On January 22, the Democratic and Republican Parties of Washington state each filed amended complaints in the case challenging the constitutionality of the “top-two open primary” that the voters passed in 2004. The case is Washington State Republican Party v State, cv05-927. Here is the Republican Party’s amended complaint. Here is the Democratic Party’s amended complaint. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the latter.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March 2008, in this very same lawsuit, that “top-two” is not unconstitutional on its face, as to the freedom of association argument, but said it might be unconstitutional as applied. Newspapers in California and Washington have failed to communicate this information to their readers. They constantly say that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law.
It has also been written that the courts have upheld the constitutionality of Louisiana’s “top two,” when, in fact, the overall Louisiana system has never been challenged in court.
#1 After Foster v Love ruled that congressional elections had to be held in November, Governor Foster proposed that the election date be moved to November. The House passed the legislation, but the Senate, primarily due to the efforts of Cleo Fields proposed going back to the old partisan system. With the legislature deadlocked, the federal district court changed the election calendar (the legislature later made the same change). The action by the federal court was challenged in Love v. Foster which argued that the old system should have been re-imposed, rather than simply fixing the election date. This was rejected by the 5th Circuit.
If anybody had any constitutional problems with the Open Primary, they could have made their challenge then. They still could.
top 2 = FREE advertising for the party hack parties at taxpayer expense.
SOOOOO much for the party hacks to complain about — that candidate John Doe mentions a party hack name next to his name on the PUBLIC primary ballots.
Any *Donkey Party* or *Elephant Party* candidates in WA ???
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
Cost per vote in primaries compared to general elections ???
It is surprising how much of the text of the “two” parties’ briefs are identical. It is pretty much a rehash of their previous arguments.
They seem to still be under the misapprehension that there is a right to formally nominate candidates through a state-mandated and operated system that excludes both voters and candidates from fully participating. The Supreme Court decision was 7-2.
Some of the new stuff is pretty bizarre. In 2007, the legislature made some changes due to the fiasco of the 2004 Pick-A-Party primary, where 10% of voters failed to vote for a gubernatorial candidate. The law directs that ballot instructions tell primary voters to vote for only candidates of one party. They claim that since that law is still on the books it conflicts with the Top 2 legislation.
They also complain about the election of precinct committee officers. But if they would simply let the legislature pass the pending legislation this problem would be eliminated.
Jim, you are ahead of me! I still haven’t seen the two briefs. It sounds as though you have. Is it possible you could forward them to me? Thank you very much.
#2: The Louisiana “top two” vis-a-vis state and local elections has never been challenged in court.
The only other suit was Dart v. Brown, in which a Libertarian candidate for the New Orleans city council wanted the state to be ordered to put his party label next to his name on the ballot (the Libertarian Party was not ballot-qualified at the time). Dart lost his suit.
The political parties are afraid to file suit against the “top two” (“open primary”) because of its popularity with the voters.
#6 Why do you think legislators are opposed to the open primary? It is the party hacks who can’t get elected who want closed elections.
#7: I don’t know that Louisiana legislators are opposed to the “top two” (aka “open primary”) for state and local elections; in fact, it took several years for the legislature to restore party primaries for Louisiana’s congressional elections.
Cleo Fields spearheaded the restoration of the congressional primaries. He’s been elected to the state Senate and the U. S. House, and he finished second for governor in 1995.
#5 The briefs are also posted on the Washington Secretary of State’s web site:
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/toptwo.aspx
The amended complaint of the Libertarian Party is also now included.
The Libertarian Party brief makes the extraordinary claim that Washington state should be enjoined from facilitating “ticket-splitting” or “cross-over” voting in any partisan election, except to the extent expressly authorized by the Libertarian Party for that election. So if you were to vote for a Democrat for one representative position and a Republican for another, Washington might be found to have violated the injunction because the Libertarian Party had not expressly authorized facilitation of such activity through devices such as the secret ballot.
Where in the U.S.A. Constitution does it say that a party hack SUBGROUP of ALL PUBLIC Electors have ANY constitutional right to have ANY candidate of such SUBGROUP on the PUBLIC official ballots for any PUBLIC office — with any party hack label ???
Sorry — NO such language in the Constitution.
See the Supremes top 2 WA State opinion.
Less than 5 months and counting until the top 2 vote in CA.
All three parties complain about a 2007 law that the Washington legislature passed telling voters that they could only vote for candidates of one party in the primary.
But the sequence was this:
1) Legislature imposes Pick-A-Party primary after Governor Locke vetoed the Top 2 primary.
2) First Pick-A-Party primary results in 10% of voters not casting vote for governor.
3) Voters approve Grange initiative for Top 2 primary.
4) District Court imposes injunction preventing implementation of Top 2 primary. The US Supreme Court will later characterize this as an “extraordinary and precipitous nullification of the will of the people”.
5) Legislature tries to fix problems with Pick-A-Party primary – even though Top 2 remains the law in Washington and was still being litigated.
6) US Supreme Court overturns district court.
7) Washington implements Top 2 primary and ignores changes made to make old Pick-a-Party primary work.
# 11 The sovereign WA State voters (including lots of independents) TOOK CONTROL of the nomination process away from the party hacks.
Any party hack mere law that violates any part of a State constitution [that is constitutional regarding the U.S.A. Constitution and laws] is obviously UN-constitutional.
Count the days until the DOOM of the EVIL arrogant gerrymander party hacks — like a countdown in 1945 for the DOOM of the EVIL Axis regimes.
Sorry – the New Age top party hack Donkeys and Elephants in the U.S.A. are possibly more EVIL arrogant corrupt than Hitler and Hirohito combined in 1939-1945.