State Attorney General Rob McKenna argued Washington’s top-two primary before the US Supreme Court today, and Postman’s got a partial transcript up online. I know it’s not a predictor of how the court will rule, but it sure sounds like McKenna is getting his ass kicked — which raises the question: why is McKenna personally arguing this case rather than, you know, a more experienced appeals attorney?
For example, backers of the top-two better hope this isn’t McKenna’s most compelling argument.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But clearly, it’s just like a trademark case. I mean, they’re claiming their people are going to be confused. They are going to think this person is affiliated with the Democratic or Republican Party when they may, in fact, not be at all.
MR. McKENNA: Mr. Chief Justice, they make that claim without the benefit of any evidence. The Ninth Circuit and the district court and the parties simply assume this will happen…
Well, if you’re looking for evidence to support this scenario, how about this: I hereby declare my intention to challenge Dino Rossi for the Republican nomination… should the top-two primary be reinstated.
Run Goldy, run!
In an earlier post, Goldy, you admitted you’re no lawyer, so there’s no real need to continue proving the point.
Rob McKenna, as the elected Attorney General, is doing his job, and his doing the best he can with what he’s got. He’s an experienced appellate attorney, and he’s doing what AG’s in this state have been doing since there’ve been AG’s in this state.
You didn’t note, that arguing the case for the political parties, including the Washington Democratic Party, was noted Republican attorney and activiest, John White. It was old-home week before SCOTUS today!
Reading Postman’s blog on the issue, it’s as if all the justices are as familiar with and nauseated by the Richard Pope case as anyone here in town!
Sounds as though they’re inclined to respect the right of a party to determine who belongs to it rather than have some off-the-shelf operative dictate to the party.
Speaking of Richard Pope…no truth to the rumor that he was seen emptying waste baskets and sweeping up at SCOTUS well after the close of business today.
Also…the announcement of your candidacy? You sure you know how the top-two primary works?
The Piper
Congratulations Goldy! This should make interesting news and political theatre. But won’t you have to give up your radio show, at least for the 11 weeks between filing week and the primary in August? Maybe you can get a guest hosts to sub for you while you are gone, and maybe they can arrange a debate between the avowed Republican candidates on KIRO 710?
So what Republican values will you be running on?
When McKenna says the court “make[s] that claim without the benefit of any evidence. The Ninth Circuit and the district court and the parties simply assume this will happen,” he is pointing out that the case was resolved against the state on summary judgment.
That means there wasn’t a trial, at which the state could have challenged the factual assertions of the plaintiffs. Instead, there were facts submitted along with legal arguments, and the court is bound to construe all of the facts in favor of the party opposing summary judgment (here, the state).
And, this was a facial challenge, meaning that the plaintiffs asserted that there was no set of facts under which this primary system was constitutional.
The briefs are available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000.....13/briefs/
Now, I think there’s a case to be made in favor of the top-two primary, that involves HA’s own Mr. Pope.
Prior to a conventional, pick-a-party primary, Mr. Pope filed as a Democrat for the county council position. Democratic party voters, in that primary, selected Mr. Pope to be the Democratic party nominee, over the wishes and without the endorsement of the party organization.
This scenario, in which a party’s organization is not allowed to pick its candidates, is supposed to be the bad end result of the top-two system. Since it in fact happened in the pick-a-party system, that weakens the freedom-to-associate argument against the top-two system.
Perhaps the parties should be challenging the system under which candidates register to run for office by party.
Richard @1,
Hopefully, McKenna will lose his case, and that issue won’t pop up.
Dan @2,
I’ll be running straight on the WA State Republican Party platform. Can’t get much more wing-nuttier than that.
@2…RP…
There are any number of HA regulars who lust in their hearts to wager money on your victory, yet here you are messing about on a blog when you should be out campaigning, raising money, and generally doing what serious candidates do weeks before a general election.
Then again, even one of your loudest HA drum-bangers, when challenged with an actual cash money wager turned tail and ran for the tall grass.
Can’t win an election putzing here at HA.
