Um… a federal district judge has tossed out the “top-two” primary enacted by Initiative 872.
In a 40-page ruling, Judge Thomas Zilly said the state cannot allow voters to skip back and forth along party lines as they pick a favorite candidate for each office. Nor can it allow candidates to identify themselves by party without that party’s approval, the ruling said.
More when I know more….
UPDATE:
I haven’t had time to read it yet, but here’s a link to the ruling.
I’ll join my friend Stefan in making the editorial statement, “good.”
damn parties. This is just another step in making primaries meaningless ‘rubber stamp’ affairs.
Democracy in action, I guess.
!!!!!!!
A victory for common sense.
windie, this returns primaries to precisely what they’re supposed to be — members of a party choosing who will represent them on the ballot.
Abolish the Primary, use Instant Runoff Voting. We let the parties rule the primary last year, and it set in motion the worst General Election in Washington State HIstory.
In this state, for 70 years, the voters have had control of the elections, and according to the parties, that is a crime.
well…..imagine that!? a federal judge that can actually think….who knew?
this is good news for voters.
Elections should be about the people, not the parties. If the parties paid for them, I would understand. Otherwise, I should be able to vote for the best person, and the parties be damned.
Just had to drop this off for you.
It looks like Seattle just lost another Liberal.
BTW, has anyone heard from Rabbit Lately?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....cation=rss
APB on Roger Rabbit,
Has anyone seen Roger Rabbit? I have a question for him.
Roger –
Please provide proof that anyone here ever accused Wilson of being a pedophile or child molester (the accusation you made in the “Rove Confirmed Plame Was CIA” thread @22). It should be quit easy to go back and copy the posts.
I am STILL waiting…
christmas ghost:
Throwing out an election format that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters is good for them? Boy, you are an Elite.
the basic problem with the ‘primaries are meant to let the parties pick their leadership’ argument is that it disenfranchises so many people in a real way.
It leads to conventional party candidates fighting conventional party candidates, and leaves independent voters with very little real influence in the race. (both parties ignored independants that voted on their primary ballots, last I heard).
But the ‘closed primary’ is the providence of party hacks, and is directly to their benefit. Its putting the parties over the voters.
And yes, I understand the legal underpinnings, I just think its a mistake, and a step backward for the state.
Like Evergreen said, look what party control of the ballot got us in 2004.
I’m all for free association, but then shouldn’t the parties foot the bill for the primary since it’s their associating that is the reason for the primary in the first place? I don’t give money or support any of the parties, why should I subsidize their primary? If they want to hold, and pay for, a nominating convention and use that, then we can skip the primary all together, and just vote in the general election.
ergh… a topic that crosses the left/right divide.
I agree with Cons1st. If the primary is just a rubber-stamp for the party, just have a convention and save the state some money.
Or we can be closer to real representation.
If people actually participated in the parties, or at least in their nominating processes, this wouldn’t be a problem. The nomination, whether they happened in a nominating convention or a caucus, would represent closely the will of “the people” and of the party faithful, there would just be a lot more party faithful.
Doesn’t anyone remember the Democratic caucuses back in the spring of 2004? Isn’t there anyway we can get that back?
I like the idea @4, and agree @11 and 12. Eliminate the funding of the primary that us taxpayers of all political stripes pay, yet only benefits the R’s and D’s.
what if they gave a primary and nobody came?
I don’t like using state money to nominate the democrat’s “stooge of the decade” (yes, you can substitute the word republican there if you want)
How about have Chris (i’m a dumbshit) Vance and Paul (I am a cheater) Berendt pull names from a hat and we can vote on those. It would be less expensive for all concerned. I, for one will not vote in an election that does not allow me to vote for the best person. Despite, being a right leaning person I did vote for more democrats than republicans in the last election. you’d have to have half a brain to only vote for one party in this state.
prr @ 7
Deputies don’t believe a crime occurred because bestiality is not illegal in Washington state and the horse was uninjured, said Urquhart.
do you know why it isn’t a crime in this state? (Hint:have you seen Mike Lowry’s wife?)
Eliminate the primary and let the best man (woman) win!
BTW, I wrote up a quick DailyKos diary on the decision. Which, by the way, generated 50-plus comments on several sides of the issue.
As someone said, this one crosses the so-called left/right divide. It amused me no end to hear Democratic lawyer David McDonald talk about staring down Republican lawyers about the Rossi case all morning, then spending the afternoon collaborating with the same Republican lawyers on briefs in the I-872 case.
