Offering frequent news and analysis from the majestic Evergreen State and beyond, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Primary ruling appealed, permanent injunction issued

The AP reports:
Washington State and the state Grange on Friday appealed a federal court decision striking down the popular "Top Two" primary system that voters approved by initiative last fall.

Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna, joined by the Grange, announced the appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas S. Zilly on Friday issued a permanent injunction against using the voter-approved system that would allow the top two vote-getters in the primary to advance to the general election ballot.
Today's action means the case is not yet over, but it also means we will have an open primary (the "pick a party" system) this September while the case is being appealed.

Not long ago, Floyd McKay had a column in the Seattle Times about the ruling:
TRADITION is wonderful, but sometimes you just have to move on.

That's the case with the Washington "top-two" primary election; U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly put the stake in the heart of our unique voting system Friday, ruling that it doesn't meet federal constitutional standards.

The world has not ended, dear friends and neighbors, and the exact system of conducting primary elections is not ultimately the most important element in getting good public servants.

Quality public servants can emerge under almost any electoral system — certainly Washington's old blanket primary produced many distinguished public servants, and our share of dunderheads as well. Ditto the closed primary used in Oregon and the Montana-style primary we will revert to in September. To draw on history of 30 years ago, so as not to offend current politicians, Washington produced Dan Evans, Oregon Tom McCall and Montana Mike Mansfield under three very different primary systems.

It is not the system that determines quality — it is the quality of the electorate. You and me.

[...]

The rap on the Montana system is that "independent" voters in the primary must select only a Republican, Democratic or Libertarian ballot. In this age of political division, for better or worse, most of us lean enough to the right or left to pick a party ballot without difficulty.

There are worse things than declaring a party preference every two years, a declaration that applies only to the primary and is not recorded, sparing you from political-party solicitations. Closed primaries such as Oregon's record your party registration and don't give you a choice in the primary of switching sides. The Montana system is clearly more aligned with Washingtonians' desire to keep options open.

Washington's "top-two" primary was one of a kind (Louisiana's is similar, but different). Perhaps there was a reason for that? Montana's system is also used by at least seven other states: Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin. Pretty good company.

The Montana system protects voter privacy, offers more choices than a closed primary, and will certainly pass judicial muster. It's time for us to move on.
Well said.

It will be good to have the open primary system again for the second consecutive year. Voters just need to get used to the new system. The parties need to explain to voters why the open primary system is fairer and gives them more choices.

They haven't done a very good job in the past - and that needs to change.

<< Home