The Piper
Goldy @ 5 – As soon as you make it official I’ll be happy to donate. Can we still use ActBlue for that or will we have to use some right wing fundraising tool instead? Do they even have an equivalent?
Oh, and can I be on your exploratory committee? I’ve always wanted to be on an exploratory committee.
Goldy,
Now that you have declared your intentions to run, you should undeclare ’em and form a “foundation” of some sort. I like the name Forewarned Washington.
Your foundation could specialize in some system of collecting and depositing “ideas” from the Republican contributors in your comment threads. I think they call those things “septic systems.”
@4…asdf…
In re weakening the case? Maybe…maybe not.
But it does make the paries – both of them – ever more mindful of the need, and their right, to absolutely control who carries, as Roberts, CJ called it, their “brand name.”
On this issue, I march lock-step with my old pal, Dwight Pelz.
The Piper
@8…DK…
If you want to be on an exploratory committee, call a proctologist. I’m sure there will be several openings for your to explore.
The Piper
Richard Pope — you critique McKenna but won’t talk about your time in Texas…tread lightly my friend.
Goldy,
WADR … I can not see your reasoning.
The obvious implication is that it is up to the parties to decide who their candidates are. If so, why should they even use ANY democratic means? The CCP did just fine appointing its candidates and this is pretty much what happens in Britain and Canada as well.
The problem wi the Roberts:Goldstein (I DO know how to hurt a guy!) idea is that parties, as we use the term in the US, are not brands. Unlike the CCP, the Demcrats and Republicans do not get to decide who is and who is NOT a member!.
Frankly, the leadership of both parties in this state is less than thrilling. The number of folks who actually regard themselves as card carrying members of either party is not very big. So, in effect by having these closed party primaries we take power from the people and give it to an unelected minority of activists.
There is nothing new in this, but look at the mess it has made of the
Republican Goldwaterparty! A verfluchte minority of extremists took over the Eisenhower party and replaced it with the Raygun Wielders. In a limited way, I have seen this happen in every primary where the tiny majority of Kucinich:Nader:Gravel:etc. activists gets a louder voice then makes any sense.My own ideal would be this: Let the parties by whatever mechanism THEY WANT AND PAY FOR, pick nominees. The lets have a two tier election … part 1 will be the two top. Part 2 will be the run off. This way the friggin parties will have an incentive to pick good candidates but will not have any pre-ordained guarantee that their bozo will be one of the final clowns.
Piper Scott @ 6
“There are any number of HA regulars who lust in their hearts to wager money on your victory, yet here you are messing about on a blog when you should be out campaigning, raising money, and generally doing what serious candidates do weeks before a general election.”
What the fuck? Let me see if I have this straight…a fucking wingnut troll on a liberal blog is trying to give political campaign advice….
HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! That’s precious!
“Then again, even one of your loudest HA drum-bangers, when challenged with an actual cash money wager turned tail and ran for the tall grass.”
Because there is a history here of Wingnuts not making good on their bets. Why should anyone think you are any better than Mark the Redneck when it comes to honoring your commitments?
“Can’t win an election putzing here at HA.”
Oh…so now your a fucking Nostradamus, eh?
Hey Richard…Nostradamus’ advice is worth every penny you paid for it.
@13…SJ…
Decide who can be members? Yes and no…While the owner of a brand name can’t pick and choose who buys the product bearing that name, it sure as Hell can restrain a customer who seeks to appropriate that brand name for, in this case, his own purposes.
The parties ought to have the absolute right to decide who can or cannot use the brand name “__________ Party” behind their name when running for an office. That’s part of the “free association” argument.
The Piper
[W]hy is McKenna personally arguing this case rather than, you know, a more experienced appeals attorney?
A mature attorney, regardless of his experience before lower courts, is no match for the Supreme Court. This is the final shot and McKenna should have turned this case over to someone who has done it many times before.
But our Boy Attorney General is running for higher office and let his ego get in the way.
@16…BH…
Who’s to say Rob McKenna wasn’t qualified to argue the case before SCOTUS? Attorney’s General in Washington State routinely argue the state’s case there; that’s one of the jobs the people elect them to perform.