More proof that judges are making law rather than applying it…
upChuck @ 19:
Judge Zilly was appointed in 1988 by some guy named Reagan.
PJJ @ 7
“It looks like Seattle just lost another Liberal.”
No, that was probably one of Mayor West’s buddies. Then again, it might be one of the folks who’ve taking the abstinence pledge that they’re touting over at USP. Research indicates that pledgees have much higher rates of anal and oral sex. Given the tangled logic of folks trying to conform to such convoluted moral dicates, animals might not be entirely off limits. Dittoheads may also see bonus points for pissing off left wing animal rights types.
Guys – just got back into Seattle. Delta lost my luggage again (so what’s new). There was a guy with a table in the baggage claim area collecting signatures and money to get Bush impeached. (Mmmmmmmmmmm is that imPEACHment I smell?)
Misfire_one @ 22
You probably don’t even know what impeachment is or means. I’m guessing you’re just one of those jabbering Lefties who screams “impeachment” and “recall” for everyone to the right of Kucinich.
At least you get a couple of bonus points for not dreaming up some Vast Right Wing Conspiracy at Delta to steal your luggage. Quick! Quick! Go look up the Delta management and major shareholders and see if you can make a Six Degrees chart that leads you to Karl Rove!
Miss Fire @ 22
Just to get you a head start… Try Googling “Delta Airlines” and “CAPPS2.” They profiled you and stole your luggage!
Comment on 7
Hmmm … people have sex with horses, chickens, goats, and sheep at a farm in Enumclaw … hmmm … Enumclaw … isn’t that Republican territory? I’m sure of it.
Reply to 8
prr … please provide proof that I ever accused anyone “here” (i.e., on HorsesAss) of accusing Wilson of being a pedophile or child molester.
NO surprise here. Legal experts predicted from the start that the courts would toss the “top two” scheme. Political parties are voluntary associations entitled to choose their own candidates rather than have their candidates chosen for them; this is a no-brainer. However, I believe there is merit to the idea of getting rid of primaries, saving the state the expense, and having the parties choose their candidates in conventions.
As for independents, they’re like uncommitted delegates, if you’re unwilling to commit, then you can’t expect to participate in a process that is based on commitment.
N in Seattle@20
As I have said on several accounts, judges shouldnt be lifetime offices nor appointed. They should be elected into 6 year terms and be required to undergo senality/altshiemers/health tests every 2 years. Rehnquist is a prime example of this, the man has no buisiness in his conition sitting on issues that affect the entire population. While I agree with you that Reagan was probably the best president ever, he certainly cannot judge the future when a judge may flip and start working against the rational people.
N in Seattle@20
70 is just too damned old!
I think some wingnuts were hoping Terri S. would replace the Chief Justice. . . .
One solution is non-partisan races for every office — just like we have used for cities, school boards, port commissions, water/sewer/fire/etc districts, and judicial offices for many decades. We can keep a top two system, let the voters vote for anyone they please in the primaries, and tell the political parties to go straight to hell. Such a non-partisan election system would be perfectly constitutional, and will make the parties wish they had the old blanket primary or top two partisan primary back, instead of having NO ONE publicly affiliated with their party on any election ballot.
On the other hand, if we don’t go to all races being non-partisan and the parties insist on having primaries at public expense, we should change the law to require that the parties hold primary CONTESTS for every single partisan office. Otherwise, strip the party of major party status, get rid of its PCO elections also, and make them nominate by convention for the general election ballot just like the minor parties do.
The so-called “primary” this September will be a JOKE for the partisan offices in King County. The GOP will be running candidates for only six of the nine council seats, and the Dems for only seven of the nine council seats. So about 25% of the people who get a Dem or GOP primary ballot won’t even have anyone in their own district to vote for their local King County Council seat.
Neither party will have a primary election contest for King County Executive — that race will be meaningless. Only about 15% of the voters will have any party primary contest at all for their King County Council candidates — GOP voters in District 9 (Dunn-Hammond) and Dem voters in District 1 (Ferguson-Edmonds).
It is bad enough to be forced to hold a party ballot primary, when the voters are strongly against the idea (60% voted for the top two system). It is even worse to be forced into this by a judicial decision, which also says the parties can even dictate and alter the terms of the Montana primary if they don’t like them either.
But why should we be forced to hold a party “primary”, when the overwhelming majority of the races are either one choice or no choice? Nothing says we have to hold a “primary” in order to have partisan races — every party can be forced to hold nominating convention and place its candidate on the general election ballot.
