Secretary of State Sam Reed, who was one of the main promoters of the idiotic top two primary that was ruled unconstitutonal by a federal judge yesterday, is feeling blue:
Secretary of State Sam Reed said he was unhappy with Zilly's ruling. "I'm disappointed for the people of Washington who just really believe they have the right to vote for the best person and not the party," said Reed, who backed I-872.Of course the people of Washington still have the right to vote for the best person -- in the general election, even if they don't have the privilege of helping pick the nominee of a party they're not affiliated with. I suspect Reed's disappointed primarily (no pun intended) because he must realize that under a partisan primary system he stands little chance of being nominated for re-election, at least not as a Republican. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 16, 2005 10:09 AM | Email This
What an Elite you are. Apprarently the Republican Party means more to you than the overwhelming choice of the people of the State of Washington. Thank God for that activist Reagan appointed Judge, eh?
Thankfully, even if this decision is upheld, I'm pretty sure that even the GOP is not stupid enough to follow your advice and turn away Sam Reed, the rank and file is neither that hateful or stupid. But here's hoping that you all spend your time deciding how is "Republican enough" from now on.
The decision is foolish. The GOP can nominate whoever they want, but that should not exclude anyone from the Public ballot for the Public election paid for by, oh yeah, the Public. That Elites like you want to take away choice from the people is no surprise. That more on this board don't take you to task for it is a bit interesting.
Posted by: JDB on July 16, 2005 10:27 AMBenton County Commissioners voted last month to do the same. There will be 3 polling places for those who wish to do so, BUT, they must bring the ballot that is mailed to them since there will not be ballots available at the designated polling places.
Mel
Try a little consistency. Either argue the rule and letter of the law, or argue right and wrong. You can't have it both ways...though you must be somewhat accustomed to having it both ways.
Posted by: Danny on July 16, 2005 11:01 AMSR might still have a career as a (hack) politician - bit only if he aligns himself with the darkside. I hear those democraps are pretty good at throwing elections....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 16, 2005 11:08 AMUnfortunately Rob McKenna will need to go, as well.
Posted by: Don on July 16, 2005 11:57 AMBut, he is nevertheless right. Voters in the Seattle resent paying for a party based primary system. They also resent the stranglehold the two parties - who both have moved to extremes - over elections.
So, if you want to run one candidate and choose him from within the party, go ahead, but you ought to run and pay for your own primary.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on July 16, 2005 12:02 PMThe Rhinos will not even consider replacing McCenna unless he were to turn into another Sam Reed and there are too many Rhinos that are perfectly happy with Reed in office. Good example how far to the left the party has slid.
They are estatic having a republican sitting in the AG's office. My question to you is would you prefer the Christine Fraudiore clone named Jay Manning or McCenna?
I'm afraid that integrity, principle and ethical values went down the toilet many moons ago.
Mel
Would you like the Presidential candidate to work the same way in the primary?
Posted by: sgmmac on July 16, 2005 12:28 PMYou suggest that "the parties should nominate whoever they want, but not exclude anyone from the public ballot that the public pays for."
And in that, you agree precisely with the position the parties have taken. Anyone can file for office ---- just not as a "Republican" or "Democrat", Libnertarian, Green, etc. That is what the parties are asking for, and that is what Judge Zilly has agreed with.
It was "Progressive Era" reform that required the parties to nominate by public primary. And, of course, if the state requires something as being in the public interest, the state should be the one to pay for it. If the state (the voters, the legislature) wants to eliminate the requirement for a partisan primary (as the voters did in passing Initiative 872), then it should be up to the parties to pay the cost of nominating their candidates (as the parties are doing this year.)
The issue of "who pays" is really backing into the question. the real question is this: should the parties be required to nominate their candidates by a public partisan primary? Or do the voters prefer that the parties nominate their candidates by convention? In either case, of course, the voters make the final choice on who gets elected (and can vote for third party candidates if the two major parties don't reflect the voter desires.)
What the Grange is attempting to do is to deny the parties the right to nominate altogether. And that is something quite different. And unconstitutional.
