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.

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 In fact, parties may now nominate candidates by whatever mechanism they choose because I–872 repealed Washington’s prior regulations governing party nominations.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.

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.”

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.

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?

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.

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.