On July 2, the Washington state Democratic Party filed this reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in Washington State Democratic Central Committee v Washington State Grange. This is the lawsuit in which the Democratic and Libertarian Parties argue that the top-two system is unconstitutional.
The Democrat’s objections to Washington’s applied pro-top-two ruling seem quite narrow and maybe that’s proper and all that but it wouldn’t make any jurist strike down the whole top-two system.
At its best the brief mentions the failure to protect parties from unwanted association. Fine. The Democrats wouldn’t mind if the courts fiddle with the edges but realize among themselves that the status quo is quite close to ideal. A major party in a duopoly arrangement wants nothing that comes close to accountabilty for parties (smaller parties would get something in that deal) but rather all that kind of stuff candidates assume as they manage distance from the party on an individual, day to day basis.
The Democrats brief is quite proforma, the cry for justice such that they’d never expect nor want a candidate to articulate the ongoing injustice. The first priciple of major partisanship is that voters always loathe won’t listen to, cannot understand political process issues. Things are always too hand-to-mouth for such considerations.
If a jurist or voter looked close at what has already been decided in the determination process of who might appear on a general election ballot they’d discover a justice-free zone, projected outcomes insured, challenges squelched.
Democratic leaders can totally live with that but don’t want to have the conversation, most especially with voters.