Montana Representative Scott Reichner (R-Bigfork) plans to introduce a bill in the legislature to switch Montana partisan elections to a top-two open primary system, according to this story. However, Reichner’s idea to provide that anyone receiving a majority in the primary would be elected violates federal law, as applied to congressional elections. Thanks to Mike Fellows for the link.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
F#$% TOP TWO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Reichner’s idea to provide that anyone receiving a majority in the primary would be elected violates federal law, as applied to congressional elections.”
Good. But I bet it’ll get passed anyway because of our stupid increasingly f@scist state governments. Maybe the people of MT can rise up and stop this election atrocity from happening!
There was another type of this top two introduced in the 2011 session and it failed to get out of committee. People can contact the Montana (H) state Administration Committee by going to leg.mt.gov
If Montana has a recall process, somebody ought to launch a recall petition against this legislator if they introduce this deceptive and tyrannical bill.
We have a similar bill stalled in committee in Alaska right now.
The bill is HB 436,
The bill is written in such a way that it would be easily severable for congressional elections.
It says “(2) In a top two primary, the two individuals receiving the most votes are selected to advance.”
“(3) … if an individual in a top two primary receives 26 more than 50% of valid votes cast in the primary race, that candidate is immediately declared the winner of the office, and the office may not appear on the general election ballot.”
If Congress does not change 2 USC 1 or 2 USC 7, then the provision for immediate election would be severed for congressional election and the Top 2 would be selected to advance. The statute still makes sense if what is styled as a “top two primary”, the Top 2 advance.
The severability section says that a provision may remain intact for all applications (eg all non-congressional elections) even if it is invalid for other applications (eg congressional elections).
BTW under HB 436, a candidate may express a preference for a non-established party. Not only is Debra Bowen misreading the clear text of SB 6, she is doing it in a way that violates the 1st Amendment and the Gralike decision.
In 2012, there were only only 32 contested primaries for the Montana House out of the 100 districts (20 Republican, 12 Democratic, 0 Libertarian), so barely over 10% of the possible nominations were contested. House districts are quite small – about 10,000 persons per district, so it is practical to campaign person-to-person.
Under the current system, if Carl the Commissioner, Mary the Mayor, or Bob the Barber decide to run for the legislature, it is easy enough for them to do so. But if they are a bit pragmatic about winning, they are going to run in a partisan primary, choosing a party based on their location.
Since voters are likely to know (or know of) the candidates personally, they know whether Carl, Mary, and Bob are sensible and serious persons who might represent them in Helena. If they run for the “right” party for their area it confirms that they are sensible in the minds of most voters. If they run as an independent, they don’t appear on the ballot until the general election, and it may cause voters to think that “he (or she) is not like us”.
But when everyone runs in one race, then running as an Independent is not so exceptional.
Of the 32 contested primaries, only 4 had winners who did not prevail in the general election. That is, there are almost only contested primaries where candidates believe there is an opportunity to win in the general election. So essentially, these primaries choose who represents the voter in Helena, even though many voters are excluded, or chose the wrong ballot based on the presidential or gubernatorial primary.
What will it take to get —
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. —
with NO primaries, caucuses and primaries ???
Voters deserve to hear from all candidates who win their primaries and advance to the general election. We don’t need to change the system, but if we did then the Instant Runoff Voting or ranked voting in the general would be better then a top two, that essentially, is being used to get rid of the oompetition.