Parties: Accept voters’ will
Published 12:01 am Sunday, January 16, 2011
Washington voters aren’t as easily confused as some would have you believe. Mess with their cherished tradition of independence, in fact, and you’ll see unmistakable clarity — anger, even.
In 2004, voters directed their wrath at the state political parties, rejecting the parties’ heavy-handed “pick a party” primary election system. In its place, they overwhelmingly approved an initiative creating the current “top-two” primary, in which the first- and second-place finishers advance to the general election regardless of their stated party preference.
Far from confusion, it was a moment of clear purpose for voters, who had seen their long-standing blanket primary challenged successfully in court by the parties. That system allowed voters to pick a Democrat in one race, a Republican in another, a minor-party candidate in yet another.
Such independence became a hallmark of voting in Washington. Party leaders hated it, though, because it undercut their influence. So even after voters approved the top-two primary — carefully constructed to replace an official party nominating method with a winnowing process outside the parties’ purview — the parties kept fighting.
Last week, a federal judge in Seattle reiterated a previous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that Washington’s primary system is constitutional. District Judge John Coughenour ruled that the primary, as implemented, eliminates “the possibility of widespread confusion among the reasonable, well-informed electorate.”
Besides a vote of confidence in the ability of Washington voters to make sound decisions, Coughenour’s ruling addressed an opening left by the Supreme Court, which suggested the top-two system might be unconstitutional if it confused voters. The parties’ argument that voters can’t figure out such a simple concept fell flat, as it should have.
Instead of launching another futile appeal, the parties should start figuring out they’ll elect their precinct leaders from now on. Coughenour’s decision accepted the parties’ contention that the current system, because it isn’t a party process, shouldn’t be used to elect precinct committee officers, who had previously appeared on the primary ballot. It’s the right call, and should save staff time and some expense in county auditors’ offices.
About the only feasible alternative, though, is to run PCO elections during the parties’ presidential primary. But the governor and secretary of state have recommended saving money by not staging a presidential primary next year, so it’s unclear how the parties will elect PCOs, much less how they’ll cast a wide recruiting net.
Above all, the parties should finally accede to the voters’ clear desire to choose their favorite candidates in a primary without restriction. The voters want to be in control of their own decisions. On that point, there is no confusion.
