Slog
News & ArtsThursday, August 16, 2012
2012 / Election Libertarians Sue to Have Romney Kicked Off Washington Ballot
Posted by Goldy on Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:09 PM
As I first reported some weeks back, the Washington State Republican Party's failure to nominate a candidate for US Senate in 2010 appears to have cost them "major party" status under the letter of RCW 29A.04.086. This failure should in turn have required Mitt Romney to qualify for Washington's presidential ballot under rules and deadlines applied to "minor parties," a deadline that has long since passed.
Today the Libertarian Party of Washington State filed suit (PDF) to have Romney's name removed from the November ballot:
The suit seeks an order declaring that the Washington State Republican Party is “minor party” for purposes of the 2012 general election and directing the Secretary of State to issue ballots for the November election that do not contain the printed name of any Republican Party nominee.
Secretary of State Sam Reed's office responds that the Republicans retain major party status under WAC 434-208-130:
(1) For purposes of RCW 29A.04.086, "major political party" means a political party whose nominees for president and vice-president received at least five percent of the total votes cast for that office at the last preceding presidential election. A political party that qualifies as a major political party retains such status until the next presidential election at which the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of that party do not receive at least five percent of the votes cast.
Okay. Clear enough. But that's not what RCW 29A.04.086 actually says:
"Major political party" means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year. A political party qualifying as a major political party under this section retains such status until the next even-year election at which a candidate of that party does not achieve at least five percent of the vote for one of the previously specified offices.
US Senate was the only applicable race in 2010, the preceding even-numbered year election, and for internal political reasons (both Dino Rossi and Clint Didier were afraid they would lose the state convention vote) the Republicans declined to officially nominate a candidate. In their suit, the Libertarian's accuse Reed of attempting to give the Republicans a "free pass," arguing that under established precedent "a WAC regulation cannot modify or alter a statute by interpretation." The Secretary of State's office requested legislation in the previous session to amend the RCW to match the WAC's redefinition of party status, but that bill failed. Thus concludes the Libertarian suit:
The subject WAC regulation purporting to redefine “major” and “minor” parties is therefor unlawful. A WAC regulation cannot change the definitions for “major” and “minor” political parties set out in the statute. The Republican Party is a “minor” political party for the 2012 election cycle, and has failed to qualify any presidential nominee for the 2012 general election ballot.
I'm not a lawyer, but the letter of the law is clear. Under the definition of "major" and "minor" parties in the RCW, Romney has not qualified for the ballot. Not that I expect a court to have the balls to kick him off, but technically, the law is on the Libertarian's side.
2
Whats the point of the law, and elections if you fail to enforce it?
reminds me of the city( maybe county ) ambulance/fire levy that failed a couple of years back. the day after the election the council had an emergency session to approve the funds.
whats the point?
reminds me of the city( maybe county ) ambulance/fire levy that failed a couple of years back. the day after the election the council had an emergency session to approve the funds.
whats the point?
4
This would certainly hurt McKenna's chances of getting elected. Without a GOP Presidential candidate on the ballot, many Republicans might just stay home. I don't think they'd vote Libertarian, since this is bound to create some resentment.
5
I love everything about this, except it will make WA a laughingstock nationwide.
And 100% agreed with @3 ... If the Dems tried this, it would seem like a petty trick (even if it wasn't).
And 100% agreed with @3 ... If the Dems tried this, it would seem like a petty trick (even if it wasn't).
6
we're already a laughing stock nationwide. Honestly, the East coast thinks we're the Provinces; Boeing is a Chicago company, etc.
7
@5: I would expect it to make the Washington State Republican Party a laughingstock. If anything it'd make me proud of this state for having the balls to hold all political parties to the same standard.
8
While this is an amusing proposition and even perhaps the correct proposition according to the letter of the law, it wouldn't really pass the sniff test with the American public (i.e. "Everyone knows that the Republican party is a major political party"). So for that fact alone, they should probably appear on the ballot, even if the law doesn't really say so.
However, in the event that I'm wrong, and somehow the courts actually uphold this challenge, can you image what this would do to all the WA state elections happening? If people can't vote for Romney, the turnout for this election would drastically drop in WA state, especially among right-leaning independents. This means far fewer votes for McKenna, Sanders, and a bunch of other conservative candidates and all close elections would go to the Democrats.
However, in the event that I'm wrong, and somehow the courts actually uphold this challenge, can you image what this would do to all the WA state elections happening? If people can't vote for Romney, the turnout for this election would drastically drop in WA state, especially among right-leaning independents. This means far fewer votes for McKenna, Sanders, and a bunch of other conservative candidates and all close elections would go to the Democrats.
9
The R's dropped the ball on this. They can only blame themselves for being asleep at the wheel.
And, might I add:
They invest plenty in trying to keep illegal voters from the polls. It's absolutely proper and just that we should also keep unqualified parties off the ballot.
