Comments

Washington State Filing for Congress and State Office Closes — 14 Comments

  1. Would you call this an “jungle primary” or a “blanket primary” or a “top-two primary”? Is there a difference between Washington State and Louisiana and California?

    The use of “prefers” as in “Prefers X Party” for the candidates seems quite odd, like something out of “Bartleby the Scrivener.” What is the rationale behind “prefers”? Has it ever been used elsewhere?

    They seem very liberal on use of nicknames like “the man” and “Grandma Warrior.”

  2. I call California and Washington top-two systems. In essence, those 2 states limit candidates in the election itself to the 2 most popular candidates. Only the top most popular candidates can run. “Popularity” is determined by having a trial-run general election five months before the election itself.

    Louisiana, by contrast, has abolished primaries (except presidential primaries). Louisiana only has general elections, with a run-off in case no one gets 50%. In congressional races, only one-seventh of the races need a runoff. The runoff is in December. By federal law, since 1872, congressional elections must be held in November, so Louisiana doesn’t vote (for Congress) until November. Hence it has no primary.

  3. I do not understand how the WA and CA systems have not been struck down? Until 1997 Louisiana held the first round before the November general election and that was struck down in a court case called Foster v. Love. Louisiana had to move Congressional elections to November and the runoff for them to December. How have the Ca and Wa elections stood this long even tho they are identical to pre 1997 LA?

  4. The difference between the Louisiana law 1975-1997, and the current California and Washington state laws, is that Louisiana said if anyone gets a majority of the vote in the first round, that person is elected. Because the first round actually elected someone most of the time, it was an “election.”

    But in California and Washington, it is impossible for the first round to elect anyone, so it is not an “election”, so it doesn’t violate the 1872 federal law.

  5. On the Louisiana Secretary of State’s website, they do call it a primary election:

    “The following is important information for the Nov. 8, 2016 Presidential Election and Congressional Primary and the Dec. 10, 2016 Congressional General Election: election hours for the Presidential Election and Congressional Primary Election are 6 a.m. through 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016; election hours for the Congressional General Election are 7 a.m. through 8 p.m. on Saturday, Dec. 10, 2016…”

    http://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/GetElectionInformation/Pages/default.aspx

  6. The Louisiana Secretary of State is foolish to use that terminology, because if the terminology were meaningfully correct, the state would still be violating Foster v Love.

    Vocabulary in U.S. election law terms is very cloudy and unclear. There are about 7 definitions of “open primary.”

  7. LA continues to subvert the USA Const and laws —

    2 USC 1 – At the regular election held in any State next preceding the expiration of the term for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress, at which election a Representative to Congress is regularly by law to be chosen, a United States Senator from said State shall be elected by the people thereof for the term commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.

    2 USC 7 – The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
    ——
    THE day — THE election

    Much too difficult for the armies of MORON lawyers and judges to understand the English language.

    THE Fed election DAY is uniform to lessen CORRUPTION
    — what if the balance in the Congress depends on LA election results ???

    How many TRILLIONS would be spent on bribes, threats, etc. ???

    Has Civil WAR II started ???

  8. @Demo Rep. You continue to ignore 2 USC 8

    2 USC 8 “the time for holding elections in any State, District, or Territory for a Representative or Delegate to fill a vacancy, whether such vacancy is caused by a failure to elect at the time prescribed by law, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a person elected, may be prescribed by the laws of the several States and Territories respectively.”

    Go (re-)read the 1872 reapportionment bill.

  9. @Richard Grayson,

    In his opinion, ‘California Democratic Party v Jones’, Justice Scalia remarked that a “nonpartisan blanket primary” which did not serve to nominate candidates would presumptively be legal. Based on that suggestion the Washington legislature in 2004 passed Top 2 legislation that stated:

    “The sole purpose of allowing candidates to identify a political party preference is to provide to voters a brief description of each candidate’s political philosophy, which the voters may consider when casting their votes at a primary or general election.”

    The legislation also included an alternative Pick-A-Party primary. Governor Gary Locke ill-advisedly lined out the Top 2 legislation (in Washington, a governor may veto part of a bill). As a result of the veto, the Washington Grange petitioned the Top 2 primary on to the 2004 general election ballot where it was overwhelmingly approved by the citizens of Washington.

    Political hacks challenged the reform which tied it up in litigation for years. When Washington AG Rob McKenna argued the case before the SCOTUS, he successfully argued that the courts had prematurely enjoined the primary on the basis of a facial challenge – “that there was no way under any circumstances that voters would not be confused between the opinions of candidates, and the endorsements of the party bosses.” For an ‘as applied’ challenge to go forward, the law actually had to be applied.

    The Top 2 legislation doesn’t actually say how party preferences of candidates would be expressed. There had been some speculation that it would be something like, “(R)” and “(D)”. In devising the ballot particular emphasis was placed on allowing personal expression. If the party hacks had not tried to strangle the Top 2 initiative in its cradle, Washington may well have used ‘D’ etc.

    Louisiana has tended to use a single letter, with those who are “N” for No, or “O” for Other, seeking to be “I” for independent.

    Minneapolis for its Top 2 primary always used the party names. There is some legal distinction be officially endorsed candidates and others. It’s might be that one is permitted to say DFL nominee, rather than DFL candidate in campaign literature. There was one case where a candidate asked an office holder to write an endorsement, and the endorser implied that a challenger of the candidate was not a real DFL candidate. The candidate rejected the endorsement.

    The 2004 California Top 2 initiative did not use “preference”. The 2010 legislation appears to have copied the Washington practice.

    Oregon Top 2 reforms have proposed that candidates be permitted to have both a party affiliation, and a potential endorsement.

  10. @Richard Grayson,

    “primary” is an adjective meaning “first”. “general” is an adjective meaning not specific.

    A primary election is the first election, or first stage of a multi-stage election. A general election is not a special election, nor a by-election, not a municipal election.

    A teacher might say that they teach at a “primary”. This does not mean they teach at an election. It means that teach at a primary school.

    Texas has a “general primary” and a “runoff primary”.

  11. ‘Foster v Love’ does not depend on the date of (an event where voters make marks on sheets of paper, and then deposit them in a box), but rather the date (voters make their choice of representatives).

    If your hyper-literalist approach were correct, early voting (making marks on sheets of paper) prior to the date established by Congress would be unconstitutional.

    The Secretary of State is wise to use the language used in Louisiana statute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.