News Washington State’s Primary Election Debate Hits U.S. Supreme Court
posted by on October 1 at 13:47 PM
The US Supreme Court started its new term today by hearing a case from Washington State.
On appeal, Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna argued that voter-approved Initiative 872, which was ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit, should be enacted.
I-872, passed by 60% in 2004, mandated a “top-two primary,” in which voters would be able to vote for any candidate and then the top two candidates would go through, regardless of their party. I-872 displaced Washington state’s existing primary, in which voters could vote for any candidate, but the top Democrat and top Republican went through (even if two Dems, for example, received the most votes overall.)
Since that system was tossed by the voters, the state scrapped it, but, at the behest of the parties (which didn’t like I-872) they did not institute a top-two system. Instead, while the parties were busy suing to have I-872 tossed, Washington State went with a system that requires voters to choose a party affiliation and only vote D or R. The result? The top Democrat and the top Republican now make it to the general.
The Stranger Dept. of Homeland Security (now known as the Stranger Election Control Board) came out against I-872 in 2004. Here’s what we wrote (not sure I agree anymore):
The top-two primary, in which the two candidates who earn the most votes advance to the general election, is a naive, pseudo solution that transforms the higher-turnout general election into a run-off. Worse, it will exacerbate Washington’s penchant for drab, leadership-challenged politicians (hello, Gary Locke). Candidates would no longer have to face an initial battle of ideas within their own party (e.g.: is a personal-income tax more or less equitable than a sales tax?). Instead, they’d be thrown into a free-for-all where they would have to immediately appeal to those famous and mushy “undecideds”—dragging all the candidates toward the lazy middle.It would also sound the death knell for third parties. In contested districts, one D and one R will advance, squeezing out anyone else, and in heavily liberal or conservative districts, the dominant party will run two candidates and achieve the same result. If you want real choices in the general election, reject I-872.
The 9th Circuit threw out I-872 over the issue of a political party’s right to determine who its candidates are, which the court felt would be smashed by non-nominated candidates identifying with a given party. Proponents of I-872, however, argue that candidates’ and voters’ rights are smashed by the party’s rights under the current system.
That point—the idea of a candidate’s right to “party preference” vs. a political party’s right to control that affiliation—was batted around in the Supreme Court today.
Here’s a transcript of this morning’s oral arguments.
Um. Josh. If a court strikes down a law (or proposition), a higher court may *reverse* the lower court (or *affirm* it) and *reinstate* the law. But courts never, ever *"enact"* propositions.
Get your terminology straight. For god's sakes, there are tons of homo lawyers (like me for instance), who'd be happy to help.
Fuck the parties. Just put the top two up regardless of party.
Why are they talking about the rights of political parties? "Oh, but someone might declare their affiliation for the wrong party, and then what are the parties gonna do?!?!" Who the fuck cares?
But then, I was a third-party candidate way back in the day...
Thank you Jonathan, I love it when the Stranger staff gets kicked down by a real life lawyer..... HA HA Josh!!!
Whom do elected officials serve - their party or their constituents? It should be the latter, and the top-two primary would do a better job of ensuring that. Otherwise, the parties pick: a) whoever has the best chance of getting elected, and b) whoever will dole out the most patronage to the party. Neither serves citizens, or encourages responsible stewardship in public.
Go Rob McKenna!
Why are you boring us with this election and voters' rights stuff? Haven't you heard? K-Fed is getting the kids! C'mon, report the news!
Sorry, I meant to say "responsible stewardship in government."
Actually @4, I was just trying to be helpful. The Stranger does a pretty good job. Far better than the crap city paper that I'm stuck with in Baltimore.
See, and I thought the more important news was that religious organizations can't force their employees not to have health coverage that includes abortion, birth control, or unmarried pregnancy.
Sill me, guess that doesn't matter.
uh, i dont understand the whole "political party’s right to determine who its candidates are". so why have a primary at all? just to help them make up their minds? and if the primary is for them, then they should foot the bill.
Couple things to keep in mind -- First, drawing political district lines has been turned over to the two major parties, and their goal is as many single-party districts as possible, whether its the County Council, the Legislature, or the Congress.
Under Top Two, there will be many districts where voters will be faced either with two Democrats or two Republicans. If you are with the opposite party in one of those districts, who the Hell do you vote for? This system elevates party monopoly to a new level.
Oh, and forget minority parties. Third party candidates will almost always get wiped out in the August primary, thereby denying the public an opportunity to hear their message.
Sorry, but whatever knocks you want to take against Pick A Party, the Top Two system is clearly worse.
I think that we should just eliminate party affiliation from the ballots. Let's require that all candidates for public office be required to submit signatures totaling five percent of the registered voters in the district they are running for (which would be five percent statewide for such offices as US senator, governor, AG, etc) said signatures not being collected by paid signature gatherers. Once the candidates have submitted the required signatures they're on the ballot. Want to sign a petition for more than one candidate? Knock yourself out.
The elections could then be based upon instant run-off voting. Admittedly there are problems where IRV results in candidates who aren't Condorcet winners, but Hell, it would at least inject some choice into the current system which is owned by the two major parties and which seeks to disenfranchise those who don't comply with the party line.
The right of the political party is actually the right of the individual -- you or me -- to associate for political purposes with like minded folks.
If you don't like being part of a party don't be... and maybe don't even vote for someone who is in a party....if that's your thing. Or start your own party. The non-partisan party. Whatever.
What you should not be able to do is to crash someone else's party uninvited or take away other people's rights to form a party.
"What you should not be able to do is to crash someone else's party uninvited or take away other people's rights to form a party. "
You should be allowed to form whatever party you wish. That party should most emphatically NOT control the election process.
I don't know if this top two thing is worth a damn, but it can't be much worse than the two-party hegemony. The very notion that political parties (or corporations or anything other than sentient meaty fleshlings) has Constitutional rights makes me want to vomit.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).