That I’m rooting for the other side doesn’t mean I don’t respect his skills as both a barrister and a soliciter.
The Piper
Piper
McKenna has precious little experience as a practicing attorney, and even less experience as an appellate advocate. While he got his license years ago, most of his adult life has been spent in public “service.” I suspect it doesn’t matter in this particular case that he lacks ability. The way the present Supreme Court is constituted, the likely outcome of the case will be that the Court will decide that whatever Republicans want to do is constitutional and whatever Democrats want to do is unconstitutional.
proud leftist @18,
That’s why the Dems let the Republican attorney argue their side of the case. Clever.
@18…PL…
The Washington State Democratic Party, represented in this case by Republican attorney, John White, should be very heartened by Justice Scalia’s comments since it, together with Republicans and other parties, have been advocating that POV for years.
Not everything is as lock-step and knee jerk as you think. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows!
The Piper
@19…Goldy…
No…It’s because in this case, the position and interests of Republicans and Democrats, and other parties, BTW, are identical; they all have common cause in seeking the right to control their own destinies and the use of their names.
Nobody ever said it would be easy…
The Piper
“why is McKenna personally arguing this case”
So he can tell his grandchildren he argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Too bad he won’t be able to tell them he won a case in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In this case, they could have had expert appellate attorneys from the Libertarian, Green, or even the Prohibition Party argue the case. Sam Reed’s wet-dream damages the minor parties even more deeply (as in, never again appear on the general election ballot) than the two majors.
While I personally like the blanket primary, which allows ME to vote in REPUBLICAN primaries, the “top two” idea sucks!
Our political system is based on two major competing parties representing different ideologies and constituencies. Fundamental to this system is the idea that each of the parties puts up a candidate, and the voters choose between them in the general election. The idea that candidates of one party can occupy both slots on the general election ballot just doesn’t fit.
It’s undemocratic.
That’s how they run elections in fascist countries, communist countries, and banana republics. If you want to live in a one-party country, move to North Korea or China!!! As for the good ol’ USA, home of the free and Roger Rabbit, take your “top two” nonsense and SHOVE it!!!
Much as I loved the blanket primary, I can’t really blame the parties for suing to put a stop to it. Intellectually, it’s hard to differ with their argument that they have a right to keep their political opponents from choosing their candidates! That’s a stupid way of doing things, when you think about it. I can understand why the party that nominated Ellen Craswell, John Carlson, and Dino Rossi don’t want Roger Rabbit picking their candidates, for example — I’ll vote for their best man … Richard Pope … every time! That’s enough to make Chris Vance puke.
@23…NinS…
Here’s the deal…if one of those parties grows to the point where its convention can no longer be held in a phone booth with plenty of room to spare…let us know.
In the meantime, establishing thresholds and minimum percentages is a reasonable thing to do. Try persuading people to support your candidates.
And name the alleged “expert appellate attorneys” in the parties you mention.
Can’t use Richard Sanders, because he sits on the Washington Supreme Court, and, besides, he was a Reagan activist in the Republican Party.
The Piper
@15 …Piper
The difference here is that NOONE owns the brand!
Think about it. Who IS the rep. party? Do they have an official mechanism for deciding or could … err ahhh Schwarznegger claim to be Republican just by winning an election .. just R, Pope just did here.
Suppose the dems want to claim Richard ain’t a dem? How would they do this? For that matter who would be “they?”
So, yes .. absolutely, freedom of association means the parties can decide who they are. Lets say the Reps decide that no atheists or gays can belong? Is that OK by you? Or howsa about having a membership fee?
Now suppose we constitute the New Republicans and require: Christianity, a minimum personal worth of say 200,000 (exclusive of homes and cars), no gays, ??? Now suppose I want to run for dog catcher in Northern Idaho, a solidly NR region? BUT, I can not run for the NR nomination cus I’s a Yid! OK by you?
What we have now is nuts. We have a law that says anyone who wants to choose the D or the R ballot can do so. The party has no right to exclude anyone. In the good old radical religious right fashion (RRR) or the KKK fashion, one could turn out a few dedicated RRRs or KKK and become the demoplican or repubricat party!