So if we don’t go to non-partisan races, I would suggest that we adopt a “USE IT OR LOSE IT” approach. If a political party doesn’t ensure that at least two candidates appear on its primary ballot for a given level of office, then NO PRIMARY will be held for any office at that level.
At the statewide level, a political party would have to place at least TWO candidates on the ballot for Governor, Lt Gov, Treasurer, SOS, AG, Auditor, Ins Comm, and Land Comm. If not, then NO PRIMARY would be held for that party at the statewide level, and only convention nominees would appear on the November ballot for that party. The party would also forfeit the right to elect PCO’s in the September primary.
At the legislative district level, the party would have to place two names on the ballot for each of the two State Rep positions, and two candidates for State Senate (if that position was up). Otherwise, no primary election for state legislature in that district for that party.
At the county level, the party would have to list two candidates for each and every county office up in that election, including county-wide offices and district offices. Otherwise, no primary.
I am sick and tired of hearing the parties — especially the GOP — complain that anyone can “steal” their party label and file in the primary (even under the Montana system). This is even more sickening when the parties rarely have primary election contests for most offices, and often — especially the GOP — don’t even bother to put up nominees for important offices.
If the political parties like the privilege of holding a primary, then they should be forced to either USE IT OR LOSE IT!
I heard on the news that the Attourney General is going to appeal the decision.
Evergreen @33
Yeah well duh that’s his job.
upChuck @ 29:
While I agree with you that Reagan was probably the best president ever,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
Reagan may, repeat may have been the best president of the 1980s. Had Carter stayed in office for 21 days or more during the decade, the decision wouldn’t have been close.
My point, which anyone with the intellectual firepower of, say, a gnat would comprehend, was that Judge Zilly is almost certainly a Republican.
As for your problem with the tenure of federal judges, I think you’ll find that lifetime appointment follows the strictest of Constitutional construction. So you’re calling for Constitutional activism, or perhaps I mean Constitutional contradiction.
Richard Pope @ 32:
The so-called “primary” this September will be a JOKE for the partisan offices in King County. The GOP will be running candidates for only six of the nine council seats, and the Dems for only seven of the nine council seats. So about 25% of the people who get a Dem or GOP primary ballot won’t even have anyone in their own district to vote for their local King County Council seat.
While you are probably correct about the non-competition in several Council districts — which I, from the Dem side, also find extremely disappointing — I’m not sure you’re right about absence of competition within the parties.
If we’re now back to the modified-Montana model, I don’t think the Democrats would object to an Edmonds-Ferguson primary matchup in District 1 … as long as the two agreed that the primary determines that only the winner goes on the general election ballot. Might Hammond and Dunn do the same?
I don’t understand your connection of countywide and/or statewide primary contests with PCO eletions. It’s my understanding that the primary is now the only part of the electoral cycle during which PCOs can be elected, so what are you proposing? Abolishment of PCOs?
N in Seattle@35
“As for your problem with the tenure of federal judges, I think you’ll find that lifetime appointment follows the strictest of Constitutional construction. So you’re calling for Constitutional activism, or perhaps I mean Constitutional contradiction.”
DUH…here is your sign…
I just never thought he would do his job the way it is supposed to be, not the way the Republicans want it done. The Judges are to enforce the Constitution, not the will of whatever party put them on the bench.
Comment on 7
Hmmm … people have sex with horses, chickens, goats, and sheep at a farm in Enumclaw … hmmm … Enumclaw … isn’t that Republican territory? I’m sure of it.
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 7
You may be right Rabbit. I think the same way about nacrophiliacs. Overwhelming deomacratic territory there.
dj @ 31:
Don’t you blaspheme. Terri will rise and take her place on the lefthand side of the Lord as Chief Justice. So sayeth the preacher!
N in Seattle @ 35
Hard to say what Judge Tom Zilly’s party affiliation is (or was) — if any. The GOP is notorious for appointing Democrats to office in this state. They were even talking about appointing Democrat Anne Bremner as US Attorney for Western Washington in January 2001 after George W Bush was elected. As for Judge Zilly, his wife is Jane Noland — former Seattle City Council member for a few terms, candidate for Seattle Mayor in 1997, and self-described Democrat.
N in Seattle @ 36
Why should the PCO’s even be elected in a public election to begin with? The parties — under “freedom of association” — have the perfect freedom to ignore any state laws about party organization that are incompatible with the party’s own internal rules. The Libertarians completely ignore state law on party organization and give no special status to the relatively few Libertarian PCO’s. The Dems have their state committee composed of two people from each legislative district, and not two people from each county like the RCW says it should be.
