Washington Senate Passes Bill That Defines Qualified Party as One that Received 5% for President

On March 12, the Washington State Senate passed SB 5518, which changes the definition of a qualified party from one that polled 5% for any statewide nominee at the last election, to one that polled 5% for President at the last presidential election. Washington state’s term for a qualified party is a “major party.” “Major parties” do not need to petition to place their presidential nominee on the ballot, but “minor parties” do. Also the state holds elections for political party office for “major parties”, but not for “minor parties.”

One problem with the new definition is that sometimes parties exist, and even have considerable support, yet they don’t run a presidential nominee. Such one-state parties exist in many other states currently. Qualified parties that didn’t have a presidential nominee in 2012 include the Alaskan Independence Party; the Connecticut, Oregon, and South Carolina Working Families Parties; the Independence Parties of Minnesota, New York, and South Carolina; the Delaware and Oregon Independent Parties; the Moderate Party of Rhode Island; the Labor Party of South Carolina; and the Progressive Party of Vermont.


Comments

Washington Senate Passes Bill That Defines Qualified Party as One that Received 5% for President — No Comments

  1. SB 5518 simply codifies into statute what is already in the Washington Administrative Code, with regard to political parties. Washington election statutes are really messed up because of all the litigation, and this simply cleans everything up.

    Once it is passed, it might then make sense to make substantive policy changes.

    SB 5518 passed on 45-4 vote, and was heard in a House committee on March 20. The house version, HB 1157, has passed the House on a 97-0 on March 7.

    Under Washington law, there is no formal role for political parties in the election of state and local officials, so there is not a particular reason to have party definitions except with regard to presidential elections.

    It would be a good idea to amend the Washington constitution with regard to filling vacancies. It is much too elaborate to be in the constitution. With all-mail elections it is easy enough to simply hold a special election.

    Once the constitution is amended, then the election of party officials can be yanked out of statute.

    Linde Knighton testified before the senate government operations committee. She proposed that political parties be able to qualify prior to choosing their presidential nominees. That seems reasonable, but doesn’t really belong in a cleanup bill. The same is true of establishing a system by which parties are registered.

    Washington could also eliminate partisan presidential primaries. The voters don’t like having to publicly declare their political allegiance, and the political parties ignore the results (and in 2012 it was cancelled entirely).

    Individual candidates could file for an open presidential primary. Any candidate who received 1% of votes would qualify for the November ballot. Candidates could supplement their election result by petition to qualify.

    Political parties could use the results as they please.

    Before the ballot is finalized for the general election, a presidential candidate could designate their vice-presidential candidate, presidential electors, and secure the endorsement of a qualified political party. A candidate could also withdraw, or consent to being replaced.

    Parties could maintain their presidential status by receiving 1% of the vote for their candidate in the general election. If there were a registration procedure, then parties could maintain their legal status simply by some sort of annual filing, and petition to be able to endorse a presidential candidate.

  2. No alternate political party can make any headway in WA with the rules set as they are and have been, since the ruling on open primaries, by the two “major” parties (those two parties are anything but major with only 23-26% of voters self-identifying with each, the only major party in this country is Independent with over 40% of voters self-identifying as Independent). This “cleaning up” of hte rules doesn’t change anything except that both those parties will have an even greater lock on who qualifies to run for office in the State. The voters should be the ones who choose the candidates, not the parties, WA should go back to the open primary system and trashcan the caucuses.

  3. P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. in ALL regimes.

    NO extremist robot party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions.

    ONE election day.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.