And, might I add:
They invest plenty in trying to keep illegal voters from the polls. It's absolutely proper and just that we should also keep unqualified parties off the ballot.
10
The Rs messed up, big-time. And some way should be found to make them pay for it (make them pay the costs of printing the ballots, maybe?). Unfortunately,actually taking the moff the ballot would deny forty-some percent of Washington voters the chance to cast the (deeply misguided) vote they want to cast, and it would make not only the state party but also the state look bad; moreover, the national Republican party and Fox News would inevitably spin this as legalistic, legal voter suppression - which it would be, really. Let's leave that kind of sh!t to the Republican playbook, and denounce it, and get it blocked, and make them pay a price for trying it.
11
Not an Rmoney fan, but I think the way you parsed it is only one possible way to parse it.
You can also parse it as: "Major political party" means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year.
Where "last preceding state general election" is for the particular office being voted upon. So they shouldn't be allowed to run any senators or for any statewide offices, as they didn't run any in 2010, but they did run a president/vice president in 2008.
It's ambiguous, though I think it would be awesomely hilarious if the republicans didn't end up on the ballot due to this.
You can also parse it as: "Major political party" means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year.
Where "last preceding state general election" is for the particular office being voted upon. So they shouldn't be allowed to run any senators or for any statewide offices, as they didn't run any in 2010, but they did run a president/vice president in 2008.
It's ambiguous, though I think it would be awesomely hilarious if the republicans didn't end up on the ballot due to this.
12
This is probably a stupid question, and feel free to flame me if it is, because I'm not a lawyer or anyone who knows anything about how any of this works; but should he be taken off the ballot, could they (Republicans) not just write him in if he's not on their officially? I really am just asking.
13
And, in fact, I'd support your interpretation Goldy, only because we have I502 and R74 on the ballot. I would assume the lack of prominent (R) candidates would be good for those two.
14
@12: sure they could. It's not like the guy's got a snowball's chance in hell of winning WA state anyway. The question is how many people would send in their ballot if the candidate with the right letter after their name isn't on the ballot?
15
@9 The GOP also has hundreds of lawyers on call nationwide on election day to challenge results they don't like. You'd think there would be at least of couple of them in WA that might know about our election laws. If nothing else, McKenna's campaign should have been on top of this long ago. Another nail in the "McKenna's a shitty lawyer" coffin.
The names of the WA GOP legal team need to be published. Professional shaming is a great teacher.
The names of the WA GOP legal team need to be published. Professional shaming is a great teacher.
16
I agree wholeheartedly with #9.
If the Republicans are going to try so hard to keep people away from the polls, plus not keep up with what is supposed to be done on their end to maintain major party status, they should not be allowed to be on the ballot.
If the Republicans are going to try so hard to keep people away from the polls, plus not keep up with what is supposed to be done on their end to maintain major party status, they should not be allowed to be on the ballot.
18
I'm not a lawyer either, but in the Federal context agencies are generally afforded a lot of leeway in interpreting the statutes they administer, so long as their interpretation is a reasonable interpretation and not clearly contrary to the law. If Washington follows this practice, like most states do, I'd say the libertarians would have a tough time keeping Romney off the ballot.
However, I think people in the comments are overestimating the effect that Romney's not being on the ballot might have. I don't think most conservative voters would sit out the election because they thought they couldn't vote for Romney for President. They might believe that Adam and Eve played with dinosaurs before the flood, but they aren't so stupid as to not know about write ins. Actually, keeping Mittens off the ballot could have an energizing effect on this base - pissing them off over "activist judges" and motivating the crazies more than Romney himself could.
However, I think people in the comments are overestimating the effect that Romney's not being on the ballot might have. I don't think most conservative voters would sit out the election because they thought they couldn't vote for Romney for President. They might believe that Adam and Eve played with dinosaurs before the flood, but they aren't so stupid as to not know about write ins. Actually, keeping Mittens off the ballot could have an energizing effect on this base - pissing them off over "activist judges" and motivating the crazies more than Romney himself could.
20
This will go away with some Libertarian Randian nut getting a sweet legislature gig and that will be that.
21
@20, maybe so. Then again, maybe not. This is in the hands of the Court now.
if it were just up to Sam Reed, this would silently fade away. It's not up to him anymore, though,.
if it were just up to Sam Reed, this would silently fade away. It's not up to him anymore, though,.
24
"Candidate" may refer only to someone who runs for office. If republicans did not enter anyone in the 2010 Senate race, then there was no republican candidate at all. The second sentence of the statute could be interpreted to address only situations where the party has someone in a qualifying election (i.e., a candidate) and that candidate fails to receive the threshold percentage. If there's no candidate, the statute doesn't apply. The party has to run someone and that someone has to fall beneath the threshold percentage for the party to lose MP status.
I haven't read the pleadings, only the statute, and I don't vote in Washington anymore. Guess I'm just having fun and procrastinating.
