The Republican Party of Washington state, and the Democratic Party of Washington state, each filed briefs with the 9th circuit on June 6, in the pending lawsuit against that state’s top-two system. Here is the Republican brief; here is the Democratic brief. Thanks to the Washington Secretary of State’s web page for the links.
Both briefs concentrate on the point that the Washington state top-two system links candidates with parties, via labels on the ballot, even though those candidates may not even be members of that party, and in any event may not have the approval of that party. The Republican brief also points out that “party preference” must be included in any advertising about any particular candidate, so if the Republican Party would want to run an ad attacking a candidate who is using the Republican label on the ballot, but whom the party believes is not a bona fide Republican, that very ad must also contradict itself by saying that candidate is a Republican.
Both briefs include reference to the evidence presented to the U.S. District Court, including evidence that even supporters of the top-two system commonly equate “party preference” with actual affiliation.
The Libertarian Party brief, which will discuss ballot access and trademark, is due June 20.
What if the prefers stuff was about cars, ice cream, etc. ??
Prefer Chevys
Prefer Fords
etc.
— even if NOT an owner of such cars or a stockholder in the car biz.
What is the FREE advertising worth for the parties on the PUBLIC ballots ???
Any Hitler clones having — Prefers Communist Party ???
Any Stalin clones having — Prefers Nazi Party ???
i.e. the prefers stuff means about ZERO.
See the voting instructions on the ballots and the text of the prefers stuff in the LAW — which ALL voters are aware of — ignorance of the LAW is NO excuse stuff.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — NO primaries are needed or wanted.
Washington does not have party registration, so under the blanket primary and even the pick-a-party primary, the parties don’t really have a defined membership. Yet a key finding by the 9th Circuit in the blanket primary litigation was that voters do in fact have a party alignment even when not publicly disclosed, and thus the Washington blanket primary was not materially different than that in California. So if a candidate says that they prefer the Democratic Party, then they should be taken at their word.
There is nothing in the Top 2 law about how parties must format their advertisements. If there is a constitutional problem, it would be with campaign fair practices laws.
In the LD 38 Senate race, the candidate preferred by the Democratic bosses lost because of a campaign targetted at Republican voters, to convince them that Jean Berkey was not-really independent minded, but a hardline leftist. This resulted in them voting for the Republican candidate in the race, who got 2nd place ahead of Berkey.
Meanwhile, the union-backed candidate who was quite well funded, and endorsed by the Everett Herald finished 1st. In an old-style partisan primary, where union-voters can dominate the Democratic primary, Harper likely would have won easily, and the party bosses would have avoided making an endorsement.
I think that the lawyers for the parties may be trying to extend the litigation in hopes of being paid.