On December 22, the Washington state Democratic and Republican Parties filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing that the state must provide elections in 2012 for Precinct Committee officers. The case will be heard on March 23, 2012, at 9 a.m., in Thurston County Superior Court in Olympia. The case is Washington State Democratic Central Committee v Washington Secretary of State, 11-2-02701-2. UPDATE: here is the complaint.
Washington state election laws say these elections should be held for qualified parties. Only the Democratic and Republican Parties are ballot-qualified. The state had intended to hold these elections simultaneously with a March presidential primary, but then the state decided not to hold a presidential primary, and it canceled plans for elections for party office as well.
The state formerly held Precinct Committee Officer elections at the general election, but a U.S. District Court ruled last year that electing party officers in the general election violates freedom of association for those parties, because in effect the entire electorate, not just party members, were choosing party officers.
The other two states with top-two election systems, Louisiana and California, continue to hold elections for party officers. Louisiana and California use elections in which only party members can vote on party officers. It is easier for Louisiana and California to do this, than it is for Washington state, because Louisiana and California still hold presidential primaries simultaneously with the party officer elections.
The state should really cut these parties loose – deregulate the whole deal. Also, I guess the GOP really does think the state can do things better than a private group.
Here’s an article I wrote about PCO elections in Washington and what a bad deal they are all around. http://tdn.com/news/opinion/article_56afda0c-3ae2-11e0-9204-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story
All States — const. amdts. — remove ALL mentions of party hack FACTION stuff OUT of all State constitutions.
The Sun will continue to rise — just like it did on the day after the 13th Amdt was declared ratified.
If a state that loathes having to make voters register by party is to continue sponsoring electoral contests for local partisan positions, it must admit that it is defacto partisan registration for those running and selecting and that all voters, ANY party can indulge on a voluntary basis and pay costs associated with it.
Each of the above comments are off-base primarily because the article, itself, is inaccurate, and the article is inaccurate (only partially) because the ruling is irrational. From the article: “a U.S. District Court ruled last year that electing party officers in the general election violates freedom of association for those parties, because in effect the entire electorate, not just party members, were choosing party officers.” That is entirely untrue. It is only because the ballots don’t include a party choice “check-off” box that the Judge ruled they are “unconstitutional.” That’s easily remedied. But without these elections, there ARE no definable parties in Washington State, since EVERY “representative” owes his position to these elections.
It is also important to know that upon these elections depend all hope of voter control of the nomination process and that Media claims of the state bearing the “costs” of party elections are 100% BOGUS. There are no additional costs. It is an aristocratic smokescreen to remove voter control.
#4, perspective is the real value here as critisism is too easy. You say a judge issued an irrational ruling in a ballot access case? Really. Would’t that afford some amount of cover for any others weighing in on the same issues?
Some perspective: All of this is aftershocks from the SCOTUS tossing out Washington’s blanket primary. The logic of that ruling excludes those who are opposed to a party’s policy objectives from selecting that party’s nominees or leaders or representatives.
I’ve been previously elected a PCO in WA despite actually being a minor partisan and thus corrupting the definition of the party at the county central committee level.
So tell us more about this utopia of definable parties.
Robot party hacks = FACTIONS
See Federalist No. 10.
NO need for any party hack structures — a vestige of the DARK AGE 1800s before P.R. systems were invented.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Richard Winger, thank you for this posting. I now understand what Secretary of State Bowen is trying to
do in California with CC/ROV #11138 on December 12, 2011.
Question for others, Under Prop. 14 of California, why
not claim that holding a final election under Prop. 14 in a primary violate the same freedom of association issue in California? What is that 2010 Washington Federal case?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.
In 2011, the Washington House passed a measure that would have moved the election of PCO to the presidential primary (this measure is still pending). The legislature later eliminated the presidential primary for 2012 only.
Since the legislature convenes on January 9, the responsible action would be to make provision for election of PCO outside the primary, or to provide for funding of these elections (which represent an unfunded mandate on county election officials for the benefit of a private organization).