On August 6, three Washington state political parties filed their briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court. These briefs argue against the “top-two” Washington state election system. For the Republican brief, see here; for the Democratic brief, here; the Libertarian brief is here.
Also, Louisiana filed an amicus with the U.S. Supreme Court. Although the cover says it is in support of the state of Washington, it actually is strictly neutral, and merely says that just because the Court may rule against Washington state, that there are reasons why Louisiana’s system (for state elections) should still be considered constitutional. Louisiana’s system for state elections is somewhat similar to Washington’s system.
Washington has not actually used its “top-two” system yet, because it was passed by the voters in November 2004, but declared unconstitutional in 2005 by a U.S. District Court, a decision that the 9th circuit affirmed in 2006.
I read through the Lib’s brief and I totally agree with it. What I don’t get is why we just don’t skip the whole primary thing and go straight to the general. One could implement an IRV system where the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists votes for the top two contenders are at least counted.
What the brief also brings up is many problems in the primary system itself. What does it really mean to be a member of a Green, Lib, Dem party. Is simply voting in last years primary an act of membership. This just brings me back to letting parties decide who to nominate outside of a government run primary.