If enough right wing religous saints want to take over the dem party, as they did the Rep party
@24 Roger Rabbit
You are droppinf rabbit shit on this issue.
In a single party state, the party apparatchnicks PICK the candidate(s). Under your system, exactly this could happen in any one party town .. Seattle or Godtown, Idaho.
The top two would allow each party to put up 1-2 or more candidates that it endorsed. These freely compete, The top two get to run vs. each other. If the parties are more or less balanced, then they have every chance of one rep and one dem. Otherwise two dems may sling it out.
Why should I give a good fuck for what the “party” wants?
State attorneys general routinely take the opportunity to argue at least one Supreme Court case that arises under their tenure. I believe Chris Gregoire did, although she had been a practicing attorney for most of her career, unlike Mr. McKenna.
@26…SJ…
RR is correct…
Otherwise you run a real risk of having a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedlestupid.
“Top-two” is phony baloney…Let the party’s determine who can run in their respective primaries.
The Piper
Poop or get off the pot @ 25
Go back to the very first thread where you mentioned wagering on Pope and suggested spreads and whatnot.
More than one person offered to take you up on your offer to wager.
It is YOU who high-tailed it.
Shall I embarrass you by copying and pasting some proof?
Sure, here it is:
@29…YLB…
Sigh…!!!
OK…Bring me those who want to put money on a Richard Pope victory, and we’ll talk…
But you have to admit that as soon as I slapped down some dough, you got real hincky real fast.
The Piper
seattlejew@13 says it best.
The disgustingly undemocratic parties (both of them!) are using public funds to run what are by their argument internal processes. They either need to let us elect who we want or get the hell out of the primaries in general and use caucuses.
Closed, publicly funded primaries are like the stupidest things ever!
“Then again, even one of your loudest HA drum-bangers, when challenged with an actual cash money wager turned tail and ran for the tall grass.”
Pope is still the underdog, so a heads up bet is for suckers. Show what you’re made of and lay some odds. Then I’ll put up my $100.
@31…W…
Agreed…All for ditching primaries and using caucuses exclusively; let’s get citizens to actually be citizens.
The Piper
@32…PTBAA…
So…you’ve got $100 that says Pope will win? What odds do you want?
The Piper
30 – There’s a link in 29. Follow it to the thread to follow through on your challenges. Not that I ever expect you to follow through.
You’re so full of yourself. What’s all this strutting about bets all about? Whether he wins or not? That’s almost beside the point. Jane Hague has made a spectacle of herself. She in no way deserves to be returned to the council.
I support Richard Pope’s candidacy. Period. End of story.
Whether he wins or not is partly up to him and mostly up to the voters of the 6th. I don’t live in the 6th.
Schew: “Why should I give a good fuck for what the “party” wants?”
That’s what a lot of officeholders seem to think, too. They raise a lot of their money independently of the party. They conduct their own campaigns as they see fit, and if they win, they feel they are ‘beholden to nobody’–meaning they can be unaccountable and corrupt.
I am not convinced this is a great way to govern.
Piper Scott @ 31
“But you have to admit that as soon as I slapped down some dough, you got real hincky real fast.”
No…that is not how it happened at all! You got two offers which you did not accept. After someone asked why you had not accepted the two offers, your response was:
Your original offer offered bets on (1) “the spread of Pope’s defeat. What will it be? 10, 15, 20, 25 points?” and (2) whether or not “he’ll win.”
You had two takers. One:
and another:
I don’t know…HAers, be careful with your money. This buffoon called Piper Scott is lookin’ a lot like Mark the Redneck…. Insist on escrow. Maybe Goldy will agree to hold the money.
“So…you’ve got $100 that says Pope will win? What odds do you want?”
However many previous elections Pope has lost to 1. Pope is pathetic, but Hague is an affront, and I just like to gamble. Cripes, you give me a good enough price and I’ll buy your used lottery tickets.
@35…YLB…
I’ve been careful to restrict my comments to the absolute lack of seriousness of the Richard Pope candidacy; it was, is, and will continue to be an embarrassment and a joke.