PCO’s should be elected by the people attending the precinct caucuses in February or March. There are often several dozen people attending from each precinct (for the Dems) or at least a couple of people from each precinct(in the case of the GOP).
For example, the Dems had over 3,000 people attend the precinct caucuses in 2004 from the 48th legislative district — an average of over 20 people per precinct. Every single precinct elected delegates to attend the 48th district and county conventions. They could have just as easily elected Dem PCO’s from every single precinct in the 48th legislative district — and had those people available to work hard for the party in the fall 2004 elections.
But when the July 2004 filing period came around, less than half the precincts in the 48th legislative district had Democrats file for the PCO positions. And those people didn’t take office until December 2004, well after the November 2004 general election.
Similar things could be said about the GOP. Although there were a lot fewer people attending the GOP precinct caucuses in March 2004 — but still far more people than the one-third or so of precincts that ended up getting PCO candidates in the September 2004 primary.
Back to my USE IT OR LOSE IT primary proposal — I feel the Montana primary is a CHARADE, especially when the parties can limit who can even file to run in the primary in the first place. But when nearly every single office has either (a) one candidate from the party in question or (b) no candidate from the party in question, the Montana primary becomes a total JOKE.
I simply say the primary election law should be USE IT OR LOSE IT. A party should be required to put two candidates on the ballot for every partisan office in its primary, or forfeit its primary and only be allowed to nominate candidates by convention for the general election ballot. It is bad enough that political parties are forcing people to vote only for their candidates in the primary. But if a political party fails to give the people a choice of at least two candidates for every office on its primary ballot, then that party shouldn’t be allowed to have a primary ballot at all.
I would take things one step further. Require parties to run a full slate of candidates in every jurisdiction in any event. Otherwise, that party’s name shouldn’t be allowed to appear on the ballot for offices at that level. Individual candidates can still run, but without any party designation from that party.
So (1) If a party wants to hold a primary, they have to make sure that two candidates appear on the ballot for every office, and (2) If a party wants to nominate by convention, they have to make sure that a candidate of their party files for every office.
If political parties are not viable enough to find a candidate for every office, then we are better off with nonpartisan elections. And if primaries are not going to involve competition for every office (especially when parties now have the right to limit who can run in the primary), we are much better off not holding them for partisan offices.
Cheesy Chuckie @ 29
Reagan best president ever? Your argument would have a better chance if you said Nancy Reagan was the “best president ever” — that’s a tough sell, but trying to pin that label on a drooling vegetable is an impossible sell.
32
Richard, your idea sucks. I’m sure you mean well, but te last thing we need is partisan politicians pretending they’re non-partisan. You can’t take parties or partisanship out of politics by pretending they don’t exist.
40
We could do worse. I’d a million times rather have Schiavo than some Republican asshole like Scalia sit as the Lord’s Chief Justice.
EvergreenRailfan@38
Where does it say the primary belongs to the parties? Do the people not pay for them?
Roger Rabbit @ 44
Actually, my proposal is something short of actually making all offices non-partisan. USE IT OR LOSE IT has strong incentives to promote both INTRAPARTY and INTERPARTY competition.
INTRAPARTY COMPETITION. If political parties view a partisan primary as a sacrament, then the Dems will have to ensure that every voter choosing their primary ballot has a choice of at least two Dems for every office on that ballot. Same for the GOP. If the primary is meaningless, then no primary will be held, and the party will have to nominate by convention.
INTERPARTY COMPETITION. If a political party believes their party name is worthy enough to be printed on the ballot, then every voter voting in a general election should be allowed the opportunity to vote for a candidate of that party for every single office. If a party cannot field candidates for every single office in a given jurisdiction (statewide, congress, legislature, or county), then its party name simply will not appear on the ballot at that jurisdiction level.
Roger Rabbit@42
You have things confused, it was Bill Clinton that was drooling over Monica…as he smoked poontan flavored cigars….
45
The voters, on two occasions have said they want to control the nomination process. The GOP keeps saying, let the people vote, but that only applies to taxes. The people spoke on the Primary last year, and the GOP have said, you spoke, now sit back down, we are doing things our way. Oh, I forgot to mention about I-2. the original blanket primary Initiative back in 1935, it was an indirect initiative, one of only a handful approved outright by the Legislature, avoiding the vote of the people.
