Blanket primary unravels
Published 9:00 pm Monday, February 23, 2004
The nation’s highest court Monday passed on reviewing Washington state’s blanket primary, burying the 69-year citizen-inspired tradition that’s allowed voters to cast ballots without signaling allegiance to a particular political party.
"People in this state take great pride in voting for the person, not the party, and this decision picks the party," Secretary of State Sam Reed said.
Reed learned at 7:10 a.m. that U.S. Supreme Court justices denied the state’s final legal gasp, letting stand a federal court ruling that the voting method created by initiative in 1935 is unconstitutional.
Within hours, Reed, leaders of the House and Senate and lawyers for the Democratic and Republican parties huddled behind closed doors to begin hashing out a new primary system. Another meeting is set for Thursday.
"What will be the replacement? That’s the million dollar question," said Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee, who attended the meeting and has since August guided House Republicans through a look at options. "All that we agreed on is we will act by March 11" when the legislative session is scheduled to end.
Washington lawmakers pledge to revamp the process quickly, knowing that failure could mean having no primary in September and a winner-take-all free-for-all in November’s general election.
But it is a foreboding task. Today, voters do not register by party. They can cross lines to pick nominees from any political party. The lawsuit aims to force the creation of partisan primaries, meaning voters would be limited to voting only for candidates in their party.
Voters who don’t sign up with a political party can’t vote in partisan races and would have to wait until the November election.
Lawmakers are considering several options. Reed endorses a "Top 2" process where the two highest vote-getters in September — regardless of party — face off in November. Leaders of smaller parties say that would weaken their political voice. Republican and Democratic lawyers contend it does not pass legal muster because it does not prevent members of one party from crossing over and influencing the outcome to the detriment of another party.
Another option resembles Montana’s process. Voters choose a party when they show up to vote in September. They would get a ballot for that party only. The top vote-getters in each party would square off in November. A list of who is affiliated with each party is compiled and kept confidential.
Party leaders say they want those lists but many lawmakers are staunchly opposed.
"I’m disgusted with the party for pushing this issue," Armstrong said. "They have forgotten they represent a party, and we the legislators represent the citizens of the state.
"The voters don’t know what is the Montana system and the Arizona system," he added. "They tell me they want to go in and vote for whoever they want and not have it recorded what party they voted for."
Rep. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, said he hears similar comments.
"The voters out there want choice, and they want privacy."