I haven't read the pleadings, only the statute, and I don't vote in Washington anymore. Guess I'm just having fun and procrastinating.
25
no 24, that would mean every NEW minor party is a major party too.
the literalists are right. the statute is clear. it's funny how people say they're glad the dems didn't bring this suit, isn't it? as if dems need to eschew real levers of power or else...what? people might stop perceiving them as totally wussy? they obey the eyman thing mostly, without challenging it. tthey should have sued this time. esp. where it's an ag running for gov, trumpet how the law is clear and he fucked up and he could have qualified like a minor party did but he's a BAD LAWYER like in the health care suit, so btw he'd be a bad gov too, etc. etc.
but no, democrats got no balls, no balls ata all. shoe on other foot? gop would sue in a heartbeat. they are not afraid to use power.
the literalists are right. the statute is clear. it's funny how people say they're glad the dems didn't bring this suit, isn't it? as if dems need to eschew real levers of power or else...what? people might stop perceiving them as totally wussy? they obey the eyman thing mostly, without challenging it. tthey should have sued this time. esp. where it's an ag running for gov, trumpet how the law is clear and he fucked up and he could have qualified like a minor party did but he's a BAD LAWYER like in the health care suit, so btw he'd be a bad gov too, etc. etc.
but no, democrats got no balls, no balls ata all. shoe on other foot? gop would sue in a heartbeat. they are not afraid to use power.
26
@25, nope. The first sentence of the statute addresses qualifying in the first instance. The second sentence addresses losing MP status once a party has it.
28
The Libertarian Party and Goldy are both incorrect on two counts. Based on Initiative 872, formal party nominations are irrelevant. The primary vote that sent Murray and Rossi to the general election is what counted. Why do you think the parties opposed the initiative? If you finish the primary in first or second place, you are your declared party's nominee even if they hate you.
Secondly, and more importantly, the WAC is also law as much as the RCW. WAC 434-208-130 was effective 1/6/12 thereby updating the definition in RCW 29A.04.086 and limiting the political offices to President and Vice President (which is why the even-year requirement is no longer relevant). If x = y and then x = z, x = z. I know, logic, much like math, is hard.
I would ask why Goldy still has a job at The Stranger, but then I remember that it's The Stranger.
Secondly, and more importantly, the WAC is also law as much as the RCW. WAC 434-208-130 was effective 1/6/12 thereby updating the definition in RCW 29A.04.086 and limiting the political offices to President and Vice President (which is why the even-year requirement is no longer relevant). If x = y and then x = z, x = z. I know, logic, much like math, is hard.
I would ask why Goldy still has a job at The Stranger, but then I remember that it's The Stranger.
29
Just like social conservatives say that there's already marriage equality because homos are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, this is fine for Republican voters because they're still free to vote for the Democrat.
31
The Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson is actually legit and not insane. Former governor of New Mexico and was running for the Republican nomination.
He might do alright.
He might do alright.
32
@27- I have to look up things like that.
@28- "Declared the party's candidate"? The state and/or the voters don't get to declare who is in which party, they're private entities. I have no idea where you got that idea, but it's absurd.
@28- "Declared the party's candidate"? The state and/or the voters don't get to declare who is in which party, they're private entities. I have no idea where you got that idea, but it's absurd.
34
Last election Sarah Palin got some nobody nominated as the Republican senate candidate so Lisa Murkowski, the then sitting Republican Senator, ran as a write in and won.
36
Since we have only two senators, and their terms are six years, does that mean that on those off-year elections when there is no senator on the ballot that neither party qualifies as a major party in the next election?
37
Romney also received donations from foreigners - Federal law say that is jail, so he would be out.
Ron Paul would win!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/12/…
and
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/14/…
Ron Paul would win!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/12/…
and
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/14/…
38
Romeny also received donations from foreigner. Under Federal law = jail time, so he would be out. Ron Paul would win!
Proof 1 and 2:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/12/…
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/14/…
Proof 1 and 2:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/12/…
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/14/…
39
You do realize people can just write in Romney's name, right?
Still, good job Libertarian Party. These 2 criminal organizations (R and D) have manipulated our election laws (and others) for too long. Long past time using those laws against them.
Still, good job Libertarian Party. These 2 criminal organizations (R and D) have manipulated our election laws (and others) for too long. Long past time using those laws against them.
40
Washington is pretty much a useless state for federal elections, anyway. Our primaries and caucuses are so late in the year that we have virtually no control over who's on the ballot: most of the candidates have typically dropped out by the time we get to choose which one we prefer.
States like Iowa get 10 or 20 candidates to choose from. At best, we might get 3 or 4. This would just mean we get (assuming Obama is running for re-election) one.
It has no practical effect, since Washington wouldn't vote Republican anyway, especially if Romney is the nominee. It has little philosophical effect, since our primaries/caucuses are already set up to be useless. It's a cute news bite, but that's about it.
