Times Article On Impact of Top-Two Primary Ruling for Washington State
March 19th, 2008Here is a Seattle Times article about what the US Supreme Court decision of March 18 means for Washington State elections. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link. The article quotes Ruth Bennett of the Libertarian Party.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Missed the link, Richard… :-)
March 19th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Here is the link that I found.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004291577_primaryside19m.html
March 19th, 2008 at 8:15 am
There is also a long reader comment thread on the matter. The responses given span a wide spectrum which gives the reader the impression the commenters do not have a thorough understanding of the matter they are writing about.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/reader_feedback.php?id=462
March 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
See also
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/355564_scotus19.html
March 20th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I’ve lived in WA most of my life. I think a lot of people are under the misunderstanding that this will somehow restore the old open primary system we used to have. Personally, I can’t really see participating i elections like this? I never vote for the majors, and now that’s all we will realiztically get in the general. Maybe the minors will sue for access to the general on some grounds? Although, knowing of Sam Reed, and the Dem and Rep Party bosses, all of them will be pleased the minors and indies can be kept out of the elections. It’s what they’ve wanted all along.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I recall that three former governors of Washington held a joint press conference during the 2004 “top two” initiative campaign. They pointed out the flaws in the “top two,” but some 60% voted for the “top two” that November anyway.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Wow, most of the “comments” in response to that article on the Times’ website were incredibly ignorant. Hardly anyone seemed to realize or care that minor parties have essentially been banned from being on the ballot in general elections.
What was most obnoxious were all of the people who think that they should be able to choose a political party’s candidate for office even though they are not even members of the party in question. That is half of the problem here in the US, we have an incredibly weak party system.
Political party’s candidates’ should be chosen at private meetings for active or dues paying party members. Not just by anyone who has registered to vote and has heard of a few candidate’s names from flashy TV commercials.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:53 pm
With the old blanket primary, Washingtonians had a long history of being able to choose among all the candidates in the first round of voting. They’ll be able to do the same with the “top two,” but they’ll now be limited to 2 choices in the final, deciding election.
In those rare races where one of the major parties opts not to run a candidate, independents and/or small-party candidates may have a better shot at getting elected.
NE: In the “top two,” a party can ENDORSE candidates via caucuses, conventions, or the party’s central committee. A party could even conduct a primary at its own expense, but, regardless, the party could not legally stop other candidates of that party from running in the ensuing election.
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 am
The party hack leaders — a faction of a faction of a faction lose power. So sad for them.
Democracy will survive quite nicely without the party hack leaders having ANY power whatever.
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
In the “top two,” the parties will still be able to endorse candidates. They may also require candidates seeking their endorsement to pledge not to run in the ensuing election if they fail to win the endorsement.
The Revenge of the Hacks!
BTW: Abe Lincoln meets your definition of “party hack,” since he was a staunch party man, first for the Whigs and then the Republicans.
Thomas Jefferson was a “party hack” too, since he founded what is today’s Democratic Party.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 am
Quite correct.
Most of American history is full of very evil party hack folks (killing American Indians, enslaving folks, denying civil rights, etc.) and/or economic MORONS — who have set the stage for Civil War II and/or World War III and/or Great Depression II.
Meet the Press reports that about 25 million Dems have voted for Clinton and Obama — circa 13 million each so far.
Circa 130 million voters coming in Nov 2008.
Do the party hack extremist percentage math.
13 M x 100 pct / 130 M = X pct.
Solve for X. No need for a super-computer.
Approval Voting NOW for nonpartisan executive / judicial offices.
Put the party hacks out of business.
Amazing that the party hacks did NOT prevent having ANY nonpartisan elections ??? — in many local governments and for many judges — with such systems having top 2N primaries.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 am
Nonpartisan/”top two” elections are fine for local and judicial elections, but they’re a terrible idea for state and congressional elections.
Local officials are mainly concerned with providing services, not policy ideas. Furthermore, the national parties rarely get involved in local races, as they often do in state and congressional races (Louisiana has had instances of the national Republicans and the state GOP backing opposing candidates in the same election). And, in my view, the parties deserve to be able to nominate candidates for offices above the local level.
Tell me this, Demo Rep: If the “top two” is such a great idea, why is it that only one state– Louisiana– has heretofore used it for all of its state and congressional elections? And LA has wisely restored party primaries for Congress.
The Washington “top two” is unconstitutional for congressional elections, as the US Supreme Court has said that the November ballot cannot be limited to 2 candidates per congressional race. This portends yet another lawsuit.
So “evil party hacks” caused slavery, segregation, depressions, AIDS, hemorrhoids, bunions…? When was your last flight on a UFO, Demo Rep?
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
To Mr. Rankin –
The party hack extremists have LOST a major battle in the Supremes.
Keep whining until the chickens come home to roost.
Exactly why are top 2 primary nominees so terrible for ALL legislative body elections ?
Answer — the EVIL minority rule nonstop extremist party hacks lose POWER.
Sorry — EVIL party hacks did not cause AIDS, hemorrhoids, bunions, etc. — as any rational person knows who is NOT a party hack.