Posted by: DIck on July 16, 2005 12:35 PMYou suggest that "the parties should nominate whoever they want, but not exclude anyone from the public ballot that the public pays for."
And in that, you agree precisely with the position the parties have taken. Anyone can file for office ---- just not as a "Republican" or "Democrat", Libnertarian, Green, etc. That is what the parties are asking for, and that is what Judge Zilly has agreed with.
It was "Progressive Era" reform that required the parties to nominate by public primary. And, of course, if the state requires something as being in the public interest, the state should be the one to pay for it. If the state (the voters, the legislature) wants to eliminate the requirement for a partisan primary (as the voters did in passing Initiative 872), then it should be up to the parties to pay the cost of nominating their candidates (as the parties are doing this year.)
The issue of "who pays" is really backing into the question. the real question is this: should the parties be required to nominate their candidates by a public partisan primary? Or do the voters prefer that the parties nominate their candidates by convention? In either case, of course, the voters make the final choice on who gets elected (and can vote for third party candidates if the two major parties don't reflect the voter desires.)
What the Grange is attempting to do is to deny the parties the right to nominate altogether. And that is something quite different. And unconstitutional.
Posted by: DIck on July 16, 2005 12:36 PMI propose as Republican candidate for WA Secretary of State next time around:
Stefan Sharkansky.
Seriously. He has already more than proved that he can do the elections oversight job, which is a primary duty of the SOS.
I also have to comment on the suggestion that AG Rob McKenna should be replaced: You can't be serious: Rob McKenna is a TERRIFIC AG. I heard him speak in person at 2004 WSFB Legisative Days; talked to him briefly a couple times during the campaign. He is a strong advocate of private property rights, and just the kind of electable Republican we want in high office. Remember that the AG does not get to pick and choose which State laws s/he defends.
Methow Ken
Posted by: Methow Ken on July 16, 2005 01:19 PMMcKenna is actively trying to cover-up Gregoire's racketeering. He knows I have proof of it and yet he is allowing sttorneys in his office to represent her in a recall action by me in which Gregoire claims she has no authority to order the investigation and prosecution of justices who are admittedly obstructing justice.
She and McKenna are also claiming the members of the state supreme court have the legal and inherenr power to intentionally violate the Washington constitution.
McKenna is no better than Sam Reed and hardly any better than Gregoire.
I am going to turn the Washington judiciary on its head, and they see it coming. one of the biggest frauds being committed by the Washington courts is the unconstitutional and illegal position of appellate court commissioners who haver actually been exercising judicial power and making decisions on merits of cases for the past 35 years. They do this, in part, to hide cases from the public; especially ones that would expose judicial and other public corruption as has been the case with me for the past five years.
What they likely fear the most is that every single decision made by any appellate court commissioner is void; they have no legal effect and any injured party can simply demand that that judgment be vacated, and the court would be required to do so.
Gregoire, locke and a whole lot of other public officials also fear going to prison, which is exactly where I am going to put them.
Posted by: Don on July 16, 2005 02:03 PMThen why is McKenna covering up racketeering by Gregoire, Locke and a number of other public officials; including the chief justice of the state supreme court?
Posted by: Don on July 16, 2005 02:06 PMOther than being the BIAW's bit@#, McKenna is doing what he was voted in to do. Are you by any chance related to someone in Redmond named Rose? Do you dislke Bill Gates? I'm glad that we have mental health parity as part of our state health insurance standards so that we can make sure that you get your meds.
Posted by: BluDonkee on July 16, 2005 02:49 PMHowever, the Montana primary has exactly the same constitutional violations. Anyone can call themself a Dem or GOP and file in the primary. If no one else files, that person is automatically the party nominee. In fact, legally the party nominee, since they have just won an uncontested party primary. (The "top two" system only produces "de facto" party nominees -- a distinction Judge Zilly did not believe was legally significant).
This could easily happen in a little over a week in King County. The GOP has not nominated anyone to run in three of the nine council districts. The Dems have not nominated anyone to run in two of the nine council districts. Anyone can file in these districts and will automatically become the party nominee, whether that party likes it or not. (There is always the chance that an outsider not approved by the party could file in a contested primary against a nominated candidate and win the party nomination as well -- happens sometimes in low profile races.)