States like Iowa get 10 or 20 candidates to choose from. At best, we might get 3 or 4. This would just mean we get (assuming Obama is running for re-election) one.
It has no practical effect, since Washington wouldn't vote Republican anyway, especially if Romney is the nominee. It has little philosophical effect, since our primaries/caucuses are already set up to be useless. It's a cute news bite, but that's about it.
41
And there's a point at this point other than juvenile narcissism? such as, Romney had a chance in Washington State otherwise? whatever happened to young people making a difference, instead of jerking off in public?
42
This is pretty funny, and it appears that Romney is not technically qualified to appear on the ballot, however all the people saying the Republican turnout in Washington would drop should remember that you can always write in your vote. Republicans could still vote for Romney in the presidential election, and you can be sure that if by some miracle Romney didn't appear on the WA ballot, the Republican party would do everything they could to make sure that people knew that they could write Romney in. The Republican turnout wouldn't drop any noticeable amount. Also the electoral college makes this irrelevant anyway, as WA will undoubtedly go blue, and only Maine and Nebraska can split electoral votes. No matter what happens all of WA's votes go to Obama.
43
Y'all with the write-on hardon do realize that most Romney voters are too stupid to spell his name, right?
44
Seriously, if "hanging chads" can cause a legitimate vote to be overturned, then idiots scrawling "Rahhhmnkneeeee" on a ballot shouldn't have a say in who next controls out nuclear weapons.
45
Would be sweet payback for the stupid "I'm Dino Rossi, but I'm not reeeally an (R) wink-wink nudge-nudge bullshit from the last election.
Oh, if only.
Oh, if only.
46
You could possibly interpret "election at which a candidate of that party does not achieve at least five percent" to mean that there must be a CANDIDATE who has failed to achieve 5%. Without the candidate there, success or failure to reach 5% cannot be contemplated.
Of course, I'd much rather see Romney fail to get on the ballot, because that would be enjoyably hilarious. And if this interpretation is correct, it might be possible to revive a dead political party that once received over 5% of the vote but hasn't fielded a candidate since. Whig party!
Of course, I'd much rather see Romney fail to get on the ballot, because that would be enjoyably hilarious. And if this interpretation is correct, it might be possible to revive a dead political party that once received over 5% of the vote but hasn't fielded a candidate since. Whig party!
47
Washington state should keep them under minor party. Follow the law. Anything less is being a hypocrite.
48
Where is Danny's outrage?....
AP- "An FBI affidavit in the investigation of a shooting Wednesday at the downtown Washington, D.C., offices of the Family Research Council says the accused gunman uttered a statement to the effect of, "I don't like your politics," before reaching into a backpack for a handgun and opening fire.
Homosexual activist Floyd Lee Corkins II, of Herndon, Va., 28, is charged with assault with intent to kill.
"Corkins said he was "given a license" by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which labeled the Family Research Council as a hate group.
"The Southern Poverty Law Center declined an interview request from the program.
"Corkins had volunteered recently at a community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
"The accused gunman's parents told the FBI that their son held "strong opinions with respect to those who do not treat homosexuals in a preferential manner," the affidvit said.
"Corkins had been volunteering for roughly six months at The DC Center for the LGBT Community, according to David Mariner, executive director of the northwest Washington community center. Corkins usually staffed the center's front desk on Saturdays, and his most recent shift was about two weeks ago."
AP- "An FBI affidavit in the investigation of a shooting Wednesday at the downtown Washington, D.C., offices of the Family Research Council says the accused gunman uttered a statement to the effect of, "I don't like your politics," before reaching into a backpack for a handgun and opening fire.
Homosexual activist Floyd Lee Corkins II, of Herndon, Va., 28, is charged with assault with intent to kill.
"Corkins said he was "given a license" by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which labeled the Family Research Council as a hate group.
"The Southern Poverty Law Center declined an interview request from the program.
"Corkins had volunteered recently at a community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
"The accused gunman's parents told the FBI that their son held "strong opinions with respect to those who do not treat homosexuals in a preferential manner," the affidvit said.
"Corkins had been volunteering for roughly six months at The DC Center for the LGBT Community, according to David Mariner, executive director of the northwest Washington community center. Corkins usually staffed the center's front desk on Saturdays, and his most recent shift was about two weeks ago."
50
@48: Here's my outrage, cuntpasted from the thread about the rightly penalized creep:
You can't expect people to care about what you're saying when you're LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.
Here is the ACTUAL source for your "quote". No, the Associated Press did not publish that story; it's actually from Fox News. No, Corkins was not described as a "homosexual activist'; you fabricated that phrase yourself. No, the "given a license" bit about the SPLC was not uttered by Corkins, but rather by Tony Perkins.
You also replaced "fair" with "preferential" with regard to the treatment of homosexuals in Corkins's opinion, and omitted large portions of the story without replacing them with ellipses, despite your punctuation denoting a direct quote.
