1. Great news. Let the whinning commence.

Posted by: concerned on August 22, 2006 11:40 AM

2. (Almost) every other state has primaries by party.

The "I want to vote for anyone I choose" mentality is also seen in the "Every (illegal) vote counts" fiasco seen in the last governor's election.

Posted by: Jack Burton on August 22, 2006 11:40 AM

3. Phew, thank goodness!! I belive this will make a big difference in the results next primary!!

Posted by: Laurie on August 22, 2006 12:09 PM

4. Nealy one-third of all state legislative seats up for election this year -- 39 out of 122 -- feature an incumbent with no general election challenger.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=candidates21m&date=20060821&query=opponent

This is the largest number of unopposed incumbents in at least 36 years -- and only the second election in over 70 years using the party-ballot primary system.

And in many races where the incumbent does have a general election opponent, the opposition is little more than a formality. The party didn't recruit anyone seriously for the position, and the party's financial and political backers have no intention of making a serious investment in their own candidate.

We saw the same thing in the King County Council races in the fall of 2005. None of the general election contests were even close. Only five of the nine general election contests had both Democrat and Republican candidates. Two incumbents were totally unopposed, and two incumbents were opposed only by independents.

The only thing unconstitutional about the Top Two primary in the 9th Circuit opinion is that candidates can freely designate a political party preference without approval of the political party in question. If the Top Two system had completely eliminated party labels from the ballot, it would have been upheld as constitutional.

Unfortunately, the partisan system in this state isn't given the voters much real choice of elected officials at any level. There could, of course, be similar concerns if a completely nonpartisan system were to be adopted.

It will be interesting to see if the Grange goes forward with its backup plan of making all elected offices nonpartisan. Given the failure of both political parties to offer the voters meaningful choices (or any choices at all in far too many cases) in most races on this fall's ballot, the voters might be sympathetic to approving such an initiative next fall if the Grange offers it.

Posted by: Richard Pope on August 22, 2006 12:14 PM

5. Maybe Washington will finally "get with the program" and have a normal primary in June versus September

Posted by: Green Lake Mark on August 22, 2006 12:18 PM

6. Personally, I've grown very bored at having to explain this whole thing to people that whine about their "choices" being limited. Obviously, they have no real understanding of how political parties work or how elections are held in other states.

I was rather shocked when I moved here in 1994 and experienced my first non-partisan primary election.

Posted by: H Moul on August 22, 2006 12:27 PM

7. I must admit, however, that I have never understood why the public at large (taxpayers) should foot the bill for a private (partisan) nominating process. If members of a political party want to select a candidate to run in the general election, let them stage a convention or a set of caucuses - why should taxpayers do it for them?

Posted by: Patrick on August 22, 2006 01:05 PM

8. While everything in me says that I oppose a totally non-partison election... History tells us that Republicans tend to do much better in this state in so-called non-partison elections than they do when labeled as Republicans on the ballot. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing afterall!

Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on August 22, 2006 01:06 PM

9. Patrick;

Then you should love the rules the parties opperated under this cycle. Each held a caucus & convention at their own expense to select candidates for the primary.

Posted by: concerned on August 22, 2006 01:30 PM

10. Thank goodness. Now the next step is to keep public record of party affiliation when people fill out their ballots in the primary. That will make my job a lot easier. It helps political campaigns save a lot of money in campaign expenditures to identify voters. It cuts to the chase. One step closer to what we want.

Posted by: The Black Hand on August 22, 2006 01:32 PM

11. One major point missed here is that the 9th Circus court actually ruled on something correctly!

Ditto H Moul - I had never heard of an open primary. I thought that was bad, until the idiotic Cajun system.

From their website:
"The Grange, formally known as the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry, was the life-long dream of a pioneer Minnesota farmer, Oliver Hudson Kelley. Besides working on his farm, Kelley was a part-time clerk in the Commissioner of Agriculture's office in Washington, D.C. Prior to the American Civil War he had successfully organized farmers in his community for some cooperative buying and selling projects."

Can't the Grange go and concentrate on rural agricultural issues and quit goofing things up...

Posted by: GOPolitics on August 22, 2006 01:45 PM

12. Patrick, state law requires the major parties nominate by primary. It is a residue of the Populist era that also gave us the initiative, referendum, and recall.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.52.111

http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5738

Posted by: Legast on August 22, 2006 02:31 PM

13. The Grange used to have a deep, abiding interest in animal husbandry. Until they were caught at it. I think they still sponsor a Barn Dance in Enumclaw.