I don’t say that about serious Democratic candidates; I’ll criticize their positions or record or pose my prediction as to the disaster that would befall us if they were elected, but I respect their viability.
Pope has no hope, he snuck onto the ballot at the last dying second after a dead-of-the-night party switch, hasn’t got any money or supporters, has been disavowed by the party he claims to represent, and doesn’t even bother to campaign aggressively, spending his time, instead, blogging.
Here’s a clue: Together with primaries and absentee ballots, I loath fake or “sacrificial lamb” candidates. Just sticking a name on a ballot in order to have a name on a ballot is, to me, a misuse of the democratic process.
I happily exclude a principled candidate who sets out to make political or philosophical points and is willing to tilt at windmills in order to do it. But when a political party eggs someone on to run just to fill the ballot, then I find that offensive. The Republican Party has been known to do that, BTW, and I like it even less when my own kind do it.
Laugh all you want, but I know hard-core Democrats in the 6th District who are either furious or appalled or both at Pope’s candidacy who plan on either writing in a name or sitting this one out.
While it’s about as much fun as you can have without breaking the law or taking off your clothes, electoral poliics is still serious stuff, and it should be taken seriously, not run like a circus with candidates whose very presence on the ballot demands they campaign with floppy shoes, a rubber nose, and a bright orange fright wig.
Now…since I’m the one who asked all you True Believers to lay odds on his success and put your money where your mouths are, then I’m the one who gets to set the rules.
Here’s the deal: While I don’t always agree with everything it does, on the Eastside Hopelink is the Big Kahuna in social services. It’s pretty hard to do anything by way of helping the homeless, needy families, and similar folks without bumping into Hopelink. Additionally and to make this palatable to all you HA heathens, it’s non-sectarian and supported by people of all political stripes.
Whatever wagers are made and won are to be paid to Hopelink, not to me. Certainly, they wouldn’t be paid to anyone who bets on Pope, for in Pope there is no hope.
Shall we?
The Piper
I swear I saw that on a sticker on the front bumper of Stefan’s car.
“Now…since I’m the one who asked all you True Believers to lay odds on his success and put your money where your mouths are, then I’m the one who gets to set the rules.”
Uh, no. You are the one laying the odds. Rules are negotiable. Be a gentleman, sir, and please leave my mouth out of this.
I start saving boxtops tomorrow to raise the $100.
@41…TN…
You sure that bumper sticker didn’ read, “Beg, Goldy, beg!”
The Piper
Piper, Piper….
As I said, I’m not a betting man. Example, someone else stated that a heads up bet for an underdog is a sucker’s bet.
Now there’s a betting man. I’m sure he’ll take you up on something interesting.
@42…PTBAA…
Sorry…Betty Crocker coupons don’t qualify…I have enough flatware, thank you.
Canadian money taken at par…
Carrots not accepted in lieu of cash…
The Piper
@44…YLB…
Not even to benefit Hopelink? What??? Don’t want to help feed people?
It’s for the children…
And because I won’t rat you out to the IRS, you can deduct your loss as a charitable contribution…assuming you itemize.
The Piper
Goldy, you are a republican? Wow, they will register anybody in King County. roof roof.
Come now, sir. I explicitly said I was raising the money. That’s like cash, cold hard moola, coin of the realm, bread, dinero…well, you should get the point. I’m wagering cash, not charity donations, not box tops, not a post dated check, not a handshake, not “my word” not anything else. Show me the Franklins. You want to put a currency play into the wager and pay off (or collect) in Loonies, I could care less–fine by me.
Now. As to the odds and the terms….
Oh, and by the way…just what do you have against somebody who has to break a sweat (cutting boxtops is hard and dangerous work) to raise money to back a wager?
Have you no honor, sir?
@34 I’m not actually saying ‘ditch primaries’ tho’, just get the parties out of them.