Both the Dems and GOP have party rules that say a candidate has to demonstrate some level of party support to file in the Montana partisan primary -- usually either 25% of the votes at a nominating convention, or signatures equal to 5% of that party's voting strength in the relevant jurisdiction. But the Montana primary law lets anyone file as a Dem or GOP.
Likewise, both the Dems and GOP have party rules that require voters to publicly identify which party's ballot they are casting in a partisan primary. But the Montana primary law very explicitly makes a voter's choice of primary ballot secret.
So the Montana primary is unconstitutional also, for exactly the same reasons that Judge Zilly said the Top Two primary is unconstitutional. And I would say more clearly unconstitutional, since the Montana primary expressly chooses party nominees, while the Top Two primary only has the effect of choosing party nominees based on popular perception of the candidates.
If the law requires (or even allows) political parties to choose their nominees through public election primaries, then the political parties have the constitutional right to dictate the important rules governing this process -- such as who can file to run in their primaries, who can vote in their primaries, and the procedures relating to who can run and who can vote. If state law conflicts with party rules, then state law is unconstitutional, since it violates the "freedom of speech" and "freedom of association" of the political parties.
The best solution is to allow the political parties full "freedom of association" by nominating their candidates through whatever private process the party may choose (nominating conventions, private elections at party expense, etc.), instead of through a government run selection process.
This can be coupled by full "freedom of speech" by allowing the political parties full freedom to publicize their nominations, endorsements and candidate affiliations. Let's get rid of "government speech", where the government prints information on the public ballot about which political party has nominated a given candidate. Print only the candidate names on the ballot, and let the political parties use their "freedom of speech" to let the voters know which candidates they are nominating or endorsing.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 16, 2005 02:50 PMIt's time to re-propose Instant Runoff Voting in this state. Had the Libertarian Party not blown its wad in the last election (morons, all), they would have had an ideal political opportunity to introduce their IRV initiative today. Given voter anger over the defeat of I-872, IRV might have had a chance of passing....
Posted by: A Moderate on July 16, 2005 02:51 PMDon's ravings aside, McKenna's job main job is overseeing hundreds of liberal judge wannabe's who work in the AG's office and making sure they keep to the letter of the law. This is where CG learned how to weild power and where McKenna's greatest challenge lies.
My bet is that we will see numerous resignations from the AG's office over the next few years as it becomes clear to the re-writers of law that McKenna is going to defend the law (and CG's government) as written, not as interpreted by the nuanced left.
Posted by: Deadwood on July 16, 2005 03:24 PMInstant Run-Off voting (IRV) requires ranking each candidate in an election according to preference.
IRV works well in Australia (2 races on ballot -- House of Representatives and Senate) and Ireland (1 race on ballot -- Dail Eireann i.e. House of Representatives).
Just try it in Washington. Require the voters to rank each and every candidate in order of preference for up to several dozen races in a given election. Isn't practical.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 16, 2005 04:26 PMA top 2 sytem was our best hope. I would like to see this either be challenged up to the US supreme court, where they might interpret things a little differently than left wing Zilly. Simultaneously, I would like to the see an initiate started in the state that says that public money will not go towards the primaries.
If the parties want primaries, they should pay for them themselves.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on July 16, 2005 05:30 PMI agree completely. Reichert is an enemy of fathers. As sheriff, he was out doing the rad-fem bidding, ripping fathers out of the lives of children.
Now, he is a co-sponsor of VAWA in the House.
He does this out of political opportunism, but in the process ruins the lives of men and fathers in his district.
His opponent will probably be the one Democrat I will give money to and definitely vote for.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on July 16, 2005 05:55 PMCome on now, Richard....if you've grasped the concept, surely others can do the same....
Posted by: A Moderate on July 16, 2005 05:58 PMMaybe we could have enough bubbles on the optical scan ballot to rank the top three preferences. But if we have a dozen bozos running for Governor, it would be very difficult to put something on the ballot to rank the candidates 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and have these preferences read by a scanning machine.
