A Democratic political consultant in California filed a petition with state officials last week seeking to abolish the state's top-two primary system, a move that would guarantee a Democrat appears on the November 2026 ballot for governor, even if no Democrat finishes in the top two in the June primary.
The petition, filed by Steve Maviglio, aims to restore the pre-2010 traditional primary structure, where each party holds its own primary and one Republican and one Democrat advance to the general election. The timing is no mystery. Early polls in the 2026 governor's race show two Republicans, Steve Hilton, who has been endorsed by Donald Trump, and Chad Bianco, leading the field to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Under the current system, created by Proposition 14 in 2010, the top two vote-getters in a June primary advance to the general election regardless of party. That means California could face something it hasn't seen in years: a general-election governor's race with no Democrat on the ballot. And that prospect, apparently, is what prompted the petition.
Maviglio did not dress up his reasoning. In a quote published by the New York Post and attributed to the Los Angeles Times, he laid it bare:
"It was extremely scary to envision the November ballot for governor with Republicans on it."
Read that again. A political operative is openly admitting that the purpose of changing the election rules is to prevent voters from choosing between two candidates of a party he opposes. Not because the system is broken. Not because voters are being disenfranchised. Because the wrong party might win.
California has not had a Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger left office in 2011. Nearly 50 percent of the state's registered voters are Democrats. Republicans and independents together account for roughly 25 percent. Yet even in a state that tilted that far left, the prospect of two competitive Republican candidates reaching the general election was enough to trigger a formal petition to rewrite the rules.
The top-two system Maviglio wants to dismantle was not a Republican invention. Proposition 14 passed in 2010 with 54 percent of voters supporting it. Schwarzenegger, then in his second term, backed the measure and argued it would reduce partisan gridlock and force candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters.
Not everyone agreed at the time. Shirley Weber argued the open primary system would not solve political dysfunction or improve voter representation. But the measure passed, and for fifteen years California has run its primaries under that framework. Democrats did not object when the system consistently produced two Democrats in statewide general-election matchups. They object now, when it might produce two Republicans.
That pattern, changing the rules when the outcome shifts, is familiar to anyone who follows election-rules fights in other states. The principle is always the same: the system is fine until my side loses.
The race to succeed Newsom is shaping up as the most competitive California governor's contest in more than a decade. Hilton, a former Fox News host, secured Trump's endorsement, giving him a national profile and a fundraising boost. Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County, has built a following among law-and-order voters in Southern California.
Early polls show both men ahead of the Democratic field. The California Post reported that it reached out to Bianco, Hilton, and other candidates polling in the top five for comment on Maviglio's proposal. The outlet also contacted the governor's office. No responses were described in the reporting.
If the top-two system stays in place and both Republicans hold their polling leads through the June primary, California Democrats would face a general election in which their only options are Republican. In a state where Democrats control the legislature, every statewide constitutional office, and both U.S. Senate seats, that outcome would represent a remarkable shift, one driven not by redistricting or rule changes but by voter preference within the existing system.
Maviglio's petition fits a broader pattern of Democrats seeking to alter election structures when outcomes threaten their hold on power. In Virginia, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries vowed to fight a court ruling that struck down a Democratic redistricting map. In Louisiana, California Democrats reacted poorly when the Supreme Court intervened in redistricting.
The common thread is not principle. It is convenience. When the rules produce favorable results, they are sacrosanct. When they don't, they are suddenly broken and in need of urgent reform.
California's election administration has faced its own credibility questions. Humboldt County discovered 596 uncounted mail-in ballots months after a redistricting vote, raising concerns about basic competence in how the state handles elections. And Newsom himself drew fire for an executive order that sent mail-in ballots to every registered voter in the state. The Trump campaign called that move "a thinly-veiled political tactic" to undermine election security, with communications director Tim Murtaugh warning it created "a wide open opportunity for fraud."
Against that backdrop, a petition to scrap the primary system because Republicans are polling well does not inspire confidence that the goal is fairer elections.
The formal details of Maviglio's petition remain thin. The reporting does not identify which state office received the filing, what legal mechanism it proposes, or whether it includes draft ballot language. A website called "Undo the Top Two" advocates for the change, but the path from petition to ballot measure, and from ballot measure to law, is long and uncertain.
What is clear is the intent. Under the pre-2010 system, each party would hold its own primary. One Republican and one Democrat would advance. That structure would guarantee Democrats a spot in the November general election regardless of how badly their candidates performed in the primary. It would also mean that even if Republican candidates drew more total primary votes than any Democrat, the top Democrat would still advance.
In a state where Democrats hold a two-to-one registration advantage, the traditional system functioned as a safety net. The top-two system removed that net. For fifteen years, Democrats didn't need it. Now they do, and they want it back.
Fights over voting rules have intensified across the country. The SAVE Act amendment, which would have tightened voter eligibility verification, failed in the Senate after four Republicans sided with Democrats. The debate over who gets to vote, how, and under what rules is not confined to California. But California's version of the fight is unusually blunt: one side is openly trying to change the system because the other side's candidates are winning.
Maviglio's quote is the story. He did not argue that the top-two system produces bad governance. He did not claim it disenfranchises minority voters or suppresses turnout. He said it was "extremely scary" that Republicans might appear on the November ballot.
That fear tells you more about the state of California Democratic politics than any poll. A party that controls every lever of state government, that holds a massive registration advantage, that has not lost a governor's race since 2006, that party is so rattled by two Republican candidates polling well that it is trying to change the election system before the primary even happens.
The petition may go nowhere. Gathering signatures, qualifying for the ballot, and winning a statewide vote are all steep hurdles. But the impulse behind it, the instinct to rewrite the rules rather than compete under them, is worth noting. It reveals a political class that trusts voters only when voters do what they're told.
If California Democrats can't beat two Republicans in a state where they outnumber the opposition two to one, the problem isn't the primary system. It's the candidates.