California Top Two Primary Repeal: What Voters Need to Know

As a bipartisan coalition gathers signatures to repeal the system, millions of California voters are asking: did the “reform” they were promised in 2010 ever actually arrive?
Sixteen years ago, California voters were told a new primary system would give them more choice. Today, a growing coalition says that promise was broken.
On May 8, 2026, a formal initiative to repeal the state’s “Top Two” primary system was filed with the California Secretary of State [state filing]. The Secretary of State cleared the measure for signature-gathering in mid-July, meaning the fight to undo a 2010 ballot measure is now officially underway [CA Secretary of State].

What Is California’s Top Two Primary, and Why Does It Matter?
California’s Top Two system, approved by voters as Proposition 14 in 2010, sends the top two vote-getters in a primary election to the November runoff, regardless of party. Supporters at the time argued it would moderate politics and expand voter choice. Critics have spent a decade arguing the opposite happened.
In practice, the system frequently produces general elections where two candidates from the same party face off, leaving voters registered with other parties, or no party at all, without a real alternative on the ballot. Third-party and minor-party candidates are effectively locked out of the general election in most contests, no matter how many votes they might otherwise draw.

Who Is Behind the Repeal Effort — And Why Should That Surprise You?
What makes this fight unusual is who is leading it. The repeal initiative was filed by Steven Maviglio, a longtime Democratic political consultant, not a figure typically associated with conservative reform efforts [KPBS reporting]. Yet conservative advocacy group Reform California, led by Chairman Carl DeMaio, has publicly thrown its support behind the same cause [Reform California statement].
DeMaio’s organization says it has funding and more than 18,000 volunteer signature gatherers ready to help qualify the measure [Reform California statement]. That is a notable coalition: a Democratic strategist and a conservative advocacy group agreeing that a signature California election law needs to go.
When the left and the right agree a law has failed, voters deserve to ask why it’s still on the books.

Is This the Accountability Moment California Voters Have Been Waiting For?
Election-integrity concerns are not partisan by nature. They become partisan when one side benefits from confusion, low turnout, or a rigged menu of choices. The Top Two system’s defenders in 2010 promised it would produce more moderate, competitive general elections. A decade and a half of results tell a more complicated story.
Under current rules, statewide races and many legislative contests have increasingly narrowed to same-party runoffs, particularly in heavily Democratic or heavily Republican districts. For a Republican voter in a solidly blue district, or a Democratic voter in a solidly red one, the November ballot can offer no meaningful choice at all. That is not the “expanded voter voice” Proposition 14 promised.

What Would It Take to Actually Repeal the System?
Qualifying this measure will not be simple. Because it amends the state constitution, proponents must collect 874,641 valid voter signatures, equal to 8% of the votes cast in the 2022 general election [California Secretary of State]. If they succeed, the earliest the measure could appear before voters is the 2028 general election. If approved then, it would not take effect until the 2030 primary cycle [KPBS reporting].
874,641. That is the number of signatures required just to give voters a chance to decide for themselves. The question Sacramento won’t ask out loud: why does undoing a flawed law take more effort than passing one?
That gap matters. It means the current system, whatever its flaws, will remain in place for years to come even if the repeal campaign succeeds on every front. Voters frustrated with same-party runoffs this November will not see a different process until at least 2030.

What Do Supporters of the Current Top Two System Actually Believe?
Fairness requires acknowledging the other side’s case. Supporters of Top Two, including business groups and some good-government advocates who backed Proposition 14 in 2010, argued the old closed-primary system let party insiders and highly motivated partisans pick nominees who were often unrepresentative of the broader electorate. Independent voters, they noted, had been shut out of closed primaries entirely under the prior system.
Some defenders also argue that Top Two has occasionally produced more moderate general-election winners in specific districts, and that any repeal risks handing control of nominations back to party machinery rather than to voters directly.
These are legitimate points, and any honest accounting of the system has to weigh them. But they do not fully answer the core complaint driving this repeal effort: a growing number of November ballots offer voters no real partisan choice at all, a result the 2010 campaign explicitly promised would not happen.

Are Our Leaders Even Listening to the Voters on This?
So far, no major elected official in Sacramento has publicly championed repealing Top Two. That silence is notable. A system criticized by strategists on both the left and right has not attracted a single prominent legislative sponsor for reform through the normal legislative process, leaving the initiative process as the only visible path forward.
That in itself raises a pointed question: if the current system serves incumbents and party leadership more than it serves voters, would Sacramento ever fix it without being forced to by a ballot initiative?
If two political rivals agree a law is broken, why does it take a signature drive instead of a Sacramento vote to fix it?

What Happens If California Voters Don’t Act?
If the repeal effort fails to gather enough signatures, or fails at the ballot box in 2028, California’s Top Two system remains locked in place through at least the next three election cycles. Millions of voters in noncompetitive districts will continue casting ballots in November elections that offer no real partisan alternative.
The stakes extend beyond any single race. A primary system that consistently narrows general-election choice affects turnout, representation, and public trust in whether elections actually reflect the will of the electorate. Every voter locked out of a real choice in November is a voter the system was supposed to serve — and didn’t.

What This Means for You
For California voters, the Top Two repeal fight is not an abstract policy debate. It is a direct test of whether the state’s election rules actually deliver on their promises, or whether reforms sold to voters sixteen years ago quietly outlived their usefulness without anyone in Sacramento revisiting them.

Is a primary system that limits real choice in November really the “voter empowerment” it was sold as in 2010?

The lingering question for California is not simply whether this repeal effort qualifies for the ballot. It’s whether voters will get a real choice again before another decade passes.

Key Questions This Story Raises

• Why has no sitting California legislator championed repealing a system that strategists on both the left and right agree has failed?
• If the repeal measure qualifies, should the state fast-track implementation instead of waiting until 2030?
• What would California’s elections look like today if Top Two had never passed in 2010?

What do you think — has California’s Top Two primary earned another decade in place, or is it time for voters to decide again? Share this story and let us know.
Still have questions about how California’s primary system works? Stay informed — subscribe for daily coverage from The Town Hall News. Think other Californians need to see this? Share the article. Want your voice to count directly? Track the initiative’s signature deadline and consider signing the petition when it reaches your county, or contact your state legislator and ask why this reform hasn’t moved through Sacramento.