It wouldn't be so difficult if electronic machines were used for voting, and nearly everyone had to go to one of these machines to vote. But Washington is over 70% vote-by-mail and we are fast going to 100%.
Just think of all of the ballots that will have to be "enhanced" under this system. Right now, about 6% of ballots requirement "enhancement". The number will greatly increase if all candidates can be ranked, and so will the number of "enhancements" being performed on each ballot.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 16, 2005 06:10 PMRegarding Don's theories re: county commissioners. McKenna is not obligated to act as activist attorney for every would-be constitutional scholar.
Criticism of Reed is appropriate in that he has been DILETTANTE IN CHIEF when it comes to promoting the shallow philosophy that uncomfortable political conflicts are an outgrowth of the existence of political parties rather than the result of citizens with differing views seeking dominence through the political process. This use of simple positioning, in the middle, as a substitute for the development and explication of serious philosophical positions can be so very tedious, particularly when the positioners, like Reed, seek some all purpose fall guy like the political parties. Reminds me of Hollywood's use of British accented drug traffickers in mid-eighties action movies as a means of avoiding PC conflicts (apparently the British are fair game).
There is nothing wrong with parties picking their candidates, with candidates making the decision to seek office through participation in a party or as independents. And no person is deprived of anything, except perhaps the continued indulgence of persistent juvenile attitudes, when asked to make a choice that contains strategic dilemmas; i.e., either join a party and make your accomodations with those in that party, and appreciate the benefits - including increased credibility - of those accomomdations as well as the detriments, or go it alone and suffer the absence of the credibility that such a decision entails.
Posted by: barchester on July 16, 2005 07:11 PMI will vote for that.
Posted by: 4pawz on July 16, 2005 10:15 PMThat was appellate court commissioners, not couinty commissioners. Learn how to read. McKenna oath of office requires him to uphold the laws and the constitution of Washington.
Mckenna ran on a platform that included eliminating corruption in Olypia. i hand him a golden opportunity to do it now, and what does he do? He covers it up.
Even CJ Alexander agrees with m, and he also admitted I was entitled to a $1.2 million judgment against Clark County.
Posted by: Don on July 16, 2005 11:07 PMIt then follows that the political parties must pay for the costs of conducting the primary and that the state has been inappropriately using public funds for private use. The state should require the political parties to pay in advance for the cost of the primary, or remove their candidates from the ballot.
What they are doing to stop the DNR for making dairymen and cattle owners attain permits to use over 5000 gallons of water per day which the legislators never intended makes me think that Rob didn't do something someone wanted him to and has given cause to sour grapes.
Sam Reed is another story, he didn't do his job during this past election. He, as the chief elections officer has the responsibilty to see that an accurate tally of votes determines a winner.
Throw him out, but let Rob McKenna prove he is worth his salt. Man it has to be tough to be the lone republican in an adminstration full of corrupt liberals.
While on the name dropping subject, I hsd dinner with Stefan and his wife and all you people that didn't come up to Skagit missed a good time. Neener neener.
"I'm disappointed *in* the people of Washington who just really believe they have the right to vote for the best person and not the *person we put in place by means of fraud*"
It just looked more like something Reed would say these days....
Posted by: Deborah on July 17, 2005 12:18 AMNot a D thing! Just walking the line that gives him a fatter paycheck! Glug Glug
Queen Christine! She Buys everone in the State with our money!
Posted by: GS on July 17, 2005 01:47 AMJim L makes good points.
Doug's point above is philosophically sound and entirely consistent with Zilly's ruling. I believe the state has an interest in facilitating as open and secure a primary, even if a partisan primary, as possible. But, if the state decides it no longer wants to provide this service to the parties and those who want to participate in those primaries according to the party's rules, then the parties can hardly complain if the state eliminates the state financed process entirely. However, the state cannot then complain if those processes become more closed than they would be under modified Monatana. I believe it is this latter incentive, the desire to help the parties keep the process as open as the parties are willing to make them, that justifies continued state sponsorship of the primary. But, such sponsorship is hardly necessary.
Posted by: barchester on July 17, 2005 08:34 AMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/232955_primaryed.asp
They are probably right. The Grange will promote an initiative to completely eliminate political party designations from the ballot for all offices -- which will be completely and unquestionably constitutional.
