In the summer of 2005, the WA Republicans and Democrats had started such a process in anticipation of the “top two.” Reagan Dunn– son of Jennifer Dunn– ran for a county post and promised not to run in the “top two” election if he lost the GOP nomination. When Dunn lost, he reneged on his promise. Of course, the US District Court ruled against the “top two,” and WA continued with open primaries that year.

Breaking such a promise is similar to a convention delegate or a presidential elector reneging on his pledge.

The Mississippi Republicans had a similar process for the 1981 special US House election (there are no party primaries in MS’s special elections). Eight or ten people sought the endorsement, and the winner was the only Republican on the special election ballot.

How many candidates will attack ANY party hack endorsement of them ??? — saying in effect — I am not and never have been a member of the party hack ZZZ party — and I totally disown the endorsement of me by the party hacks in the ZZZ party.

The party hacks will in some cases say the same about a party preference indicated by some candidates.

It will be a very entertaining show for the pundits and the voters.

The movement towards REAL Democracy continues — regardless of Stone Age party hacks with their foreign wars and domestic oppressions for thousands of years.

P.R. now for legislative body elections — something for party hacks to play with.

NONPARTISAN Approval Voting for executive/ judicial offices — to get NONPARTISAN enforcement of the laws.

For math folks –

A > B

Choice C comes along.

C may —

beat both A and B
lose to both A and B
beat A, lose to B
beat B, lose to A
[assuming no ties]

Will there be more or less choices in top 2 primaries than before — especially in old 1 party gerrymander areas — that had only the *safe seat* incumbent running for office ??? Stay tuned.

A voter who wants to know who the party nominees are will have no trouble getting that information. It will be interesting to see whether one or both of the major parties require anyone seeking their nomination to pledge NOT to run in the subsequent election if he fails to win the nomination. If that happens, grassroots voters will have fewer choices.

Lots of EVIL stuff in the EVIL rotted past — due to lots of EVIL party hacks having control back then.

Reforms for REAL Democracy move on — regardless of EVIL party hacks who created / maintained every EVIL rotted monarchy and oligarchy in the last 6,000 plus years of recorded history.

What sayeth New Age party hacks about footnote 7 of the Supremes ???

ARTICLE II, SECTION 37

“REVISION OR AMENDMENT. No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the act revised or the section amended shall be set forth at full length.”

I-747 (adopted in 2001) sought to decrease the rate of increase in property taxes to 1%, from the 2% rate which had been imposed by initiative I-722 (adopted in 2000). I-722 was under court challenge based on a claim that it had legislated on two subject matters, and the sponsors of I-722 had filed I-747 as a safety net in case I-722 was overturned.

I-747 was based on law set out in I-722, and showed a change from 2% to 1%. I-747 was initially filed after a preliminary injunction against I-722 was issued by a lower court. While the petitions were being circulated, I-722 was permanently enjoined, and this was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court before the election in which I-747 was passed. The effect of the injunction was that the law reverted to its state before I-722.

The Supreme Court ruled that therefore I-747 did not fully set out the law that was to be revised, since that law was no longer in effect.

Effectively, voters were “misled” in believing that we were choosing between a 2% and 1% cap when they were actually choosing between a 6% and 1% cap.

The following is the ballot title for I-747:

“Initiative Measure No. 747 concerns limiting property tax increases. This measure would require state and local governments to limit property tax levy increases to 1% per year, unless an increase greater than this limit is approved by the voters at an election.”

The Washington State Republican party issued the following press release after I-747 was overturned:

“Supreme Court Rejects I-747 The State Supreme Court threw a tax time bomb right into Gregoire’s lap by throwing out I-747 on a hyper-technicality …”

and further urged that Gov. Gregoire call a special session of the legislature to reinstate I-747.

It would appear that the Republican party is trying to get the Top 2 primary overturned on the basis of what they characterized as a “hyper-technicality” just a few months ago. Wouldn’t the proper course of action be to challenge the initiative in the Washington courts? Why should a federal court interpret the Washington constitution when you have a state court for that purpose. Don’t the Republicans believe in the 10th Amendment?

E-X-I-S-T-E-N-C-E