If you want to argue a point based on facts, that's fine. While we may not agree with your views, I will treat you with respect if you base your stances on fact. However, when you attempt to alter the facts to fit your perverse worldview, you lose not only my respect, but any hope of credibility. Nobody plays poker with a man who cheats at craps.
You can't expect people to care about what you're saying when you're LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.
Here is the ACTUAL source for your "quote". No, the Associated Press did not publish that story; it's actually from Fox News. No, Corkins was not described as a "homosexual activist'; you fabricated that phrase yourself. No, the "given a license" bit about the SPLC was not uttered by Corkins, but rather by Tony Perkins.
You also replaced "fair" with "preferential" with regard to the treatment of homosexuals in Corkins's opinion, and omitted large portions of the story without replacing them with ellipses, despite your punctuation denoting a direct quote.
If you want to argue a point based on facts, that's fine. While we may not agree with your views, I will treat you with respect if you base your stances on fact. However, when you attempt to alter the facts to fit your perverse worldview, you lose not only my respect, but any hope of credibility. Nobody plays poker with a man who cheats at craps.
51
Under Top-Two, candidates can state their party preference, which doesn't constitute an endorsement by that party of that candidate. The question to be answered is whether that still clears the bar of making the candidate a "candidate of that party."
The phrase that pays:
"A political party qualifying as a major political party under this section retains such status until the next even-year election at which a candidate of that party does not achieve at least five percent of the vote for one of the previously specified offices."
The question that this should turn on is whether Dino Rossi--though not a NOMINEE of the GOP--was "a CANDIDATE of that party." If he was, Romney stays on (and the precedent is set for future races that stated party preferences and party nominations, while not the same thing, are both valid for determining party status). If not, Romney might have a problem.
The phrase that pays:
"A political party qualifying as a major political party under this section retains such status until the next even-year election at which a candidate of that party does not achieve at least five percent of the vote for one of the previously specified offices."
The question that this should turn on is whether Dino Rossi--though not a NOMINEE of the GOP--was "a CANDIDATE of that party." If he was, Romney stays on (and the precedent is set for future races that stated party preferences and party nominations, while not the same thing, are both valid for determining party status). If not, Romney might have a problem.
52
@48 - Dan expressed outrage from the moment the story broke via his Twitter feed. Now go take a lesson from @50 about how to not fuck up your obviously biased, homophobicly unregistered Slog comments and head back to the sand box, ok?
53
I guess it depends on what the definition of 'is' is (shades of Clintonian obfuscation).
DO these people 'prefer republican party', are they their party's candidates, or their nominees?
Splitting hairs eventually makes a mess....
I can not see why the rule of law would fail to proceed. IF that means disqualifing a whole slate of Partisan candidates (nominees) because of it, then so be it.
I say, write better laws.
Personally, I would like to go back to the open caucus days where I did not have to declare partisan affiliation for the right to vote in any election.
DO these people 'prefer republican party', are they their party's candidates, or their nominees?
Splitting hairs eventually makes a mess....
I can not see why the rule of law would fail to proceed. IF that means disqualifing a whole slate of Partisan candidates (nominees) because of it, then so be it.
I say, write better laws.
Personally, I would like to go back to the open caucus days where I did not have to declare partisan affiliation for the right to vote in any election.
54
The Republicans have been pulling this kind of crap on the Libertarians in (at least) Michigan, Virginia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Iowa...turnabout is fair play.
55
Where's Rob McKenna, the state's lawyer on this law suit? Crickets from him.
As I recall he was much quicker to respond and expend state resources to fight ObamaCare.
As I recall he was much quicker to respond and expend state resources to fight ObamaCare.
56
From Katie Blinn, state elections co-director:
The State Libertarian party has sued the Secretary of State’s Office to stop the Secretary of State from placing Mitt Romney’s name on the 2012 General Election ballot. The lawsuit argues that the Republican Party is now a “minor” party in Washington state, rather than a “major” party, and therefore the Republican Party should have followed the rules for placing minor party candidates on the Presidential ballot. The Libertarian Party cites RCW 29A.04.086 as their basis for arguing that the Republican Party is now a minor party.
RCW 29A.04.086 has a definition of “major” party. This definition was enacted in April 2004 as part of the legislation to implement the Pick-a-Party Primary system. That primary system was replaced in November 2004 when Initiative 872 passed. Initiative 872 established a Top Two Primary system.
The political parties, including the State Libertarian Party, have been suing the State for 8 years to overturn the Top Two Primary system. In that litigation, both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have held that passage of Initiative 872 repealed the previous Pick-a-Party nominating primary system. The Legislature has been reluctant to repeal the Pick-a-Party statutes and enact new ones that reflect the Top Two system until the litigation is over (which is expected to occur in late September this year). So while RCW 29A.04.086 is still on the books, much of it is no longer operative because it has been impliedly repealed by Initiative 872. This is true for many RCWs in Title 29A that provide procedures and definitions applicable to the old Pick-a-Party Primary system.