It is really a pity. I-872 could have been preserved, if Judge Zilly had simply restricted use of a party name to the candidate actually nominated by the party. But the parties quibbled with that solution as well, and Judge Zilly didn't want to do what he perceived as a rewrite of the top two initiative.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 18, 2005 01:35 AMWe as citizens have a Constitutional right to elect whoever we want. But the key word there is ELECT. Primaries do not result in anyone benig ELECTED to anything. The obvious corollary is that the public does not necessarily have a right to make decisions in contests which are not ELECTIONS.
I'm not sure how any logical person can be so completely opposed to this decision. With this decision, at least voters will be able to vote for candidates from one party. If the "top-two" was upheld, it was fairly obvious the only people making any primary decisions would be members of the party apparatus. Being able to make a choice in any type of primary is surely better than punching a token ballot with one candidate in each race already chosen by "party elite."
I am not a registered Republican, but I have worked for Republicans my entire life and have never voted for anyone besides a Republican (although I have abstained from races and would not be closed to voting for somebody from another party in the future). So while I have never voted for a 3rd party candidate, I completely respect their views and their right to enter whatever race they please, and I'm sure most people, even the most ardent partisans, agree. But, judging from every election since Teddy Roosevelt, with only an extremely small handful of exceptions, a "top-two" system would result in a Dem vs. Rep general election contest. Such a system would completely shut out any 3rd party name on the general election ballot, barring Jesus Christ coming to earth and running as a Libertarian (that was a joke).
I love Washington, and I love most Washingtonians, but I don't quite understand why we are so opposed to adopting a primary system like 47 or 48 other states. I'm just glad we aren't thinking about a "cajun-style" primary anymore, where oftentimes, a candidate isn't elected until December (and thats without 8 dozen recounts and a court challenge). And nonpartisan races would be a HUGE mistake. Judicial races are already nonpartisan, and while I feel that is fairly reasonable, it makes voting extremely difficult. I spoke with our Attorney General about those races, another lawyer friend in Olympia, poured over the candidate websites, and even read some previous rulings by each candidate. After several hours of that, I still was not sure I had made the correct choice. Politics is my job and voting in those races was difficult. I cannot imagine what might result from instituting completely non partisan races and asking the lazy bums who refuse to go to a polling site and require all mail-in voting to make informed decisions.
Posted by: ARS on July 18, 2005 08:43 AMRight, upholding the huge mountain of existing case law on the subject is activism. The choice of the people *does not matter* when that choice takes away the rights of others.
"The decision is foolish. The GOP can nominate whoever they want, but that should not exclude anyone from the Public ballot for the Public election paid for by, oh yeah, the Public."
You really have no clue what you are talking about. The court never said the Public has to pay for the Primary, only that if it does provide a nominating Primary that it may not violate the rights of the members of the Party. The public can choose to not have a primary.
"That Elites like you want to take away choice from the people is no surprise."
So it is OK to take away someone's right because the majority chooses to do so? Since when have we lived in a Democracy, instead of a proper Republic?
You are totally lost here, JDB.
Posted by: pudge on July 18, 2005 03:20 PMRemember the case of the crank/male dancer who filed as state auditor in the last election? He had to get approved of by the GOP, who didn't do its job and properly look into him.
Further, the law says the the person is listed with their party affiliation (which 872 changed to "preference"), which directly implies a mutual agreement/relationship.
Bananaland: the Supreme Court won't hear this case. They have already ruled on it, in CDP v Jones.
And Richard: what is the POINT of removing party names? Again, that diminishes the entire reason of a primary. You are arguing for having no primary at all, in which case there there is no reason to change the primary, which no longer exists.
The Grange is really good at cutting off its nose to spite its face. It want to have an open primary, and will end up with NO primaries and nonpartisan general elections, for, in the end, no reason at all.
Why not just campaign for elimination of the primary instead, since that is what would result?
Zilly was absolutely right about severability and rewriting, as I noted a few weeks ago to you. You can't assume that the voters would want what results from the modification. And that the Grange is apparently not trying for what would have resulted proves the point.
