On January 11, U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, ruled that Washington state’s top-two system does not violate the associational rights of political parties. The decision is Washington State Republican Party et al v Washington State Grange, 2:05-cv-927. See here for the 24-page opinion. The judge canceled the trial that had been set for January 18.
The opinion also holds that the state’s method of electing party officers in the top-two primary is unconstitutional. Now, the legislature will need to change the procedure for those elections. It is possible the legislature will simply change the law to abolish public elections for party officers.
Last year, Judge Coughenour had ruled that Washington state’s top-two system does not violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s ballot access precedents. He made that ruling before much evidence had been introduced on that point. The plaintiffs will now be able to appeal that ruling, as well as the recent ruling, to the 9th circuit, and they will do so.
Judge Coughenour acknowledged that the evidence on freedom of association does show that many Washington state voters are confused about whether a party label on the ballot indicates that the party approves of the candidate. But he said the standard for judgment must be whether “reasonable, well-informed” voters are confused, and that the evidence about “unreasonable, uninformed voters” is irrelevant.
As about as predictable as a Sun rise — since there were obviously NO disputed *facts* as to require a trial.
Ignorance of the LAW is NO excuse — basic MAXIM of the LAW.
i.e. ALL Electors-Voters are allegedly aware of every word in ALL constitutions and laws and every word in every SCOTUS opinion — i.e. EVERY word about the top 2 stuff in WA State — in constitutions, laws, regulations, SOS comments, etc.
— i.e. NO such thing possible as *voter confusion* or *uninformed* voters.
How soon before SCOTUS puts the WA State party hacks OUT of their misery with a FINAL-FINAL opinion upholding the right and power of a sovereign State of the Union to have ALL PUBLIC Electors in such State choose the PUBLIC nominees in a PUBLIC primary for PUBLIC offices to be put on PUBLIC general election ballots ???
P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries are needed.
On to the next petition for election reform NOW.
The Sun will rise with top 2 and even P.R. and App.V.
The party hacks can pick their party hack officers in a dark closet or basement at 3 AM on a dark night.
I used to be the chair of the Wahkiakum County Democratic Party. The following occurred in 2008 with our county commission election under I-872.
To be inclusive, our county party purchased advertising in the local paper to urge people to run as Democrats. The ad invited any candidate who was interested in the Democratic Party nomination for local office to contact us and engage our nomination process. We also ran notices in the paper inviting people to run for PCO in the August 19th public primary. Nobody replied to any advertisement.
As far as our local group went, there is no state interest in regulating our nominations
We followed all of the State Democratic Party nomination rules and by May 23 nominated a candidate for our local County Commissioner race. In the first week of June, our nominee in the commissioner race filed his intent of candidacy.
We became aware that someone else had also filed as “prefers Democratic Party” in the commissioner race. Regardless of our nominating process, I was never contacted by this candidate about their intention to run as a Democrat. They never even attended the February presidential caucus or County Convention.
Our party ran ads supporting the local Democratic nominee as well as other Democratic nominees running for higher office.
The election went its course and our party-nominated candidate didn’t make it in the Top-Two vote getters. But, the candidate who only “preferred” the Democratic party did. She even won election in November. Another one of our candidates lost to an Independent that November. And get this, last November (2010) the Democrat that didn’t make it in the Top Two – won election as county assessor as an independent!!
A lot of hard work and history has gone into establishing a local party with which a candidate can now associate on a ballot with no indication if he or she has been endorsed by the party. There are many reasons why I quit the party but mostly because participation was a waste of time. It might be ironic, but my wife and I put a lot of time in our local Grange. I’m even the Master / Chair of our local group.
Alas, association will endure – ever heard of Facebook or Twitter? Until Americans realize the power of political association and what a powerful privilege it is to have a group’s name on the ballot itself; we’re stuck with public employee unions, trial attorney interests, business lobby’s and other groups that run our democracy. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Thanks for that real-world description, Krist.
Thanks RIchard. It’s the two major parties that really are responsible for this situation. They think that somehow partisan primaries will come back to Washington.
Pierce County Democrats came out against RCV because it protected nominations. I know it’s absurd – kind of like the book club that doesn’t read! They were betting on a return of partisan primaries.
Pierce D’s even nominated multiple candidates for RCV races. There’s a good study of the election and how preferential ballots with partisan labels mirrored the traditional primary / general election ballot. http://washingtonpoll.org/pdf/rank_choice.pdf (Better get off the RCV before too many of the Koo-Koo’s dog pile on.)
Anyway, the major parties are held in such low esteem that people are attracted to things like “prefers party”. In fact, that’s a big selling point of the “prefers” device – “to stick it to the parties”. But again, voters cling to major party candidates. This is nutty but that’s why things are so dysfunctional.
