On February 13, the Washington state House unanimously passed HB 1860, which preserves elections for Precinct Committee Officer (a party office, not a public office). The bill says these elections will be held at the time of the August primary, every two years.
To get around the problem that Washington state only prints one version of a primary ballot, and all voters use that ballot, the bill provides that in the section for voting for Precinct Committee Officer, the top of that part of the ballot will say, “In order to vote for Precinct Committee Officer, a partisan office, you must affirm that you are a Democrat or a Republican and may vote only for one candidate from the party you select. This preference is private and will not be matched to your name or shared.”
Also, under the name of each candidate for Precinct Committee Officer will appear, “By voting for this candidate, I affirm that I am a Democrat”, if the candidate is seeking seat on a Democratic Party committee. If the candidate is running to be a member of a Republican Party committee, under the name of that candidate will be “By voting for this candidate, I affirm that I am a Republican.” The bill says that if a voter votes for both a Republican and a Democrat, his or her vote for Precinct Committee Officer will be invalid.
The bill is peculiar because it includes the names of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The bill’s authors thereby are writing into the law their assumption that for all time into the future, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will be ballot-qualified parties, and no other party will be. This is not realistic. The definition of a qualified party in Washington is a group that polled at least 5% for President at the last presidential election. But in 1996, the Reform Party polled over 5% for President in Washington state, and it is easy to imagine that a party, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, will repeat that showing in a future election.
Any LIE detector tests along with the ballots ???
A previous version of this unfortunate bill included an attempt to have voters check a box affilliating themselves with one or the other major party and auditors checking if it matched appropriate candidate selection for PCO and such would be recorded for major party convenience no doubt. That was too close to regisering by party for some (they want to pass this major party rot with no dissenting votes as to appear above controversy)
The final House version included an amendment to give unambiguous legal protection to ballots returned not enclosed in the security envelope. Protecting suspect-secrecy ballots in Washington state means a lot because all ballots are returned–there are no polling booths. The deep drive, deep need to have some affiliation mechanism for major partisan devotion is leading into a system that almost cannot resist the practice of ballot review and/or control of one voter’s vote by another.
This legislative action, HB 1860, also basically flaunts a judicial ruling on the associative problems of partisan elections in a top-two system.
Has there been in Washington state history a clearer example of overriding major party influence in the legilature despite every other rational consideration opting for a reverse course? Ever?
#2, your question in your last paragraph isn’t totally clear to me. Are you asking if the Washington legislature has ever before defied the interests of the two major parties? Or just the opposite?
ANY secret ballot language in the gerrymander nearly dead WA regime ???
Each party hack robot gang in each New Age legislative body (esp. in the gerrymander Congress and each gerrymander house of each gerrymander State legislature) is a leftwing Stalin or rightwing Hitler MAJOR CONSPIRACY — playing for PERMANENT control of the U.S.A. — if not the world.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — before it is too late.
The Democracy alarm bells are ringing off the walls — with armies of deaf morons in the media, in the courts, etc.
#3, thanx for requesting a little more clarity on my part. To rephrase: Has the ever been a time when legislative defiance of their major party DNA was so clearly warranted given the current circumstance with judicial rulings, voter ID as independents, historical voter resitence to affiliation, budget concerns,non-credible argumentation on major parties behalf, tortured logic etc.
It is understood such defiance involves what it always would involve: Exploding the notion that distracts and captures many voters, perpetuated by the major parties jointly, the fantasy of the intense ongoing rivaly, a rivalry that is actually sponsored, real only in its electoral regulation origins. Defiance would include going straight after this arrangement of ornate lore and comfy stability.
Legislators are basically forbidden to make reference to the single partisan regulating authority that is the major parties. Has there ever been a more justified time for going off the reservation than now? I guess that’s the real inquiry.
No one knows better than yourself that the bad guys have always been more than three touchdowns up and that there is an explanation for it and a lot of voters can’t and won’t fight for enlightenment on the question of what constitutes fair politics. Most follow power. Someday.
The 3rd committee substitute made the change that would ensure that the party selection was secret, essentially applying the pick-a-party format to the PCO race. They also added a new preamble saying that it was OK to severely infringe on political association rights if it furthered compelling state interests. Such might include:
(1) Ballot secrecy, including party affiliation;
(2) Ballot and operational simplicity.
(3) Not having a presidential primary.
It also says it is intended to comply with the court order, and the major political parties were OK with this. The Democratic and Republican parties who were plaintiffs said this was OK. They don’t have the authority to speak for other hypothetical major parties in the future.
A general solution is not needed. This is a stopgap for 2012. If there were a presidential primary, they could have just used the checkoff that is used for that election.
AND the fundamental problem is the Washington Constitution. It provides for the election of the legislature: For the House: November, 2-year terms, single member districts, For the Senate: November, 4-year overlapping terms, single member districts. House districts must nest in senate districts.
And then it has an extremely long convoluted Article II, Section 15 for filling vacancies, and has been amended 4 times. Compare to the original version:
“The governor shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies as may occur in either house of the legislature.”
The constitution has enough flexibility to permit election of representatives from overlaid districts; and to completely switch from partisan primaries to nonpartisan primaries, but has this other crud that doesn’t belong in a constitution.
Section 15 should be replaced with:
“The legislature shall provide for the filling of vacancies that shall occur in either house of the legislature or partisan county office.”
Since Washington is an all mail-ballot state it is somewhat easier to hold a special election, since no polling places are needed. They already have to hold special elections for congress, which cover quite a bit more area.
Or if they want to provide somewhat of the flavor of the current system for less cost select a panel of voters at random.
One more example of why ALL of the robot party hack stuff should be blasted out of ALL State constitutions.
Let the party hacks in each gang go to a local bar and drink to each other’s health and welfare.