First, while the GOP rules purportedly required some sort of party approval to file in the Montana-style primary in 2004, the GOP did not enforce this rule or sue candidates who filed anyway.
The GOP ended up with a few bozos who never sought and were never granted (besides Will Baker, who is a different story -- and proof that Chris Vance is also a bozo) in the September 2004 primary, especially in the races for Governor and U.S. Senate. Folks like Gordon Allen Pross (who has a more serious, but less lengthy criminal record than Will Baker) were never approved to file for the U.S. Senate under the GOP party rules -- which required approval by either the Executive Board or State Central Committee that the person was really a Republican.
Both the GOP and Democrats have party rules which (1) require some level of approval (25%) at a party convention (or a lot of voter signatures -- 5% of party strength) to even file in a Montana-style primary, and (2) don't even allow a Montana-style primary, since voters have to publicly identify their party affiliation to make the primary valid (otherwise the party nominates by convention).
Judge Zilly's decision means that the Montana primary -- with open candidate filing and secret party affiliation -- would also violate the parties' "freedom of association" rights. Judge Zilly says that political parties can limit who files in any type of primary (or other) election using the party name, and can also control who participates in the primary or nominating process.
Fortunately for the political parties, they were only suing to invalidate the Top Two primary. Had they sued to invalidate the Montana primary as well, Judge Zilly would have certainly granted their request, for the exact same reasons.
The Montana primary would have also failed under Judge Zilly's severability and rewriting clauses. Since the law expressly requires secret party ballot choices, it is quite clear that the legislature would never have approved the Montana primary if public party ballot choices were instead mandated. Nor can it be said with any certainty that the legislature would have approved a party primary where parties could restrict who filed, when the Montana primary law clearly allows anyone to claim party affiliation and seek the nomination for a given office.
My prediction is that the political parties (at least in the case of the Democrats) may become pragmatic hypocrites, and will never sue to invalidate the Montana primary. Once the Top Two primary litigation is over with, the parties will probably change their rules so that the Montana primary will be permissible.
On the other hand, I could be wrong. After the Top Two victory, Chris Vance said that the GOP wanted to "negotiate" with the state legislature to come up with a "constitutional" primary system. Vance may be a bozo, but he isn't a dummy. Vance realizes that the Montana primary would be unconstitutional under Judge Zilly's decision. He will want the legislature to allow parties to restrict candidate filing and require public voter identification.
Restriction of candidate filing is very important for the GOP. In Washington, the GOP is the somewhat weaker party, and certainly by far the most poorly managed. For the last three elections (1996, 2000, and 2004), the state GOP has been unable to recruit a sufficient number of candidates to fill all eight partisan statewide offices with people genuinely backed by the party.
(The Democrats have not had this sort of problem. They fielded strong candidates in 1996, 2000 and 2004 for all eight partisan statewide offices, ensured they had all sufficient financial backing, and gave even the few GOP statewide incumbents a strong challenge in every single race.)
When a state party is so incredibly mismanaged that it cannot recruit credible candidates for around half of the statewide offices (much less in most congressional districts and numerous legislative districts), the freedom NOT TO SPEAK and NOT TO ASSOCIATE becomes extremely important. Since any bozo can presently become the GOP nominee for many important offices simply by being the only person to show up during filing week and pay the filing fee, Vance believes it is important to allow the GOP the right NOT TO NOMINATE ANYONE for office in such situations.
While Paul Berendt is pragmatic enough to quit while he is ahead, Chris Vance will likely push his victory into challenging the Montana primary as well. Since these lawsuits also generate massive attorney fee awards against the state under the federal civil rights laws (if the party wins, of course), the GOP's law firm will be happy to sign up for this battle as well.
Actually, Vance doesn't even need to file another lawsuit to challenge the Montana primary. The present GOP lawsuit complaint seeks to prohibit any primary in which the GOP cannot limit candidate filings or require public identification of party affiliation.
Right now, I feel it is very important to Vance to allow the September 2005 primary to proceed under the Montana rules. This will allow Reagan Dunn another chance at winning the GOP nomination against Steve Hammond by allowing a party ballot primary for the GOP nomination.