We have resolved these discrepancies in WAC 434-208-130, which states:
(1) For purposes of RCW 29A.04.086, "major political party" means a political party whose nominees for president and vice-president received at least five percent of the total votes cast for that office at the last preceding presidential election. A political party that qualifies as a major political party retains such status until the next presidential election at which the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of that party do not receive at least five percent of the votes cast.
(2) For purposes of RCW 42.17A.005, the secretary of state recognizes as a minor political party a political party whose nominees for president and vice-president qualified to appear on the ballot in the last preceding presidential election according to the minor party nomination process provided in RCW 29A.20.111 through 29A.20.201. A political party that qualifies as a minor political party retains such status until certification of the next presidential election. This definition is for purposes of chapter 42.17A RCW only.
(3) As allowed by WAC 434-215-012, 434-215-120, and 434-215-130, candidates for partisan office may state a preference for any political party and are not restricted to stating a preference for a political party that meets the definition of major or minor political party. A candidate's party preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by that party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate. With the exception of elections for president and vice-president, a party's status as a major or minor political party, or a candidate's preference for a major or minor political party, plays no role in how candidates qualify to appear on the primary election ballot, qualify to appear on the general election ballot, or are elected to public office.
This WAC reconciles RCW 29A.04.086 with a Top Two Primary system to the extent that they can be reconciled. For example, we continue to use a 5% threshold. But since the Presidential/VP election is now the only race on the ballot in which candidates appear on the ballot as representatives of their party, as nominees of their party, as candidates of their party, then only the Presidential/VP election can be used to qualify parties as “major” parties.
Because the 2008 Republican nominees for President and Vice-President received at least 5% of the total votes cast for that office in the 2008 presidential election, the Republican Party retains its status as a major party until the next presidential election at which its nominees do not receive at least 5% of the votes cast.
More...
The State Libertarian party has sued the Secretary of State’s Office to stop the Secretary of State from placing Mitt Romney’s name on the 2012 General Election ballot. The lawsuit argues that the Republican Party is now a “minor” party in Washington state, rather than a “major” party, and therefore the Republican Party should have followed the rules for placing minor party candidates on the Presidential ballot. The Libertarian Party cites RCW 29A.04.086 as their basis for arguing that the Republican Party is now a minor party.
RCW 29A.04.086 has a definition of “major” party. This definition was enacted in April 2004 as part of the legislation to implement the Pick-a-Party Primary system. That primary system was replaced in November 2004 when Initiative 872 passed. Initiative 872 established a Top Two Primary system.
The political parties, including the State Libertarian Party, have been suing the State for 8 years to overturn the Top Two Primary system. In that litigation, both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have held that passage of Initiative 872 repealed the previous Pick-a-Party nominating primary system. The Legislature has been reluctant to repeal the Pick-a-Party statutes and enact new ones that reflect the Top Two system until the litigation is over (which is expected to occur in late September this year). So while RCW 29A.04.086 is still on the books, much of it is no longer operative because it has been impliedly repealed by Initiative 872. This is true for many RCWs in Title 29A that provide procedures and definitions applicable to the old Pick-a-Party Primary system.
We have resolved these discrepancies in WAC 434-208-130, which states:
(1) For purposes of RCW 29A.04.086, "major political party" means a political party whose nominees for president and vice-president received at least five percent of the total votes cast for that office at the last preceding presidential election. A political party that qualifies as a major political party retains such status until the next presidential election at which the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of that party do not receive at least five percent of the votes cast.
(2) For purposes of RCW 42.17A.005, the secretary of state recognizes as a minor political party a political party whose nominees for president and vice-president qualified to appear on the ballot in the last preceding presidential election according to the minor party nomination process provided in RCW 29A.20.111 through 29A.20.201. A political party that qualifies as a minor political party retains such status until certification of the next presidential election. This definition is for purposes of chapter 42.17A RCW only.
(3) As allowed by WAC 434-215-012, 434-215-120, and 434-215-130, candidates for partisan office may state a preference for any political party and are not restricted to stating a preference for a political party that meets the definition of major or minor political party. A candidate's party preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by that party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate. With the exception of elections for president and vice-president, a party's status as a major or minor political party, or a candidate's preference for a major or minor political party, plays no role in how candidates qualify to appear on the primary election ballot, qualify to appear on the general election ballot, or are elected to public office.
This WAC reconciles RCW 29A.04.086 with a Top Two Primary system to the extent that they can be reconciled. For example, we continue to use a 5% threshold. But since the Presidential/VP election is now the only race on the ballot in which candidates appear on the ballot as representatives of their party, as nominees of their party, as candidates of their party, then only the Presidential/VP election can be used to qualify parties as “major” parties.