I watched up in BC their attempt at Electoral Reform, that failed. It was interesting, how at the last minute, the ruling Liberal Party(don’t let that name fool you, they are conservatives), at the last minute mandated a super-majority vote on the Refferendum. Wonder how the opposition Party did not stop that, say for the good of the Province, keep it a simple majority vote? What opposition party? For the term from May 2001 to the May 2005 General Election in BC, the Liberals had between 70-77 seats out of 79, with only 57.5% of the vote.(Don’t worry, in an even more lopsided election as bad as anything we have down here, the NDP regained about 30 seats, including the Party Leader’s seat in a section of Victoria). They do not have primaries up there, the parties nominate, but independents do run, and on the national level, there are 3 in the House of COmmons, one representing BC, and the others from the prairie provinces. BC was going to use a form called Single-Transferable Vote, which is basically IRV, only used in a multi-member district. The Refferendum failed, with only a 57% yes vote and won 77 of the 79 ridings(their term for district). The Liberal Swept into Victoria with that same margin in 2001. They won every riding on Vancouver Island(but not in 2005, it went orange, the color for the New Democrat Party), most of Rural BC, the Central Interior(Kamloops is the British Columbia version of Ohio, a party needs it to win), and Vancouver(More seats fell back into the NDP).
Ireland uses STV, ever since Independence, and several times lawmakers have put a Constitutional Refferendum on the ballot that was met with the response from the voters of “you got to be kidding!” It avoids partisan mudslinging, and often when a person said they were going to vote for the other guy(even if it was in the same party), candidates have been known to ask “Then can I have your 2nd Choice, please?”.
Perhaps with the statewide elections here, we should abolish the Primary, replace it with IRV in the State Senate and Executive Branch Offices, and State House should be elected using STV. In the interim, use IRV for the State House, too, since I am not a fan of mid-decade redistricting, unless a new Census in Mid-Decade happens.
EvergreenRailfan @ 48
All it would take would be an initiative and signatures. The Greens have proposed this from time to time, but haven’t gotten the signatures.
Instant Run-Off voting (IRV) works well in Ireland and Australia. It would be a LOT more difficult here, due to the multiplicity of offices that are voted on.
In the Irish Parliament election, a voter gets ONE BALLOT with ONE RACE on it — the local district for the Dail Eireann (their equivalent of House of Representatives). The voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. It is single transferable voting (STV), which is basically a method of proportional representation — i.e. IRV for multimember districts.
In Australia, there is one ballot for the House of Representatives, where IRV is used to elect people from single member districts, and another ballot for Senate — where STV is used to elect people from multi-member districts.
This would be a logistically nightmare in Washington. For example, in 2008 in King County, we would have President, Congress, nine statewide officers, three Supreme Court justices, a Court of Appeals judge, up to 50 Superior Court judges (depending on which races where contested), two State Reps, possibly a state Senator, etc.
Can you imagine ranking all of those candidates? What would the ballot look like? How long would it take to fill out?
At least it would make all-mail elections practically mandatory. Better to spend an hour filling out the ballot at home, than to have long lines in the polling places full of confused, frustrated and angry voters.
Richard Pope@49
You know if I had to spend an entire day filling out my ballot, I would do so with enthusiasm! The more choices and issues we get to vote on the better off we are! As well as the fewer things the polititians get their hands on the better.
Chuck @ 50
I am not opposed to the idea, but it just doesn’t seem practical. How do you get the proper ovals on the ballot to rank a dozen or more candidates in some races (such as Governor and Senate, which attract an awful lot of bozos)?
And should we leave party labels off the ballot entirely? Regardless of the type of balloting system used, the political parties have this 1st amendment “freedom of association” right to prevent candidates from using their name, and limit the number of candidates doing so to one (or even none)
Richard Pope@51
If dropping the party name is what is needed, I have no real problem with that, nothing like the voter actually investigating who he voted for rather than checking the D or R spot. Would that mean a more informed voter? Oh God we cant have that now can we?
Can we just abolish the primary system all together? If the parties, of which I refuse to be a part of either because they’re both corrupt and controlled by special interests, have so much concern about who votes for their candidate in the primary, then just have a convention and do it the old fashioned way.
As many uncontested races as there are, the primary has become a virtually meaningless waste of taxpayer dollars and political contributions that could be far better spent elsewhere.
N @ 35….
Carter? A runner up for best?
Uh……
best of what…..
Personally, I feel IRV is needlessly complicated. A much more straight-forward alternative is to simply allow overvotes.