When was the last flight on a UFO by EVIL party hacks who just love their EVIL leftwing / rightwing control freak policies — that result in Civil Wars and World Wars ???
The Supremes will be very happy to overrule any earlier errors regarding any LA case — since they now can detect the EXTREME danger from having extremist party hack regimes in the State legislatures and the Congress.
Again — EXCEPT for Stone Age party hacks — political *Science* has advanced since 1890 — *Official* primaries and plurality nominations in party hack primaries.
Sorry – the old time pre-1890 party hack bosses lost quite a bit of power even having a plurality of the party hack primary voters choose nominees.
The WA top 2 primary is one more political evolutionary step – to END the EVIL rule of current plurality party hacks.
NO primaries are necessary/needed.
Direct nominating petitions for general election ballot access.
P.R. for legislative body elections.
Approval Voting for executive/judicial offices.
Party hacks can join absolute monarchs (think the evil rotten 1200s- 1500s in Europe), oligarchs and slave owners in the political history junkyard. Shed a micro-mini tear for them.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
When has the US Supreme Court said that the November ballot can not be limited to 2 candidates?
March 25th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Actually, the Supreme Court has set a 5% “modicum of support” vote test for a congressional candidate to reach the November ballot.
The Washington “top two” is unconstitutional for congressional elections because it requires a 30% “modicum of support” for a candidate to have access to the November ballot.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
More smoke screen stuff from Mr. Rankin in his nonstop losing defense of party hack machinations.
Where did the magical 30% come from — out of thin air ???
The Supremes just said that the November ballot can be limited to 2 candidates for a single office — just in case Mr. Rankin did NOT read the opinion — regardless of any of their earlier opinions.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
30% is the average vote received by the second-place finishers in the last ten years of WA state primaries.
The Supreme Court ruled on the “top two” on the basis of whether putting party preferences on the ballots is constitutional. If you had actually read the ruling, you would know that.
So tell us, D-R: How many party primaries have you voted in ? A dozen? 100? 1000?
March 26th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Lots [having NO other choice in my local rotted regime] — so what ???
How many folks voted for pro-slavery candidates before the Civil War in slave State regimes — when they had no other choices ???
This is the New Age of top 2 primaries in WA State — putting party hacks OUT of business. So sad for them.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
It means that you helped those “evil party hacks” nominate their candidates. Paraphrasing the US Supreme Court, “The act of voting in a party primary fairly can be described as an act of affiliation with that party.” So you, D-R, have affiliated with those “evil party hacks”!
WA state is going to have to change the way it elects US senators and reps, since the way its “top two” does it is unconstitutional.
Are you predicting that other states will enter the “New Age of top 2,” D-R? Oregon, the only other state with a “one ballot” movement, will have a tough time getting it passed, since the parties are stronger there than in WA state.
And California voters had the good sense to defeat the “top two” monstrosity in 2004.
There will definitely be further litigation vis a vis the WA “top two.”
March 27th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
The Supremes sayeth (regardless of lots of extremist party hacks) —
Slip opinion page 10.
The flaw in this argument is that, unlike the California primary, the I–872 primary does not, by its terms, choose parties’ nominees. The essence of nomination—the choice of a party representative—does not occur under I–872. The law never refers to the candidates as nominees of any party, nor does it treat them as such. To the contrary, the election regulations specifically provide that the primary “does not serve to determine the nominees of a political party but serves to winnow the number of candidates to a final list of two for the general election.” Wash. Admin. Code §434–262–012. The top two candidates from the primary election proceed to the general election regardless of their party preferences. Whether parties nominate their own candidates outside the state-run primary is simply irrelevant. In fact, parties may now nominate candidates by whatever mechanism they choose because I–872 repealed Washington’s prior regulations governing party nominations. [footnote] 7
———
[footnote] 7 It is true that parties may no longer indicate their nominees on the ballot, but that is unexceptionable: The First Amendment does not give political parties a right to have their nominees designated as such on the ballot. See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 362–363 (1997) (“We are unpersuaded, however, by the party’s contention that it has a right to use the ballot itself to send a particularized message, to its candidate and to the voters, about the nature of its support for the candidate”). Parties do not gain such a right simply because the State affords candidates the opportunity to indicate their party preference on the ballot. “Ballots serve primarily to elect candidates, not as forums for political expression.” Id., at 363.
****
Very bad luck to all EVIL extremist party hacks [who have NO right to pick extremist party hack candidates to get on general election ballots] in getting the Supremes to overrule the WA top 2 primary opinion
Poor suffering party hacks due to footnote 7 — very UNLUCKY for EVIL party hacks from Hell.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:38 am
The Democrats and Republicans will now use a caucus/convention process to nominate candidates. The parties’ nominees won’t be designated on the ballot, but the parties will still be able to publicize them during the campaign.
Suppose the parties require any candidate seeking their nomination to pledge NOT to run in the ensuing election if he fails to win the nomination. That will mean fewer choices for grassroots voters.
Washingtonians may find that, in adopting the “top two,” they’ve cut off their noses to spite their faces.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
The Republicans in Washington will use the caucus/convention nominating process. It’s not yet certain whether the Democrats will.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Ha, I don’t agree with it all but nice none-the-less