Because the 2008 Republican nominees for President and Vice-President received at least 5% of the total votes cast for that office in the 2008 presidential election, the Republican Party retains its status as a major party until the next presidential election at which its nominees do not receive at least 5% of the votes cast.
58
Um...waitaminnit. Here's what I don't get:
- RCW is the Revised Washington Codes, the laws passed by the Legislature and the people of the State.
- WAC is the Washington Administrative Codes, the regulations promulgated by various State agencies to administer the RCW.
Is it somehow legal in Washington to amend a law by the act of a State agency rather than by the decision of the Legislature or the will of the people (theoretically the same thing)?
Because that's exactly what's being cited in the original story and in 56 above...and unless y'all have a REALLY unusual Constitution, it's nothing approaching legal. I have no particular use for capital-L Libertarians - every one I've encountered has been a smug asshole, usually wearing black from head to toe - but in this case they might actually have a point,
- RCW is the Revised Washington Codes, the laws passed by the Legislature and the people of the State.
- WAC is the Washington Administrative Codes, the regulations promulgated by various State agencies to administer the RCW.
Is it somehow legal in Washington to amend a law by the act of a State agency rather than by the decision of the Legislature or the will of the people (theoretically the same thing)?
Because that's exactly what's being cited in the original story and in 56 above...and unless y'all have a REALLY unusual Constitution, it's nothing approaching legal. I have no particular use for capital-L Libertarians - every one I've encountered has been a smug asshole, usually wearing black from head to toe - but in this case they might actually have a point,
59
So if I read that right, Katie is saying that they used to WAC she listed to redefine the RCW. But I think that is not news, especially given that the Lib suit is saying they can't do that in this bit that was at the end of the article above
The subject WAC regulation purporting to redefine “major” and “minor” parties is therefor unlawful. A WAC regulation cannot change the definitions for “major” and “minor” political parties set out in the statute. The Republican Party is a “minor” political party for the 2012 election cycle, and has failed to qualify any presidential nominee for the 2012 general election ballot.
The subject WAC regulation purporting to redefine “major” and “minor” parties is therefor unlawful. A WAC regulation cannot change the definitions for “major” and “minor” political parties set out in the statute. The Republican Party is a “minor” political party for the 2012 election cycle, and has failed to qualify any presidential nominee for the 2012 general election ballot.
60
@58 "Is it somehow legal in Washington to amend a law by the act of a State agency rather than by the decision of the Legislature or the will of the people (theoretically the same thing)?"
I-872, revised the RCW. The argument above is that the WAC properly clarifies the amiguities and discrepancies arising from the Initiative.
I-872, revised the RCW. The argument above is that the WAC properly clarifies the amiguities and discrepancies arising from the Initiative.
61
Pipe dream of course. But it would be so wonderful if that filthy mormon would be removed from Washington's ballot!
62
@60: Nope (and you'll forgive me if I doubt you're actually Tim Eyman). I-872 addresses exactly NOTHING in the cited RCW. And said RCW is entirely unambiguous; any ambiguities are created by the selfsame WAC cited.
Sorry, but if "ambiguities and discrepancies" in a passed law need to be corrected, you don't do it by administrative rule. Try again.
Sorry, but if "ambiguities and discrepancies" in a passed law need to be corrected, you don't do it by administrative rule. Try again.
63
And @61: Fuck you. I have zero use for Romney, but his religion is not a bar to his election. (Exercise for the student: replace "mormon" in post 61 with "Jew", "nigger", "queer",, "Muslim" or "Catholic" and see how good you feel.)
64
@28: No, nomination is a specific process that is done only once, at a convention. It isn't done retroactively, and it is a different thing from endorsement. If they didn't select an official nominee at the time and place they say they will, then there is no nominee.
Right now in my LD, my party has no nominee for one of its state rep positions, because our nominee hasn't (based on results so far) made it through the primary. We might *endorse* the Democrat that did, but that does not make him the nominee, because we already did that in March.
And WAC does not override RCW. RCW is the law as passed by the Legislature. WACs are rules that agencies write up for themselves for things that either aren't in the law, or that they are allowed, by law, to decide for themselves. Sam Reed can write all the WACs he wants, but he does not have the power to overrule the Legislature. In legal rock-paper-scissors, RCW beats WAC.
Right now in my LD, my party has no nominee for one of its state rep positions, because our nominee hasn't (based on results so far) made it through the primary. We might *endorse* the Democrat that did, but that does not make him the nominee, because we already did that in March.
And WAC does not override RCW. RCW is the law as passed by the Legislature. WACs are rules that agencies write up for themselves for things that either aren't in the law, or that they are allowed, by law, to decide for themselves. Sam Reed can write all the WACs he wants, but he does not have the power to overrule the Legislature. In legal rock-paper-scissors, RCW beats WAC.
