Home General U.S. District Court in Washington State Postpones Trial in "Top-Two" Lawsuit
formats

U.S. District Court in Washington State Postpones Trial in "Top-Two" Lawsuit

Published on October 31, 2010, by in General.

On October 29, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour, on his own motion, postponed the start of the trial in Washington State Republican Party v Washington State Grange from November 15, 2010, until January 18, 2011.  This is the case over the constitutionality of the top-two system.

6 Responses

  1. Demo Rep

    Any Nov. 2 election cases needing the judge’s immediate attention ???

    How can there be ANY disputed facts — since allegedly ALL voters are allegedly aware of ALL of the laws and regulations about top 2 and allegedly know exactly what a party hack label means in the top 2 system — i.e. NOT much, if anything.

    i.e. the old ignorance of the law is NO excuse stuff.

    How is any party somehow injured by the FREE publicity of having the party name on the official PUBLIC ballots ???

    How many Stalin clones in WA have a nazi party label ???

    How many Hitler clones in WA have a commie party label ???

    What century will SCOTUS finally give its OK to the top 2 system ???

  2. Robert1234

    It’s worse than the old Soviet “election” system, since there you could vote “No.” on a candidate and get a new one. Here, the corporate party sends forth two options, Fascist A and Fascist B, and you get to chose which of the two corporate shills to accept. It’s criminal and worse, the idiot voters don’t get it! Why is it that ONLY Americans think they are to stupid to deal with more than 2 candidates? We need a major effort put forth to install a mandatory “None of the above” line on all honest election system.

  3. Demo Rep

    # 2 P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. = NO primaries are needed.

  4. […] Ballot Access News: US District Court in Washington State Postpones Trial in Top  Two Lawsuit. […]

  5. Polly Wonk

    “# 2 P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. = NO primaries are needed.”

    Well, @3 – we’d like that. But that’s not what we have. Any damn fool can run as a D, R, L or G if he likes, no matter what the party, or members thinks.

    This guy has been a member of every party – what if he’s *your* candidate?

    http://www.kirotv.com/news/17951602/detail.html?rss=sea&psp=news

  6. Jim Riley

    The order says it is “in the interest of judicial economy for the Court and the parties”.

    This must mean that Judge Coughenour has decided that the political parties are wasting his and their time, and that the legislature should be given the opportunity to clean up the few remaining details that he would like rule in their favor, such as election of party officers, and definitions of political parties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus