Washington state’s HB 1534, which improves ballot access for minor parties and independents, failed to move through the Washington Senate Rules Committee by the deadline, so it cannot pass.
It is tough to pass a bill like this, while the entire state is still waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court decision on its primary process. The case, Washington State v Washington State Republican Party et al, was argued on October 1, 2007, in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court still hasn’t issued the opinion.
HB 1534 did move through the Rules committee and was placed on the Senate calendar. However, it was done on the last day before the Senate could take action. It was simply one of 129 bills on the Senate’s calendar that last day for consideration, less than 1/2 were considered even though most were non-controverisal.
After the Senate Government Operations & Elections committee held its hearing (ie with public testimony) they waited a week before taking it up in executive session where they approved it and passed it on to the Senate Rules committee for placement on the Senate’s calendar. If you listen to that executive session, it is clear that the committee was utterly clueless what it was about.
It then was another week in the Rules committee before being placed on the Senate calendar. The Rules committee selects bils one at a time for inclusion on the calendar.
It was simply a matter of no legislator pushing “their” bill through the process.
Note: the March 10 action by the Senate Rules committee to place the bill in the “‘X’ file” was simply to de-clutter the calendar of bills that had zero chance of being considered.
I’m convinced that Washington state will ultimately have some version of the “top two” system, which, I would argue, is no more a “primary process” than the elections for, say, mayor of Los Angeles. Such a nonpartisan municipal election is called an election with a runoff, which is exactly what it is.
With all candidates in Washington state ultimately running in the same election, major party candidates, minor party candidates, and independents will surely have the same means of qualifying. In Louisiana’s “top two” for local and state offices, e.g., ALL candidates may qualify by petition OR by paying a fee to the government. (The same is also true of Louisiana’s newly-restored party primaries for congressional elections.)
The U. S. Supreme Court is evidently finding the “top two” to be a rather complex issue.
Probably Stevens or Kennedy wanting to decide the case on some entirely different issues such as whether it is constitutional to set congressional election procedures by the initiative; or whether a top-two primary inhibits the voters “choosing” their representative or senator on the day appointed by Congress (ie like happened in Louisiana)
Stevens was the only justice who questioned the constitutionality of changing a state’s election process through the initiative– in California Democratic Party v. Jones.
At oral argument in the Washington state case, the justices seemed mainly concerned about whether candidates should be allowed to list their party preferences on the “top two” ballot without the parties’ approval. (WA, unlike Louisiana, does not have party registration.)
Under Foster v. Love, Louisiana had to start holding the first round of its “top two” congressional elections on the first Tuesday in November; a runoff, if necessary, had to be held at a later date. This was a big factor in Louisiana restoring party primaries for its congressional elections.
It will be interesting to see whether Washington and/or Oregon wind up using the “top two” for their congressional elections. (Both the voter-passed WA measure and the proposed Oregon initiative include congressional elections.)
The “top two” is not a “primary.”
Want to wager whether the Supreme Court will refer to top two as a “primary”?
They probably already have, but that doesn’t make it a primary (see Webster’s). In CA Dem Party v. Jones, Scalia called the “top two” a “nonpartisan blanket primary.” Stevens said– correctly– that it’s a general election with a runoff.
I believe some of the justices also said the WA state plan is for electing partisan officials. The “top two” is nonpartisan, whether party labels are added to the ballot or not.
Interesting that you’re proposing a wager, after you chickened out on my wager offer vis-a-vis the open primary litigation.
Under Foster v. Love, Louisiana had to begin holding the first round of its congressional elections on the first Tuesday in November.
How can an election that’s held on federal election day be a “primary”??
Here is what Merriam-Webster online says:
“an election in which qualified voters nominate or express a preference for a particular candidate or group of candidates for political office”
The definition does go on to include some usages that are more limited to partisan primaries. But just because some primaries are partisan primaries, does not mean all primaries are partisan.
The only state that currently uses top 2 primaries for its legislature, Nebraska, calls them primaries, even though they are non-partisan.
I re-read the transcript of the oral arguments of the Washington case, I don’t see where any justices said that the Washington plan is for electing partisan officials. There was one line of questioning about whether the ballot labelling provisions were severable or not. The attorney for the Washington GOP did refer to “true non-partisan primaries” as one in which there were no party labels. At least in his lexicon, the Louisiana system (no longer used for congressional elections) is not a true non-partisan primary.
Please quote the section from Judge Pepper’s decision that you believe will be upheld.
Under Foster v. Love, Louisiana had to hold the primary for US representatives and senators on the first Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November of even years.
It continued to hold its elections for statewide and legislative offices in the odd years. The primary in 2007 was in October and the general election in November. Neither was on the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November.
The Merriam-Webster definition of a “general election” is an election for which most offices or constituencies are contested on the same day. In Louisiana, that is not the case for the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November.
Jim R (Concrete Head),
You and I had a lengthy and somewhat redundant exchange on many of these issues on the thread under the Texas post. Are you proposing to repeat that here?
You’ve apparently changed your position on the oxymoronic “nonpartisan primary.” As I said on the TX thread, that term came into usage in the early 1900s, when municipalities began electing their officials on a nonpartisan basis. It’s a corrupt term, since classic primaries were inherently partisan affairs. But it’s been used so often and for so long that it’s accepted by many people.
