Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has written a proposed bill that clarifies some problems with the existing “top-two” primary system. The bill defines a qualified major party to be a group that polled at least 1% for president in the last presidential election.
Existing law says a qualified major party is one that polled 5% for any statewide office at the last election in which a statewide office was on the ballot. That existing definition is no longer workable, however, because the “top-two” initiative passed by the voters in November 2004 says that parties don’t have nominees any longer, except for president. Under the existing law, there wouldn’t be any qualified major parties in Washington state after the U.S. Senate election in November 2010, because there would be no party nominees in that election.
The proposed bill also defines qualified minor party to be a group that submits a petition of 100 voters by the first Monday in March, asking that the group be recognized as a party.
Washington state primary and general election ballots, under the “top-two” system, give each candidate a chance to say which party he or she prefers. Assuming this proposed bill passes, candidates will not be able to say they prefer just any group; they can only say they prefer a qualified major party or a qualified minor party. In the 2008 elections, some candidates said they preferred “parties” that clearly aren’t organizations, such as the Salmon Yoga Party or the GOP Party.
One might wonder what difference it makes for a group to be a qualified major party. The answer is that qualified major parties get their own presidential primary, and they are permitted to elect party officers in the September primary. Also their presidential nominee is put on the November ballot automatically with no petition needed.
Every election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election.
P.R. and A.V.
Richard, two questions?
Does this bill have any statement on how a “qualified
minor party” stays qualified? Otherwise, it appears
that they will need to requalify every year to run any
partisan candidates in Washington. Second, will this
have any effect in non-partian elections in Washington?
Colorado arguably has the easiest Presidential ballot access in the country, with just a $500 fee.
There were only some 13 or 14 candidates on the ballot in Colorado this year.
Surely having a few names on a ballot, in an American culture that values its “right of choice” is manageable and should always be deferred to.
Why just a “top two”? Why not a top 10?
Shouldnt a nationwide policy, in each state, of a low litmus of say 1000 signatures and $1000 be reasonable enough to avoid foolishness and lengthy ballots, and give people the right to choose?
Why such resistance to such? Oh..thats right, the ability to maintain and control power. Certainly a principle that runs counter to our American tradition and the Declaration of Independence.
Bill has it right.
However, a different question: is there anything new to report since December regarding the lawsuit to kill top-two in Washington?
“Top two” is just two party communism.
“Top two” must be repealed.
It is silly to elect party officers in a pick-a-party primary held at the same time that every other race on the ballot is not conducted as a party contest. And the Democratic Party officially ignores the results of the presidential preference primary (though I imagine they do collect the information on voters in the Democratic primary).
Washington should apply the Top 2 primary to the presidential race as well.
If there is a continued need for party recognition, Washington could simply send out a ballot in the spring of even years in which voters could pick a party, and at the discretion of the party, vote for party officers. Other parties could choose officers at conventions.
Wow! what an idea ! What a concept ! Beautiful .. Amazing …