Supreme Court rules in favor of Washington state open primary

[TechBear_Seattle]

Source: Seattle Times

The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld Washington's top-two primary system, delivering a huge defeat for the state's political parties.

The decision means the state will dump its unpopular "pick-a-party" primary that's been in place while the top-two system was being challenged in court.

The new system will be used for the state primary on Aug. 19.

Under the top-two primary, the two candidates with the most votes would move on to the general election, regardless of political affiliation.



Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004289949_webprimary18m.html

[LisaM]

1. Yuck.

This pisses me off.

[Beregond2]

2. Grrr...

Oh, great. Now we can have people from other parties choosing our party's candidates, just like in other states. Fuck.

[rhett o rick]

3. Does this mean that if McCain, Obama and Clinton were running in the primary

that if repukes crossed over to vote for Clinton, they might jeopardize the chance of McCain making the top two???

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. This affects only state constitutional offices

The rules for determining candidates for the US House of Representatives and the US Senate are set under federal guidelines. The state parties determine how results from presidential primaries will be used (if at all) to determine delegates to the state and national conventions. None of this will change.

The new primary system will affect only those races run under the Washington State constitution, ie the state House, state Senate, Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Education, and any local office not governed by different rules set forth in a county or city charter.

[pnwmom]

10. Thanks for the info. I still don't like this though. n/t

[pnwmom]

9. Why would they want to do that? n/t

[cosmik debris]

4. Unintended consequences?

The parties may now decide to choose their candidates by caucus rather than primary. That's not going to help the democratic process.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. No. State law has the final say in determining state elections

As I posted above, this affects only those elections governed by the Washington State constitution. As such, there is clear precedent from both state and federal courts that state law can require that parties abide by the results of the primary. The ruling which struck down Washington's blanket primary focused on the primary system itself and not these precedents; thus, the precedents have never been successfully challenged. The parties can, of course, file a new round of legal challenges, but they will have to start from the very beginning and battle against more than a century of precedent.

Edited for clarity.

[darue]

17. or...

they might send out memberships cards with unique IDs used in signing up to a secure website where a full party vote could be done, independent of state officials, etc. Would love to see some leadership like that. As for people who can't be bothered to learn to use a computer, they can get help voting some other way, like over the phone, or in person at local party offices.

[baldguy]

7. oops

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. I will withdraw my comments too

:hi:

[keopeli]

11. The Dems and Reps picked this fight and now they've lost.

Now, some are saying they liked the old 'blanket' primary better and that election laws should be legislated, not litigated. Well, the initiative process is a form of legislation.

The parties were unhappy with the old system because people could vote for whomever they preferred, regardless of party affiliation. Voters didn't have to pick sides. After a court declared this system unconstitutional, the parties thought they had won more power in picking the nominees. But, an advocacy group started an initiative and it won the support of the people. Rather than return to a system already declared unconstitutional, the new proposal largely resembled the old system where voters did not have to pick a party.

When the initiative won and the parties suddenly found themselves on the losing end, they sued and now they've lost again. The fact is that Washingtonians on the whole are very independent and don't like to be cornered into one party or the other. Having voted this way for 70 years, they did not like the Parties changing the rules. Hence, the vote in favor of the "top-two" system.

This year, I had to pick a party in order to vote. The Dems gave ALL delegates to the caucuses, which made the primary moot. Republics split their delegates 50/50. I think this discouraged some people from even voting because it wouldn't matter for the Dems. It might also have made some Dems vote for a Republic because a Dem vote counted for nothing. Therefore, it left us with a popular vote that does not accurately reflect the voter's will.

I realize many states make you pick a party (I've lived there). But, Washingtonians don't like to be told what to do or how to vote and that's what the parties were trying to do. Now, they have to live with the mess they made.

I'm glad this conflict is finally behind us.

[uppityperson]

12. Supreme Court rules in favor of Washington state top-two primary

Source: Seattle TImes

The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld Washington's top-two primary system, delivering a huge defeat for the state's political parties. The decision means the state will dump its unpopular "pick-a-party" primary that's been in place while the top-two system was being challenged in court.

The new system will be used for the state primary on Aug. 19.

Under the top-two primary, the two candidates with the most votes would move on to the general election, regardless of political affiliation.

"Wow!" Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, who supported the top two primary, said when he learned of the court's ruling. "It means the people of the state of Washington are going to be able to control who gets elected through this process."...(more)

Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004289949_webprimary18m.html

[polichick]

13. The times they are a'changin'!

[uppityperson]

14. General Election WA: Choices: Clinton and Obama? Am I reading this right?

You can vote for whomever in the primary, irregardless of party, and the top 2, even if the same party, would be on the General ballot? But the General ballot has lots of other choices? now I'm confusing myself. Help.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Some history and how it will work now

First off, state law recognizes three types of candidates in partisan races: those running to represent a major party, those running to represent a minor party, and those running unaffiliated with any party. A major party is any political organization who, in or since the last gubenatorial election, ran a candidate for an office that received state-wide vote (president, governor, sec. of state, etc.) with that candidate receiving at least 10% of all votes cast for that office. All other political organizations are minor parties.

Under Washington's old blanket primary, which was in place for almost 70 years, independents and candidates running under a minor party banner needed to collect a number of signatures to show "viability." For offices put to a state-wide vote, the candidate needed the signatures of 100 registered voters in the state; for offices with a less-than state-wide vote, the candidate needed the signatures of 25 registered voters in the district which the office would represent. Candidates running under a major party banner were assumed to have already been vetted, by virtue of running under a major party, and so did not need to collect signatures.

All candidates for a given office appeared together on the ballot. Voters could select one candidate, regardless of the party. To pass on to the general election, all candidates needed to receive at least 1% of the total number of votes cast. Candidates running under a major or minor party banner also had to be the one candidate for that party and office who received the most number of votes.

So suppose that the race was for governor. The field of candidates includes two Democrats, three Republicans, a Libertarian candidate, a Green and a Socialist Worker: nine candidates altogether. All appear together, in a random order determined by the Secretary of State (as chief elections officer.) All of the Democrat and Republican candidates get at least 1% of the total number of votes cast in the race, as do the Libertarian and Green; the Socialist gets only about 0.9% of the votes, and so is automatically disqualified from the General Election. The Green and the Libertarian are automatically in the GE, as they are the only candidates for their party in that race and so automatically have the highest number of votes. The Libertarian got 10% of the votes cast in that race; the Libertarian Party will now be considered a major party for the next four years, starting in January. The Democrat and the Republican who got the most number of votes will both go on to the GE, while the one Democrat and two Republicans who got fewer votes have been eliminated. With me so far?

Under the new top-two system, independent and minor party candidates must obtain a larger number of signatures: 1000 for state-wide races and 100 for less-than state-wide races. In the same race for governor with the same nine candidates, only the two with the most and second most number of votes will be on the ballot for the GE, regardless of party. If both are Democrats or Republicans, so be it: the General Election will consist of a contest between two Democrats or two Republicans, with all other parties shut out.

In 2001, the state's major political parties petitioned the federal court to rule the blanket primary an unconstitutional breach of the party's right to free assembly and free speech; the court agreed. The top-two system was based on the one that has been used in Louisiana for some time, which has stood up to constitutional challenge. So basically, the state's parties pissed and moaned itself into a situation that is far worse, and yet far more legally secure. The parties challenged the top-two system, but a federal court ruled it valid and the US Supreme Court, in refusing to hear the appeal, has effectively agreed with the lower court. There is very little the parties can do now except eat their own crow.

[uppityperson]

16. Thanks Techbear.