Once the September 2005 primary has been held, I look for the state GOP to file another summary judgment motion in the existing lawsuit, this time holding that the Montana primary election provisions are also unconstitutional. Why file another lawsuit, and face uncertainty as to how a different federal district judge might rule, when Judge Zilly should be consistent with his ruling of July 15, 2005 on the Top Two primary?
Judge Zilly should also be consistent on his severability and rewriting rulings, and simply throw out the entire Montana party primary system. Vance can then go to the legislature in January, and ask them to enact a "constitutional" party primary system, in which the state will conduct and pay for a party primary for the GOP exactly like the Republican party wants it, and a similar primary for the Democrats.
If the Montana primary is also thrown out, then I think public opinion will definitely be ripe for the complete elimination of party names from the election ballots for all races, and making all races nonpartisan.
Public election primaries to choose party nominees exist only through the grace of the government and the public it serves. Political parties in every single state could sue to declare the state primary election system unconstitutional, simply by modify party rules to be inconsistent with state election law and forcing the issue. Party primaries exist only because legislatures and parties have been able to reach a compromise.
Certainly public election primaries for party nominations are not essential to democracy and free elections. At least 100 countries have some reasonable form of democracy and free elections, and the USA is the only one of these with public election party primaries.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 18, 2005 09:05 PMBut you are arguing two different sides of the same question. You say on the one hand the Montana primary allows anyone to violate the will of the party by calling himself an affiliate of that party, and yet that the party is allowed to restrict such affiliations, but simply has chosen not to.
You can't have it both ways. Either they have the authority to say who can and can't call themselves a representative of the party, or they do not. You note that they do, so what's the problem? Would the state have forced them to accept a candidate they directly opposed under last year's (and now, the current) law?
Fortunately for the political parties, they were only suing to invalidate the Top Two primary. Had they sued to invalidate the Montana primary as well, Judge Zilly would have certainly granted their request, for the exact same reasons.
Perhaps. But I don't know how "fortunate" this is for the parties. They don't have a serious problem with the Montana primary (or at least, see it as a reasonable compromise in order to have any public primary in WA). So no one complained about it, so Zilly has no grounds to rule against it (for now).
But I don't see this as hypocrisy. The parties like some public involvement. The people want to be involved. The people will never accept public voter identification. So what other option is there to satisfy all of these interests?
People can learn to accept a closed primary, once they recognize the parties have rights, and it is not them giving up rights to the parties, but rather recognizing the parties' rights. But they will never learn to accept having to publicly register by party, giving up their own right to privacy in order to participate. They would sooner abolish the (publicly financed) primary altogether.
I don't see them seeking to throw out the Montana primary, because I see no other viable option for the parties, because the parties do prefer public participation in the primary process. (phew!) What other option is there?
So, the parties compromise. Compromises are not hypocrisy, in my book, unless the principle you are compromising is written in stone, and I don't see that "public voter identification" is such a principle.
Right now, I feel it is very important to Vance to allow the September 2005 primary to proceed under the Montana rules. This will allow Reagan Dunn another chance at winning the GOP nomination against Steve Hammond by allowing a party ballot primary for the GOP nomination.
Well, that's the big question: what happens to the existing decisions? Alienate the voters at large by putting only one candidate on the primary (or not having it), or alienate the party members who already made the decision, and expect it to be carried out?
Has this been yet decided?
Certainly public election primaries for party nominations are not essential to democracy and free elections.
Agreed. It's why I keep bringing up the abolition of the primary. If it comes to a head, I'd prefer just tossing it.
At least 100 countries have some reasonable form of democracy and free elections, and the USA is the only one of these with public election party primaries.
Yeah, but a lot of these also have IRV and other voting methods that I think are inherently undemocratic. Of course, so does Louisiana, and, before the last few days, so did Washington.
It's one thing to place limits and restrictions on elections that attempt to assure electoral integrity so long as they don't reasonably penalize the voting public's choice of candidates. It is quite another to limit voter choice of candidates in order to "structure" partisan outcomes. While there are arguments for both sides, the only rational argument for a “Top Two” approach is partisan liberal Democrat electoral engineering.