Posted by: skoorb derf on August 22, 2006 05:12 PM

14. I for one am glad. I never understood why people not in a particular party got to help choose a primary candidate.

Posted by: Misty on August 22, 2006 08:14 PM

15. Misty--agree; while i am not thrilled at the 2-party shell game, at least something works; having 300 field contenders pushing one-issue party lines does nothing for effective government; just wastes time, even though most feel open primaries give everyone a 'voice;'

just because one has a voice, what springs forth is not always intelligent or practical utternaces; like 'green' parties, anti-fur candidates and whackos who push ideas like 'hate free zones'--all this at a serious time when certain cultures want to slit our throats;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 22, 2006 09:33 PM

16. What is the problem with have 300 field contenders pushing one-issue party lines? You cite ineffective goverment and wasting time - these only become problems if they get elected. If they are indeed whacko, that isn't a problem and they should be allowed on the ballot.

Do you feel that the average voter is incapable of discerning what is intelligent and/or practical? Do you feel that you *are* capable? I think the method of eliminating voices from the ballot because someone determined that those voices are not intelligent or practical can and will be used silence good ideas that threaten the existing power structure. Ideas that will make us more powerful as a nation, as a people, but will weaken the status quo. I think this because if I was in power and had no moral qualms against it, I'd most certainly do it. I'd be silly not to.

Posted by: Barak on August 23, 2006 09:16 AM

17. Barak--my point is only one of practicality and focus, on serious elections and REAL problem solving; it's the 'too many chefs' syndrome; wasted efforts;

YOU are the one injecting suggestions of ignorant masses, not me; my point is simple--not turning the election into a meaningless circus and shouting match on a playground; of COURSE we all know the voting populace can discern! but this issue is a bit more substantive than having 200 brands of cereal in the aisle;

have you ever been in a business meeting where 10 people can't agree, a resolution & deadline is required and a few are rambling about someone not cleaning the microwave? same analogy;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 23, 2006 09:39 AM

18. Pierce Co. Proposed Charter Amendment Three offers a better solution for primaries than the "top-two" or the pick-a-party.

Instant Runoff Voting rolls the primary into the general election, eliminating the need for the county to spend money on the party nomination process. It gives parties control over who runs on their line, thereby addressing the legal problems with the "top-two". And it still gives voters the choice they had under the old blanket primary system.

See www.yesonthree.com for more information.

Posted by: Better Ballot on August 23, 2006 09:53 AM

19. I like the decision because I think our representative system works better with a strong party system than with a weak one. Political parties facilitate discussion of vital issues. In return for providing that service, it is reasonable to allow them some control over their own decision-making processes.

I understand the sentiments of people who would rather stick with state tradition, because I am not immune from those sentiments myself. Still, strong parties are more beneficial to a democratic republic than weak ones are.

Posted by: DLP on August 23, 2006 10:51 AM

20. I suggest that anyone who has not done so (including, evidently, those 9th Circuit judges) read what Justice Scalia wrote about the Top Two ("nonpartisan blanket primary") near the end of his ruling in California Democratic Party v. Jones.

Scalia said that state law MAY require the parties to nominate a candidate for each office. He said that the Top Two passes constitutional muster because "voters are not choosing a party's nominee." (Obviously, then, IF state law DID require the parties to nominate, it would have to be by a method other than party primaries.)

Putting party labels on a Top Two ballot doesn't make it a partisan system. This is usually done mainly for the voters' information, but, in any case, a voter who wants this information can get it. (Louisiana puts party labels on the ballots in its "top two" system.)

Here in my state of Mississippi, we elect county election commissioners on a nonpartisan basis, with no party labels. We don't have voter registration by party, and yet the party affiliations of all 410 election commissioners are known.

What is clearly unconstitutional about the measure that the 9th Circuit struck down is the timing of congressional elections.

By the way: the federal courts have held that, when state law requires parties to nominate by primary-- as Washington law does-- the state must pay the costs of those primaries.

Posted by: Steve Rankin on August 23, 2006 12:19 PM

21. This is not about the "right" of members of other parties to participate in any party's primary. This is simply a continuation of the sustained full-scale assault on ALL political parties over the last twenty or so years.

Today it is tres declasse to identify oneself as a Democrat (and certainly even far more so as a Republican). It is rather the epitome of enlightenment to claim to be "independent", a "free thinker", or to vote for "the woman (especially in Washington state), not the party"--all while hewing in lockstep to the PC line.

If the Grange is successful in making all elections in Washington non-partisan, I wonder how presidential candidates will be identified on the ballot.

Posted by: Nevada on August 23, 2006 01:46 PM