65
It's not going to matter for the outcome of the presidential election. Mitt Romney has no chance of winning Washington State unless he's already winning the national popular vote, and therefore the electoral college, in a landslide. It might have an impact on downballot races by affecting turnout, though.
66
This lawsuit is using the letter of the law to undermine the spirit. Everyone who was paying attention to the WA Senate race in 2010 understood that Rossi was the Republican nominee. He may not have been the nominee according to the letter of the law because they didn't hold a formal convention, but the party was behind him in every way that mattered and they would have held a convention to formally nominate him if they'd anticipated this. The lack of a formal convention shouldn't be considered to negate everything that the party did to support its nominee-in-all-but-legal-paperwork. I'm glad that Democrats don't resort to dirty, democracy-undermining shenanigans like this lawsuit. The Libertarians might think this'll get them more votes for Gary Johnson, but really, they're just being dumb.
67
"This lawsuit is using the letter of the law to undermine the spirit."
Yes, and this is on purpose. You know what the spirit of the law is, the spirit is "There shall be only two parties, and they shall be the Democrats and the Republicans, and all the others will be called 'minor' parties.". It's offensive and an affront to democracy. Codifying two parties into the law is no better than codifying just one (like the communists typically do).
This isn't about getting votes. It's about forcing the people who write the law to admit that the basic idea is to make sure that the only parties that are ever taken seriously by anybody are the democrats and the republicans.
Yes, and this is on purpose. You know what the spirit of the law is, the spirit is "There shall be only two parties, and they shall be the Democrats and the Republicans, and all the others will be called 'minor' parties.". It's offensive and an affront to democracy. Codifying two parties into the law is no better than codifying just one (like the communists typically do).
This isn't about getting votes. It's about forcing the people who write the law to admit that the basic idea is to make sure that the only parties that are ever taken seriously by anybody are the democrats and the republicans.
68
What if this lawsuit succeeds and Ron Paul takes the nomination instead of Romney? I would be truly pissed at the LP (and I am a libertarian, tho no longer a dues paying member of the LP due to their running a LINO like Bob Barr last election) if they made it impossible for anyone to vote for Ron Paul in the State of Washington. Gary Johnson is a good candidate for the LP but he comes up very short when compared to Ron Paul in the restoration of liberty and of Constitutional governance from DC.
69
What is the point of elections if any Tom, Dick or Harry can vote and there is no ID requirement?
71
@70: The Democratic Party has been around since 1792 or 1828 depending on how you look at it. The Republican Party has been around since 1854.
You are not a geologist, so your idea of what is "fairly recent" leads me to believe you are a nitwit.
You are not a geologist, so your idea of what is "fairly recent" leads me to believe you are a nitwit.
72
@63: If it was "Jew" as a descriptor for someone of Hebrew/"Jewish" ethnicity who does not practice Judaism, "nigger", or "queer," then it would be offensive as fuck. If it were "Jew" because the individual actually practices Judaism, "Muslim," or "Catholic," then it would be perfectly fine. Religion is a choice and some (many!) choices are bad and render those making them less fit to hold office.
73
Turnabout is fair play. Lets see the WA GOP have to collect thousands of petition signatures to make it onto the ballot. This also means that the GOP candidates shouldn't get a podium at election debates.
74
You mean the "Libertarians' side," not the "Libertarian's side," unless you're referring to one particular Libertarian? Proofread, or have someone who can do it for you
75
What about those that are registered Washington State voters that are supporters of the Republican party and wish to vote for Romney/Ryan? Sounds like discrimination.
76
The D and R parties get their comeuppance formaking ballot access so complex and difficult. I hope the courts do their duty to the law, not the politics
77
Now that rules were bent and broken at the RNC, Romney is trying to keep Johnson from being on the ballot in all 50 states. Sounds like he's getting a taste of his own medicine.
78
I like this post,And I guess that they having fun to read this post,they shall take a good site to make a information,thanks for sharing it to me.
cyprus website design
I like this post,And I guess that they having fun to read this post,they shall take a good site to make a information,thanks for sharing it to me.
cyprus website design
79
I was surfing net and fortunately came across this site and found very interesting stuff here. Its really fun to read. I enjoyed a lot. Thanks for sharing this wonderful information. buy facebook likes
80
I was curious if you ever considered changing the page layout of your blog? Its very well written.
Go to Ecco Tower Co
I was curious if you ever considered changing the page layout of your blog? Its very well written.
Go to Ecco Tower Co
81
I havent any word to appreciate this post.....Really i am impressed from this post....the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us.
bar mitzvah en israel
I havent any word to appreciate this post.....Really i am impressed from this post....the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us.
bar mitzvah en israel
82
I just found this blog and have high hopes for it to continue. Keep up the great work, its hard to find good ones. I have added to my favorites. Thank You.
http://bodog88bookie.com
http://bodog88bookie.com
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (82) RSS