditions that fuel cartel power.

      • Alejandro Rodriguez
      • Kayly Ober

      Alejandro Martin Rodriguez, Kayly Ober

  • Europe far right MAGA Trump
    Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Why MAGA’s Far-Right European Ties Will Endure

    In supporting Europe’s far-right, MAGA and Russia both want the same thing: a weaker EU. Europe must defend itself without abandoning the openness these forces exploit.

      • Armida van rij

      Armida van Rij

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.