King County, Washington, is that state’s most populous county. It includes Seattle. County elections officials have determined that an initiative, to make all county offices non-partisan, has qualified for the November ballot.
In response, the King County Council has voted to place a competing ballot measure on the November ballot. It would ask voters if they want non-partisan elections with party labels. Of course, that is fundamentally the policy in Washington state now (except for president), under the “top-two” law being used for the first time this year. Initiative proponents, with justification, charge that the county government’s competing ballot measure is just a maneuver to defeat the initiative.
The EVIL party hacks try to hang on to POWER.
The same sort of party hacks who have undeclared wars, giant govt debts, etc. etc.
Will WA State folks thus even perhaps SAVE Western Civilization from the EVIL party hacks ???
Yes, I’m not going to vote in the primary, I’m going to attch a pointed and polite criticism of “top two” system that I am going to attach to the august primary mail in ballot.
And I’m only voting for president in November. Next they’ll want the King County Council to all be “at large” so the money interests can control them better (like they do in Seattle proper – which has a non partisan, at large council notorious for being stacked with essentially hirees of Real Estate interests.
Does this mean that, unless and until King County voters approve nonpartisan elections WITHOUT party labels, the county will use “top two” elections WITH party preferences? If so, it’s much ado about very little.
Or would King County be exempt from the “top two” of I-872 and be able to hold party primaries?
I hear King County is the 7th most populous county in the U. S. Lots of lefties!
“Lots of lefties!”
No, lot’s of Obama believers and ecoyuppies, but the Left here is pretty much extinct.
STEVE WHT IS YOUR PHONE NUMBER WE NEED TO TALK.
Re: #3
Washington law provides that county offices are partisan offices, subject to override by a county home rule charter. King County has a county home rule charter, but it defines the office of the county executive and the county council members to be partisan offices to be elected according to Washington (state) law. King County does add one provision for independent candidates, which only makes sense for a blanket primary. It provides that if 20% of the votes in the primary are cast for independent candidates, then the plurality winner among the independent candidates advances to the general election. In effect it makes an “independent primary” within the the blanket primary.
As they are partisan offices, King County has used the Blanket Primary, Pick a Party, and (prospectively) Top 2 for its elections. You may recall that when the federal district court issued its injunction against I-872 in 2005 it was to stop implementation for county offices (King County has its county elections in odd years).
The I-26 initiative would make the county offices non-partisan offices, and conduct elections accordingly under State law. Washington elects its Superintendent of Public Instruction and judges in non-partisan elections. Candidates appear on the primary ballot without party identification. However, it is is not a Top election. If there is not a majority winner, the top 2 candidates advance to the general election. If there is a majority winner, the winner appears alone on the general election ballot (there must be possibility of write-in challengers).
Note, that the petitioning process on I-26 began prior to the US Supreme Court’s opinion on I-872 was issued.
The alternative approved by the King County Council would make the county offices non-partisan, but would provide that the candidates could have party preferences appear on the ballot. As an added twist, it would continue the election of county sheriff and county assessor as non-partisan offices, but would permit these candidates to now declare a party preference.
Obviously, the county council version would be subject to separate legal challenge on the same grounds that I-872 has been challenged.
The county charter provides for an initiative process that works like this: (1) Citizens petition for change; (2a) Council may adopt initiative; (2b) Council doesn’t approve initiative, and it goes to a referendum; (2c) Council rejects initiative, and proposes alternative. Voters may reject both the initiative and the alternative; or they pick which is implemented by receiving the most votes.
One difference between I-872 and the council alternative may be with regard to severability. Since I-872 (re)defined a “partisan office” as one in which candidates could express a party preference to appear on the ballot, the courts could not simply eliminate the preferences from the ballot. The county council alternative does not re-define non-partisan offices. So if its use of party preferences was unconstitutional, the elections would become ordinary garden variety non-partisan elections.
BTW, the county council vote approving the alternative was a 5-4 party line vote.
So the choices are:
Status quo, partisan office, but under I-872 only party preferences are expressed, and primaries winnow, but don’t nominate/ Subject to possible change due to continuing litigation or changes by the legislature (which could make it look more like the system proposed in Oregon with its formal system for expressing party endorsement(s)).
I-26, true non-partisan elections without party labels or nominations, and a runoff in case a candidate does not receive a majority.
County Council alternative. Non-partisan elections but with party preferences expressed. Subject to possible litigation, which would most like convert it into I-26.