On Sunday, April 23, the Washington state legislature’s regular session ended. See this story. The bill to move the presidential primary from May to March had passed the Senate on March 6, but it didn’t get taken up in the House. But it could pass in the special session that is about to begin.
The regular session ended with no budget. It also ended up with no solution to the problem that the State Supreme Court has been fining the state $100,000 per day until the education funding problem is solved. Three years ago the Court ruled that the disparity in public funding between wealthy districts and poor districts violates the State Constitution, but the legislature can’t agree on how to resolve the issue.
Washington has been using the top-two system starting in 2008. Supporters of top-two never discuss how it has worked in Washington state. The Senate is controlled by Democrats and the House is controlled by Republicans, which makes it difficult for budgets to be passed. It has become also routine in Washington state that the budget can’t pass in the regular session, and only passes after one or two special sessions.
So if the court is fining the state, who is paying whom? I wish lawmakers could be held accountable for not addressing constitutional violations (such as docking of pay until resolved)
The money goes into a special fund that can’t be spent on anything but education. However the state has stopped making the payments, so the State Supreme Court might soon find some state official in contempt of court.
In Washington all voters may vote for any candidate in the primary.
Richard Winger implies that Top 2 has caused the polarization in Washington, and that therefore some other system of election should be used, perhaps a return to the infamous Pick-A-Party primary. But we could just as easily conclude that no elections are better. At one time, the League of Women Voters in San Francisco argued that an appointed school board was essential to a democracy. Democracy would die if there were elections.
What? Richard Winger has never implied the polarization in WASHINGTON is Top2’s fault. But he has pointed out that at the STATE level their legislatures are more polarized than using traditional methods.
I agree with political scientists Eric McGhee, Seth Masket, Boris Shor, Steven Rogers, and Nolan McCarty, who authored the paper “A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination systems and Legislator Ideology”. This paper, published in 2013, concluded, “Our analysis suggests we should expect little from open primary reform in the modern political age. The effect is inconsistent and weak, and where it is stronger and more robust, it is the opposite of the one that is generally intended.”
Did McGhee, Masket, Shor, Rogers, and McCarty consider whether all voters should be able to participate in the election of their representatives?
Do you think a voter should be able to contribute to any candidate?