On June 1, leaders of Washington state’s minor parties issued a press release, emphasizing their opposition to that state’s top-two election system, and asking California voters to reject the idea. Californians will vote on June 8; the California measure is Prop. 14. See the press release here. Thanks to Free & Equal for the link. Also, Independent Political Report also carried this press release.
Secretary of State Sam Reed has proposed legislation that would have defined a major party as one whose presidential candidate received 1% or more of the vote, and a minor part as one that completed a petition with 100 signatures. A presidential candidate in Washington would have needed 1000 signatures.
A candidate would have been restricted to expressing a preference for an actual party. The Forces of FUD, apparently blocked action on this legislation, that would have addressed many of the party’s concerns.
It is ironic that the small parties write longingly for the blanket primary.
Jim Riley,
It’s amazing that you support this creating of a one-party f a s c i s t – s o c i a l i s t c om m u n i s t i c style electoral system.
“Top-two” is evil. It will lead to the eventual destruction of liberty in America. It’s supporters are, at best, ignorant fools incapable of thinking through the consequences of this evil electoral system. “Top-two” is the antithesis of liberty.
We need to open up elections to all candidates and all parties, with a simple proceedure that lets all compete in the general election and lets parties control and manage their own nomination processes. This would be compatible with the priciples of freedom of association, freedom of speech and free elections.
Reasonable maximum ballot access requirements would be 500 signatures for US Senate and any statewide office, 250 for US House, 50 for State Senate, 25 for State Rep, and 10 for local offices, 1000 to put a party on the ballot and 1/2 percent for any statewide race to remain qualified.
We need to allow any individual or party the right to run in the General Election and to allow anyone to make unlimited donations to any campaign.
Or perhaps even better, eliminate government printed or controlled ballots altogether.
The final outcome if enough states adopt “top-two” will be a violent bloody revolution. We must stop and abolish “top-two” before it’s too late.
According to officials in the Washington state Secretary of State office, the reason the legislature didn’t pass the Secretary of State’s bill in either 2009 or 2010 is that the legislature thinks there is a 50-50 chance that the pending lawsuit against top-two will win. The legislature thinks, why should it pass a bill to fix up the details of top-two if top-two isn’t going to survive anyway?
#1: “It is ironic that the small parties write longingly for the blanket primary.”
I’m not sure about the small parties, but Washington state’s Democrats and Republicans could establish a voluntary blanket primary by first electing slates of pro-blanket primary precinct committee officers.
I suggested this to the Washington Grange several years ago, and they dismissed the idea.
Alaska’s Democrats and small party(ies), of course, now have a blanket primary, courtesy of the state Supreme Court.
P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries are needed — with the EVIL party hack gang bosses picking THEIR puppet robot candidates.
#3 While I am sure that there are legislators associated with the Forces of FUD who are hopeful for a favorable decision, they probably have not read Judge Coughenour’s opinion from last August, where he ruled against the ballot access and trademark claims.
The Forces of FUD are still hoping that the courts will rule on the basis of statute changes made in 2006 after the “extraordinary and precipitous nullification of the will of the people” by Judge Zilly’s injunction.
#6: When the US Supreme Court struck down the state-mandated blanket primary in California Democratic Party v. Jones, it reversed both the district court and the 9th circuit.
When the 9th circuit struck down Washington state’s blanket primary in 2003, it reversed the district court. The Supreme Court then refused to hear the state’s appeal.
The so called fix with a definition for minor parties had other restrictions than what you listed. First, the signatures for party recognition could only be gathered in the winter. The requirement was for 100 valid (means 200) signatures.
“Secretary of State Sam Reed has proposed legislation that would have defined a major party as one whose presidential candidate received 1% or more of the vote,”
Sure, but two of the parties in Washington are state parties, with NO presidential candidates. There was NO other means to become a major party, so a minor party could have acheived a majority in the state legislature, and remained a minor party.
AND, don’t forget the Top Two was sold as a means for minor party candidates to have a fair and equal chance to get on the ballot.
#8 If a group of people can’t find 100 persons to sign its petition in a state of 6 million, it can’t really claim to be a “political party” in any meaningful sense of the word. Just circulate the petition at your state or county conventions, and you should be able to get 100.
The only value of being a major party would be to have a presidential primary, and to be able to place a presidential candidate on the general election ballot, and to elect its party offices at the general election. Minor parties could still have presidential candidates.
If a minor party elected a majority in the state legislature what would it matter if they were a minor party?