In my perfect world, each party would do their caucus, then be allowed to put a candidate up in a state top-2 race. I mean, yeah, sure, the Dems and Reps would certainly both get their guy in anyways, but thats the closest to what was intended with the open primary law before the parties got afraid of voters actually picking candidates on their own.
kinda the problem here is that they assume they’re automatically and always the do-all and be-all of the election process. We shouldn’t help them out in that.
@48 & 49…PTBAL…
Why Hopelink? Lest anyone think I’m simply trying to make a buck off hopeless suckers.
Why not Hopelink? If a few bucks end up going its way, maybe a family will be fed, a kid will get school supplies, or more support will be extended to Avondale Park.
What’s Avondale Park? If you don’t know, you haven’t been paying attention to homelessness issues and solutions on the Eastside. Hopelink as a large stake in it.
Raise the $$$ any way you see fit, but make the check payable to Hopelink.
The Piper
I love the fact that whenever I mention Richard Pope’s time in Texas he never makes another post… what is he afraid of? Ricahrd is so diligent about pointing out the personal shortcomings of others but when it comes to his own he falls silent and makes excuses.
How about living up to the same standard you so shrilly demand of your adversaries — including coming clean about your own troubled past?
Goldy, if you run against Rossi, I am voting for you.
Richard Pope’s website states:
“After getting my bachelor’s degree, I spent two years pursuing graduate studies in Economics and International Trade at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Prior to entering the Ph.D. portion of this program, I decided instead to move to Seattle and go to law school. While at the University of Tennessee, I was elected by the entire graduate student body to serve as President of the UT Graduate Student Association, and served one year in that position.”
This cleverly omits a portion of Richard’s life he’d rather not talk about, and yet he has openly attacked his opponent for her resume omissions.
Come clean Richard….
@55
You seem to blowing out a lot of slimy innuendo without making any accusations. Are you just talking shit, or do you have something to say?
You sound like the average Republiturd.
Roger Rabbit @ 22
RR, McKenna’s already won a U.S. Supreme Court argument 9-0, the WEA case.
Pussybutt,
Why don’t we let Richard be the judge of that, so far he’s been silent.
So, you’re just talking shit.
@25 Sanders is a Libertarian, not a Republican. And, while I may differ with Sanders on many issues, and perhaps have some problems with his judicial behavior as well, at least Sanders knows a constitutional right when he sees one.
@27 “Why should I give a good fuck for what the “party” wants?”
SJ, that’s a good question, and here’s my answer: Much as parties make us squirm, and even puke sometimes, try to imagine how our political system would operate without them.
No one except a political party can mobilize the fundraising, volunteers, organization, and issue research that serious candidates need except parties.
Party affiliation also defines who a candidate is, what s/he stands for, and gives voters too busy to research candidates in depth a frame of reference to rely on.
The Constitution says nothing about parties. The omission was deliberate, because the Framers didn’t want any parties. Yet, parties sprang up before the ink was dry. Why? Because they’re indispensable.
Parties are to our political system what the sun is to our solar system. Without them, all the planets and asteroids would simply fly off into space, there to eternally drift aimlessly.
Roger
I do not doubt that a multiparty system works better than the unitary system that Adams and Hamilton wanted, but that says nothing about how much power the parties should have.
As you know in most parliamentry systems there is no primary ..the parties pick the candidates. I think we are bette roff for not following that model. The question is how should we go in the other direction.
I am unimpressed that our 2 party system is working well enough to let the “parties” decide who can run for office. Yet, we do have a two party system. There are eal advantgaes of our system over the complexities in Israel or Canada, but the price we would pay by making the parties able to choose w/o election swould be too high.
So, to me the ideal is to have two niminal parties, to do just the things yuou say, but make the selction of candidates as open as possible. To me that means letting each person decide which party they want to support for each position … in the primary just as we do in the final.
Be practical .. can you show me an example n our system where this has not worked?
BTW Harvey says hello.
horsesasshole @ 55:
Jean Hague isn’t in trouble for ommissions on her resume; she lied on her resume. There is a big difference.
But if you’ve got something to throw at Richard, throw it fer chrissakes, or shut your flappy mouth!
@63
He won’t. If he had anything, we’d have heard it by now. It’s just an ancient, cheap slime technique.