Listening to Democrats rationalize themselves is amusing. Democrats in action ON ALL FRONTS are behaving in a similarly frantic, haphazard and confused manner. As people absent any moral compass they will sacrifice anything in order to win, and they are willing to look the total fool in front of everyone. They would sooner sell their own mother before admitting that they are bested by principles - not personalities.
All three parties who sued in federal court over the primary election system are seeking both (1) prohibiting candidates from filing in ANY primary unless they are approved by the party and (2) limiting participation in ANY nominating primary to those authorized by the party rules.
If Judge Zilly fully adjudicates the three parties' respective lawsuits, then the Montana primary will be struck down -- probably completely, since elimination of the secret party choice would be a fundamental re-write of the law (which federal judges will not do, even if it managed to pass the state law severability test).
If the parties drop their claims against the Montana primary, then a legal doctrine called "res judicata" should prohibit them from challenging the Montana primary in a later lawsuit. They could have and should have addressed in the present lawsuit. Courts do not take kindly to splitting up the issues into separate lawsuits, especially when done for strategic reasons. The parties will have to either press forward with their claims against the Montana primary before Judge Zilly in the present lawsuit, or likely forever have to hold their peace if they drop these claims.
Amused,
I fail to see how the party primary litigation is a "liberal vs. conservative" issue. Three political parties, including the Dems and GOP, sued to overturn the state election law. The supporters of the overturned state election law also included many Dems and GOP, liberals and conservatives, and all sorts of other people.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 19, 2005 12:02 PMOnly the GOP sued. The other two parties were intervenors. And I am not sure where you get (2). That is not listed in the initial action, that I can see. It talked about ticket-splitting and cross-over voting, but didn't specify that the way it was done last year was a problem.
It says it wants an injunction against "encouraging or facilitating, directly or indirectly, cross-over voting or ticket-splitting in connection with any partisan primary except to the extent expressly authorized by the Party for that primary." And the Party has not expressed any interest in disallowing the type of voting we had last year. On the contrary, the parties helped write the law that allowed it.
I don't see at all where you get this. Montana cannot be struck down unless there is a claim against it, and contrary to what you write, I see no such claim.
Here is the GOP's "Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief Re: Initiative 872 and Primary Elections":
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/documentvault/733.pdf
Look on Page 10, Second Cause of Action: Forced Association, especially Paragraphs 37 and 38. In Paragraph 38, the GOP wants RCW 29A.24.031, the candidated filing statute from the MONTANA PRIMARY declared unconstitutional, because any bozo can claim to be a Republican and file as such, the party be damned. In Paragraph 38, the GOP wants the ENTIRE state primary system declared unconstitutional to the extent that the GOP is not allowed to limit participation in the primary to those voters allowed to vote under party rules.
Here is the Democrats' "Complaint in Intervention for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief Regarding Initiative 872 and Primary Elections":
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/documentvault/739.pdf
Look on Page 10, Second Cause of Action: Forced Association, especially Paragraphs 32 and 33. Almost a verbatim copy of the GOP's paragraphs 37 and 38, and seeking exactly the same relief.
And here is the Libertarian Party's intervention complaint, a more originally written document (as opposed to cut and paste from the GOP filing like the Dems did):
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/documentvault/740.pdf
The Libertarians are also seeking to restrict who can file in ANY primary as a Libertarian and to restrict who can vote in a Libertarian primary as well.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 19, 2005 05:04 PMAnd I still deny that the party is establishing a problem with the Montana primary as per paragraph 38, in regard to who is allowed to vote in the primary. Again, it says "those the Party has determined should be included," and the Party has already said anyone who on that day chooses to be included, should be included.
You are assuming that the parties do not WANT the Montana-style primary, but you have yet to show evidence of it. I've already conceded that if the parties wanted to go against they probably would succeed, but you have argued either that a. they have argued against it whether they like it or not, or b. that they have intentionally argued against it.
I believe both of those are false. They have argued for the Montana primary, they want it, they've said they will accept it, and they've made no specific efforts to overturn it.