Per Fox News, the US Supreme Court today decides with the voters and not with the every diminishing parties.
By a 7-2 vote, the court says the state may use a primary system that allows the top two vote-getters to advance to the general election, even if they are from the same party.
Just like the initiative campaigners have found, Washington voters do want a say in the process. They are tired of politics as usual from both sides.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that overturning Washington's plan would have been an "extraordinary and precipitous nullification of the will of the people."
The dissenters were Scalia and Kennedy.
Posted by thcase at March 18, 2008 10:56 AM | Email ThisServes the parties right. They wasted hundreds of thousands of party dollars and now they'll have absolutely nothing to show for it.
Morons.
Posted by: Hinton on March 18, 2008 12:17 PMI, for one, will vote for anyone besides that whiney little jerk.
Posted by: Hinton on March 18, 2008 01:08 PMPolitical parties should and do have the right to suggest candidates, but they do not have the right to demand that one of their candidates show up on the final ballot. If a parties want to ensure that one of their candidates is on the November ballot, may sure that he/she gets the most (or second most) votes
Hopefully, the parties will not be stupid enough to sue people for running under a party label.
What are they afraid of, that some competent people committed to public service might acutally be elected and that we might have good government?
I'm with Hinton, morons.
Posted by: WVH on March 18, 2008 04:37 PMI don't know that much about third parties, but it seems to me that many voters, mostly indies are fed-up with both parties. The parties might be wise to see what happens before they start suing again. Who knows, they might actually get some decent candidates running under their label. Or is the issue that the party Nazis feel they must control the process?
Posted by: WVH on March 18, 2008 10:39 PM1. ......and the party hack continues to seek out ways to deny this long time straight-line republican voter the ability to have his preference heard on which candidate best qualifies for helping his party.
We know, we know... ALL HAIL PUDGE AND HIS PCO FRIENDS for it is they and only they who have the supreme knowledge and foresight to determine who should represent the Republican Party in the general election for my state legislator. ALL HAIL THE PARTY APPARATUS for it is they and only they who actually make up the party, not us plebes who send them money or constantly vote Republican year after year in a solidly blue state.
Posted by Doug at March 19, 2008 09:36 AM
You go Doug! Until you rid yourself of clueless party Nazis, Senator Roach gets this, we will have a one-party state which is bad for all. In other states there have been breakaways from the main party in order to get a change in leadership and direction.
Posted by: WVH on March 19, 2008 09:55 AMWednesday, March 19th, 2008
Supreme Court left little room for a future primary challengePosted by Peter Callaghan @ 01:52:53 pm
"In an attempt to make lemonade out of the basket of lemons handed them by the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, state party leaders are suggesting they have grounds for a future challenge to the Top Two primary.
A reading of the decision suggests otherwise.
In upholding the Top Two initiative, the court said opponents had not made a case that the law is unconstitutional on its face. And since the legal challenge came before the state could use the system in an actual election, there was no way of telling if it would be constitutional "as applied."
Both Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts raised the possibility that the state could run a Top Two election in such a way as to infringe on the parties' rights. That is, the state could somehow suggest that candidates are the official candidates of the parties, rather than candidates who "prefer" one party over the other.
That was enough for GOP Chairman Luke Esser to say this:
"Though we would have preferred to win outright today, the U.S. Supreme Court offered a very narrow, technical ruling that makes it clear the Top Two Primary may still be found unconstitutional. The court's opinion clearly imposes a high standard on the State of Washington to devise a primary ballot that is “designed in such a manner that no reasonable voter” would conclude that a candidate who declares a preference for a party, without that party’s approval, is a member of that party."
But here is what Thomas actually wrote:
"... we must ... ask whether the ballot could conceivable be printed in such a way as to eliminate the possibility of widespread voter confusion and with it the perceived threat to the First Amendment."
He then adds, "It is not difficult to conceive of such a ballot."
And this, "We are satisfied that there are a variety of ways in which the state could implement I-872 that would eliminate any real threat of voter confusion."
Chief Justice Roberts was a bit more skeptical about the chances for a constitutional implementation, but not by much:
"If the ballot is designed in such a manner that no reasonable voter would believe that the candidates listed there are nominees or members of, or otherwise associated with, the parties the candidates claimed to 'prefer,' the I-872 primary system would likely pass constitutional muster."
Rather than saying they will wait to see how the law in put into practice, the justices gave the state a road map for implementing Top Two in a way that will meet their approval...."
http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2008/03/19/supreme_court_left_little_room_for_a_fut