“The only state that currently uses top 2 primaries for its legislature, Nebraska, calls them primaries, even though they are non-partisan.”
Louisiana uses the “top two” for all of its local and state elections, including its legislature. That system is called the “open primary” in Louisiana and in Mississippi, whose legislature enacted it five different times, 1966-1979. But does that make it an “open primary,” or even a “primary” at all?
Let’s say the first round in Louisiana is a “primary.” If a candidate gets 50%-plus in that round, (SHA-ZAM!) it suddenly becomes a general election, and there’s no need for a second round. Do candidates actually get elected to office in a “primary”?
The 9th Circuit, in striking down the Washington state “top two,” said that it was established for partisan offices. Again: numerous books written by political scientists call the Louisiana system “nonpartisan,” which it is. Putting party labels on a “top two” ballot does not make it a partisan election.
“Under Foster v. Love, Louisiana had to hold the primary for US representatives and senators on the first Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November of even years.”
An election held for federal offices on federal election day was a “primary”? You’re kidding– right? (And don’t forget that any candidate for representative or senator who got 50%-plus on that day was elected to office.)
Your last 2 paragraphs are non-sequiturs. The only elections Louisiana has on a Tuesday are its federal general elections, since that’s required by federal law. All of its other elections are held on Saturdays.
Tennessee holds its party primaries on Thursdays. So what?
Louisiana law refers to its first election as a “primary”. In ‘Foster v. Love’, Justice Souter referred to it as a “primary”. The second election is referred to as a runoff.
Under Louisiana’s new law for congressional elections it refers to the _congressional_ primaries as the “first party primary” and “second party primary” to distinguish them from simply “primaries” used for other offices. Under Louisiana law, if one candidate receives a majority of the vote in the primary, he is elected.
A “general election” is an election in which a number of offices and constituencies hold their election on the same day. This is to distinguish from presidential, senatorial, congressional, gubernatorial, mayoral, city council, legislative elections, held on different days, or “special elections” where an election is held in limited constituencies. (eg the election to fill the Lott vacancy is a special election even though it is held on the same date as the general election.
Louisiana has a weirder election calendar than even Mississippi. In even years (before 2008) they held the primary for some local offices in October, with the runoff if necessary on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, at which time congressional primaries were also held. In Louisiana, it is not a general election, that is a day when elections are held for offices in general, throughout the state in general.
In odd years, the primary election for statewide and legislative offices is in October and the runoffs in November – but not on the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday.
Louisiana does not have a “top two” primary, since a candidate who receives a majority of the votes is elected. This is unlike the case in Nebraska legislative elections, where the Top 2 candidates advance to the general election regardless of the number of votes received by the second-place candidate.
Regarding the Washington top 2 litigation, the 9th Circuit was quoting the offical voters pamphlet with regard to elections for “partisan office”. Note that in Washington State there are a number of offices that are called “non-partisan offices”, including judicial and county offices, where no party labels appear on the ballot. The Grange and Washington voters would be aware of that distinction – and was asserting that they were making no change in the manner of electing those other officers.
If you _will_ re-read the 9th Circuit opinion, it points out that the SCOTUS was not clear in what sense it was using “non-partisan” (in its ‘Jones’ dictum).
“Although the Court did not specify in what sense it was using the term “nonpartisan,†an election is customarily nonpartisan if candidates’ party affiliations are not identified on the ballot. See Bott, Handbook of United States Election Laws and Practices 145 (“Nonpartisan elections are ones in which persons running for public office have their names listed on the ballot but not their party affiliation.â€).”
The 9th Circuit said that if the Washington Top 2 law did not include party labels, then they would have upheld it. That is, it was the presence of party labels that made it distinguishable from the type of non-partisan blanket primary that had been suggested as being legal in the ‘Jones’ dictum.
Concrete Head,
Do you consider a “primary” to be the first step of every election process? If so, was the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election a “primary”? That was just like the “top two,” except that there was no runoff.
Why is it that Los Angeles, e.g., does not refer to the first round of its municipal elections as a “primary”? It calls the first round an election and the second round a runoff, which is exactly what they are.
You can call the Louisiana/”top two” a “primary” until Doomsday, but that won’t make it one. It’s a nonpartisan general election with a runoff.
“Under Louisiana law, if one candidate receives a majority of the vote in the primary, he is elected.” That’s true of the first round of Louisiana’s “top two” state and local elections– which, since candidates are never ELECTED in primaries– are not “primaries.”
A Louisiana candidate who gets a majority in a party primary for a congressional office is nominated.
A general election is an election in which candidates are elected to office. Some states have special party primaries preceding special general elections to fill vacancies in offices, e.g. That can be in one electoral district– it doesn’t have to be a statewide election. In special elections in Texas and Mississippi, in contrast, the first round is the general election, and the second round is a runoff general election, if necessary.
“Louisiana does not have a “top two†primary, since a candidate who receives a majority of the votes is elected.”
The “top two” is NEVER a primary. Louisiana’s “top two” works like the “top two” in Washington state and Nebraska, except that WA and NE always have a second round of voting– a double election.
I defined “nonpartisan election” during our exchange on the thread about Texas. Since I didn’t get it through your hard head on that thread, I see no point in repeating it here.
Be careful about quoting the 9th Circuit, since they were again reversed in the WA “top two” case, just as they are 75% of the time.