Look at the bright side, Top-Two is a majority voting system. Washington’s version has reasonable ballot access rules. And my favorite part is how candidates can harness the power of a 16 character statement on the ballot itself. I am seeing independents elected. WA Top-Two is a non-partisan election with a ballot that allows candidates to send voters a message. We’ll see how this evolves but the prospects aren’t necessarily bad.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/toptwo.aspx
A giant waste of time and effort by the robot party hacks.
How many dead trees for the tons of paperwork ???
Any *perfers SANE party* in WA State versus the INSANE statist Donkeys and Elephants ???
# 5 See especially the Grange trial brief at the bottom.
–i.e. the *Prefers* stuff means about ZERO — i.e. a waste of ink on the ballots.
Any brain scans comimg for candidates ?
Are you a REAL TRUE or a FALSE LYING Donkey, Elephant, Independent, etc ???
How many $$$ ZILLIONS for the lawyers and paperwork in the case ???
— with more JUNK appeals to the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS ???
Top two eliminates alternative choices. In California and maybe elsewhere it provides voters with two choices. Democrats and Republicans are the big winners.
I have to disagree with C. T. Weber’s statement that “Democrats and Republicans are the big winners”. The winners are business interests who don’t find either major party to their liking and can afford to fund expensive campaigns directly, without going through the political parties. That’s what “independent” means in the context of Top Two — independently wealthy. The major parties are weakened by Top Two, which is its purpose. The damage to minor parties is collateral damage as far as Top Two advocates are concerned.
Krist Novoselic’s point that Top Two is a majority voting method — not as good as IRV but better than plurality — is technically valid. But getting two-round runoff instead of plurality just isn’t worth the price. Naive supporters of Top Two believe that the alternative to strong political parties is candidates and public officials who are committed to some imaginary common good instead of narrow partisan interests. But that’s wrong. The alternative to strong and cohesive parties is even greater power for those who can afford to buy candidates and elections.
Are the laws in top 2 regimes just as evil corrupt in party hack primary regimes ???
LA, WA, NE, CA (pending) versus the rest of the regimes ???
How many nonpartisan top 2 or top 2xN local regimes in the U.S.A. ???
P.R. and App.V.
The US Supreme Court dictated the standard of a “reasonable, well-informed” voter. Judge Coughenour characterized an unreasonable or uninformed voter, as one who would not read the legend on the ballot explaining that a party preference was an expression of the candidate, and did not imply endorsement.
I don’t see where the court’s opinion acknowledged evidence of public confusion. The parties had submitted dozens of newspaper clipping where a candidate was characterized as being the Dem or GOP candidate. But is that of any more significance than BAN referring to a nonpartisan candidate as a Green candidate? That the press sometimes uses brevity or inaccurate description of an election, does not make the election itself unconstitutional.
It is very easy to get on the ballot in Washington. It is of course harder to get to the second round, or be elected. But ballot access does not guarantee electoral success, but electoral opportunity. And all voters have the opportunity to vote in both rounds of the election.
Do you think the electoral system used for the Nebraska legislature violates U.S.Supreme Court ballot access precedents?
It is curious that the political parties wanted a federal judge to impose a procedure for election of PCO’s that SOS Sam Reed had proposed two years ago, but the legislature had failed to act on.
BTW, how were PCO’s elected under the blanket primary or pick-a-party primaries. My understanding is that before 2004, they were elected at the general election. Was there any screening to ensure that voters were bona fide party adherents.
If the minor parties were smart, they would seek some sort of incorporation of the party qualification procedure into the election process for PCO’s. Under the legislation proposed in 2006, PCO elections would have been moved (back) to the general election, and would use a separate ballot and ballot envelope that would be signed by the voter, similar to the system used for the presidential primaries.
But if a voter can sign that they are an adherent of the Democratic Party and want to cast a PCO vote, they could just as easily sign that they are an adherent of any existing qualified party. This would avoid the need to requalify every two years by petition, which could be harmful to parties continuity. The petition process would still be available to new parties, or those who failed to get enough support at the general election.
Nebraska does not use a top-two system in the same sense that California and Washington do. In Nebraska legislative elections, the first round IS an election. An “election” is an event that can elect somebody. In Washington, and in regularly-scheduled elections in California (but not special elections) the first round is not an election, because no one can possibly be elected. Even if one person gets 100% of the votes, he or she is not elected.
In Washington and regularly-scheduled elections in California, the first round is nothing more than a ballot access barrier. The first round has no function except to eliminate candidates from the election itself.
Election — making choices — obviously may or may not be final — depending on the LAW involved.
http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2011/01/wa-voters-win-court-approval-of-top-2-primary/
WA SOS Press Release on the C. order/opinion.
More WA trees to die for more paperwork for appeals ???
#11 In Nebraska, the Top 2 advance to the general election. In the past it is not unknown for a candidate who received a majority in the primary to be defeated in the general election. See for example, see 2008 election for District 27.
In 2008, there were 25 seats open. 5 were uncontested. In 10 of the remain 20, the leading candidate received a majority vote in the primary. There were 20 Top 2 races on the general election ballot.