California’s top-two open primary system, enacted more than a decade ago with the aim of promoting moderate and pragmatic candidates, is facing renewed criticism from political figures and analysts who argue it has fallen short of its goals and should be significantly reformed or eliminated.

Abel Maldonado, a former Republican state senator credited with introducing the top-two primary to California in 2010, now advocates abandoning the system’s defining feature. Instead of advancing the two highest vote-getters regardless of party affiliation, Maldonado proposes returning to a “top-one” system whereby the leading candidate from each recognized political party qualifies for the November general election. However, he suggests preserving the “open” aspect of the primary, allowing all voters to select any candidate regardless of party.

Maldonado acknowledged that the top-two system has not produced the pragmatic, moderate elected officials he envisaged. He also highlighted concerns stemming from the recent gubernatorial primary, including ballot overcrowding—where 61 candidates sought the governor’s seat, many with minimal support—and the presence of hateful language in candidate statements published in the state’s Official Voter Information Guide. To address the former, Maldonado recommends increasing candidate filing fees and signature requirements to deter frivolous campaigns. Regarding the latter, Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz) is advancing legislation to prohibit hateful or discriminatory content in official election materials, citing a recent incident involving antisemitic language that slipped through the current vetting process.

Critics across the political spectrum echo Maldonado’s discontent with the top-two system. Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio questioned the premise that the system fosters moderation, describing such claims as “asinine,” and endorsed a return to traditional party nominations. Additionally, Democratic labor leader Lorena Gonzalez criticized the disproportionate focus on primary horse-race dynamics, particularly concerns about whether Democratic candidates would split the vote and risk exclusion from general elections, detracting from substantive policy discussions.

A persistent criticism is that the top-two primary can lock one party out of contests entirely. In the upcoming general election, eight congressional districts will feature only Democratic candidates on the ballot, while one will have only Republicans, eliminating voter choice along ideological lines without the possibility of write-in candidates.

Further reform discussions extend beyond the primary system. Some advocates call for abolishing or restructuring several elective offices deemed redundant or ineffective, including the lieutenant governor, superintendent of public instruction, insurance commissioner, and the state board of equalization. Critics argue many of these positions serve as political safe harbors rather than meaningful roles, with responsibilities transferred elsewhere or lacking clear accountability.

Despite its intentions, the top-two primary has struggled to achieve its aims amid increasing political polarization and changing electoral dynamics. Various stakeholders, from former architects of the system to current legislators and political strategists, are now engaging in a broad debate on how California’s election laws might be restructured to better balance voter choice, candidate accountability, and electoral clarity.