Volunteers at polling places have been warned to brace themselves for nastiness tommorow, from Washington voters incensed they now must choose a Republican or Democratic ballot in the primary. We're not that kind of state, see - we want to "vote for the person, not the party."
Myself, I had my revenge, quietly and effectively, filling out my absentee ballot, which I have mailed in. I wouldn't call it revenge, actually, just common sense.
One of my top priority races is for Washington Governor: I support Republican Dino Rossi. But he has no significant opposition in the primary, and I'd like him to face the Democrat most likely to lose to him in November's general election.
So for the purposes of this primary, I declared myself a Democrat and voted for the Che Guevara candidate, Ron Sims, for Governor. State party officials who pushed for the new primary system should be aware I'm probably far from the only voter subverting the anticipated paradigm in the primary.
Like many voters, I may identify more often with one party (in my case now, Republican), but don't want to be put in a box, by party label. A further example, in my case, is that in November, I might very well vote for Democrat Mark Sidran for Attorney General, IF he beats his primary opponent, Deborah Senn. I just voted for Sidran in the primary - the conservative Democrat is someone I''ve had a chance to watch over the years in the Seattle political arena, and admire greatly.
Sages and seers will be watching closely the turnout in this primary to divine whether the mandatory party declaration dampens participation. A significant amount of ballot spoilage, stemming from confusion, could occur, as well.
A November ballot measure sponsored by the Washington Grange, Initiative 872, would restore the blanket primary AND stipulate the top two primary voter-getters for any office advance to the general election, regardless of political party.
I'm for the first part; not so much the second, but even that doesn't faze me too much. If such a system were already in place, you'd probably still end up with a D and an R squaring off in the general, for most major statewide offices.
And in one-party locales like Seattle, primary and general election campaigns for the state legislature could be greatly invigorated with the "top two go forward" approach. Imagine having a more conservative Democratic challenger going up against Seattle liberal D legislators for life! In the general! Scary, scary, to the Ds, I know. The Rs have their own reasons for hating all this, too.
I-872 could pass, fueled by voter resentment. If it does, the expected legal challenge by the state's parties will only alienate voters further, and ultimately discourage particpation in the political process. Which is maybe what the parties here really want, in the end. Sad to say.
Cross-posted at Rosenblog.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at September 13, 2004 11:27 AM | Email ThisParties perform valuable services for both voters and candidates (e.g. organization, fund-raising, branding). With a top-two system, in many races you will have two candidates from the same party, and no candidate from the other party. The parties will thus be weakened and they will wither. But the services they provide will have to be provided by somebody else -- and by whom? Candidates who have (or can purchase) name recognition independent of the parties will be favored. This strengthens incumbents and even more so than it does today -- celebrities, the wealthy, and representatives of moneyed interests. I'd rather keep strong parties, while they're still open to grassroots activists from all walks of life.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on September 13, 2004 12:46 PMThe party bosses (after meeting with Gregoire and Locke) sued to invalidate the blanket primary (a Washington tradition for over 70 years). They argued it is unconstitutional because the "freedom of [political] association clause" in the US Consitution should allow only Democrats to nominate Democratic candidates (and the same for any major party.)
The same day that the party bosses sued, Gregoire drafted and signed an order in federal court agreeing that Washington's blanket primary is unconstitutional. The order (a preliminary injunction) barred Sam Reed from conducting a blanket primary, unless the parties could end cross voting, and have the state provide a list of registered party voters to the party bosses.
However, the Grange reversed Gregoire's order and the federal district court ruled that Washington's primary is constitutional. Then, on appeal, Gregoire did a reversal and became a supporter (mostly just lip service) of the Grange appeal and the blanket primary. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately disagreed and ended our cherished blanket primary.
But there's more . . .
The legislature passed a new primary law that would allow a different but legal top two open primary (similar to the proposal in the Grange's I-872.) Locke vetoed this "cajun-style" open primary, and the Grange sued to invalidate the veto.
Secretary of State Sam Reed was also a named defendant in this new lawsuit, but Reed was supportive of the cajun-style primary. While Attorney General Gregoire defended Locke's office with her best attorneys, Sam Reed had no confidence that she would defend the law as passed by the legislature, and Reed hired a private law firm to defend the cajun-style primary.
Locke (and Gregoire) won the lawsuit, and now we have party ballots. The political parties are happy with this although they would have preferred a registered list of party voters, which Gregoire tried to give them.
Gregoire has never adequately defended Washington's tradition of an open primary, and only gives lip service to it.
Yet, as Matt shows, voters still have the last laugh. Without a registered list, a Republican like myself can still screw up the works by requesting a Democrat ballot and voting for the least electable candidate.
The only problem is that I couldn't vote for myself. I am a PCO candidate on the Republican ticket for Legislative District 22. My wife hopes I get zero votes so that I don't take on any new jobs or projects. Talk about irony.
Posted by: Tim Ford on September 13, 2004 03:38 PMI'll soon post "Will Washington (and California) Cross the Rubicon?"
SR
Posted by: Steve Rankin on September 22, 2004 12:04 PMI'll soon post "Will Washington (and California) Cross the Rubicon?"
SR
Posted by: Steve Rankin on September 22, 2004 12:05 PM