The Washington State Constitution, Article II, section 15, says when a state legislator resigns or dies, there is no special election to replace him or her. Instead, the County Commissioners of that county choose a new legislator. However, the County Commissioners must choose one of three people suggested by the Precinct Committee Officers of “the same political party.” If the County Commissioners fail to choose one of the three party-chosen nominees within 60 days, they lose the ability to choose, and instead the Governor must choose one from that same list of three names.
On January 4, 2011, State Senator Bob McCaslin (R-Spokane Valley) resigned for health reasons after thirty years in the legislature. He was in the middle of his four-year term. On January 15, the Republican Precinct Committee Officers from that district chose three names, and on February 11, the County Commissioners chose one of them.
Starting in 2008, Washington state has used the “top-two” system, in which parties don’t have nominees, and in which any candidate can choose any short, non-obscene party label. Washington state does not have registration by party. This system does not fit very well with the State Constitution’s procedure for filling legislative vacancies, since the Constitution presumes that all state legislators were party nominees. Senator McCaslin had been a Republican nominee many times before 2008, and his ballot label in 2008 had been “I prefer the Republican Party.” But some major party legislators have chosen labels that don’t match the major party names exactly. For instance, in 2010, Representative Christopher Hurst had “Prefers Independent Dem. Party” on the ballot. In 2008, Representative Brendan Williams had “Prefers Progressive Dem. Party” on the ballot. If either of them had resigned, it is not completely obvious that the Democratic Party’s Precinct Officers would have been authorized to choose replacement nominees. Thanks to Robert W. Peck for this news.
Even forgetting about Washington state’s transition to the top-two system in 2008, the Washington Constitution has long been deficient for not acknowledging that the state might have a legislator who is an independent, or a member of a party that isn’t entitled to elect Precinct Committee Officers.
How soon before the party hacks have a party hack const. amdt regarding the situation ???
That provision of the constitution has been amended about 5 times, as Washington keeps trying to refine the process by which vacancies are filled.
It is something that doesn’t belong in a constitution in the first place. They should simply replace the section with something like: “Provision for filling vacancies in XXX offices shall be provided by statute.” Washington has the initiative process, so if the voters don’t like the provisions made by the legislature they can change it. It is rather bizarre that the Top 2 election system is all in statute, but the vacancy provisions are in the constitution.
Washington’s initiative process can’t be used to amend the State Constitution.
Circa 18 of the 50 States have voter petitions for State const. amdts. — esp. CA and OR.
Will the other 32 controlled by the ANTI-Democracy party hack gerrymander gangs have to be liberated the hard way by the 18 ??? Stay tuned.
What just happened in Egypt ??? — regarding the de facto monarchy/oligarchy.
What happened in 1773-1776 in those 13 Brit colonies in North America ???
Hey! I just got an idea! Why not let the PEOPLE vote to fill vacancies! For example: here in New York the governor merely has to sign a “declaration” of vacancy and 30 days later the voters select a replacement.
Oh wait – I forgot: special elections are expensive (an argument raised by both “major” parties at one time or another.) I apologize for my naivete – my democratic leanings seem to get in the way of common sense.
In this era of tight money maybe we should allow the party leader to simply select ALL officeholders and suspend elections altogether. Think of the money we’d save.
To “mancia” (#5):
Your humorous comments are appreciated and your implications are “right on the money.” Even during times of great fiscal restraint, government must simply find ways to fund certain services – such as free and fair elections (and others, I would add). It is simply immoral and unethical for the politicians and the corporate leaders to get all the breaks; and for the safety nets for the poor people to be shredded to pieces.
Kudos to RW for pointing out this constitutional inconsistancy.
RE: 5/6 – help is on the way. WA is moving toward Internet voting, see http://bit.ly/ge7Cru Its much cheaper to administer, so special elections will not be the kind of problem they are now. (Also, unlike DC, WA has a competent company setting up the system.)
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Blog http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Internetvoting@gmail.com
#3 Washington’s constitution is here:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx
Article 2, Section 15 is the section in question.
See the original version.
See the first appointive version from 1930. See how the versions of 1956, 1968, and 2003 have got more and more complex, because they are enacting what should be statutory language in the constitution.
Now compare to the constitutional language with regard to election of legislators (Article 2, Section 5 and 6).
Because of the simplicity of the constitutional language with regard to elections, voters were able to approve Top 2 by initiative (IIUC, the blanket primary was also by initiative).
But they can’t do anything about the elaborate vacancy provision, because it is in the constitution. But if the constitution were changed to simply say that “vacancies shall be filled in a manner provided by statute.”, then either the legislature or the people could modify the statute.
Is there anything goofier than you can’t have a Top 2 election system, not because there is anything wrong with it, except when there is a vacancy and someone has to be appointed to fill the position.
The State regimes are FILLED with party hack INSANE stuff — way beyond goofy.
The Disney Goofy is a total genius compared to the EVIL party hack robot gerrymander monsters in the Congress and State legislatures.
What day will things really start happening — with a total PANIC by the EVIL gerrymander monsters ???
What is wrong with “top-two” is that elections held under such a system are not free elections.
“Top-two” creates a state-controlled, one-party system, as in the Soviet Union of old, and eliminates free elections.
That is the goal of its supporters and sponsors.
#8: “… the [Washington state] blanket primary was also [enacted] by initiative…”
In 1934, citizens, led by the state Grange, petitioned the state legislature to put the blanket primary proposal on the ballot. In 2004, in contrast, citizens placed the “top two” initiative directly on the ballot.
#10: Most backers of the “top two” monstrosity would be quite happy if all political parties suddenly vanished.
The Louisiana “top two” (aka “open primary”), in use since the 1970s, is part of the residue of the old one-party (truly NO-PARTY) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary (the primaries were competitive, but the general elections were Soviet-style).
The “top two” is a nonpartisan system, in which parties play a considerably smaller role.
How many of those OLD defacto one party southern States had [still have] top 2 runoff primaries ??? — or even runoff general elections ???
i.e. a possible 3 or even 4 elections in a cycle.
Madness.
—
P.R. and App.V. — ONE election.
#11 In 2004, the Grange petitioned the state legislature to enact a Top 2 primary. It was only after governor Gary Locke’s ill-advised veto that they went the initiative route.