Herald staff And News Services
A federal judge on Wednesday upheld Washington’s popular "blanket" primary system that allows all voters to help pick partisan finalists for public offices.
U.S. District Judge Franklin Burgess ruled that Washington may continue to use the system that was created by citizen initiative 67 years ago as part of the state’s populist movement that distrusted party bosses or other centralized power.
State officials were jubilant with the unexpected ruling; bitterly disappointed party leaders said an appeal is likely.
The U.S. Supreme Court threw out California’s similar primary in 2000 by a 7-2 vote, saying parties have a constitutional freedom of association that allows them to decide their own nominees. The California system, also adopted by initiative, was a virtual carbon copy of Washington’s system, leading to speculation that Washington’s would fall, too.
But state attorneys had pleaded with Burgess to permit Washington to continue a system that allows all voters to pick nominees, splitting their tickets if they wish. Voters do not register by party.
In a 30-page opinion handed down at his Tacoma office, Burgess agreed that the two states are significantly different, and said Washington’s political parties had failed to make a case that their First Amendment rights had been abridged.
The judge said attorneys for the state and the Grange, which sponsored the original initiative, persuaded him that "Washington’s blanket primary is a constitutional exercise of the state’s power to regulate elections, (and) they have shown that the political parties have failed to come forth with sufficient evidence to prove the blanket primary’s unconstitutionality.”
The state had once conceded in 2000 court proceedings that Washington’s system had been found unconstitutional, and lawmakers had explored a possible replacement primary. But last year, when Burgess seemed to invite the we-are-not-California argument, state attorneys reversed their tactics and urged the federal bench to uphold the system as applied here.
Officials were delighted at the turn of events.
"This is good news," said Gov. Gary Locke, a longtime advocate of the blanket primary. "Washingtonians cherish their independence, and today’s ruling allows us to continue voting the way we have for 67 years."
Attorney General Christine Gregoire, who defended the system in court, called it "a victory for Washington voters. The decision preserves the primary system Washington voters are familiar with and, I believe, prefer.”
"We won!" said Secretary of State Sam Reed.
Rep. Dave Schmidt, R-Bothell, who took the lead on the issue for House Republicans last year, said he was pleased by the judge’s decision, but said he was not surprised by it.
"This decision is a victory for the people of Washington," Schmidt said. "It’s clear voters have wanted the blanket primary. They’ve shown support for it for over 60-plus years."
During oral arguments earlier this month, state and Grange attorneys said the political parties have prospered under the time-honored system. Assistant Attorney General James Pharris said Washington’s system is a "qualifying" election that sends the finalists to the November ballot, rather than a true party nominating system.
The judge sided with the state on virtually every point, particularly the central point that California and Washington have different political traditions, Pharris said. California’s system was brand new when it was challenged and the state has long required party registration, but Washington requires no registration and has long permitted wide-open voting, he said.
"We’re very pleased. He went with us pretty much right down the line, agreeing that our system is distinguishable from California’s. We can continue using this system indefinitely, unless, of course, there is a successful appeal," Pharris said.
Lawyers for the state Republican, Democratic and Libertarian parties told Burgess earlier this month that the high court’s ruling makes it clear that states cannot force political parties to allow outsiders to help select their nominees.
Washington’s blanket primary allows precisely that kind of crossover voting, with voters allowed to split their ballots at will — a Republican for one office, a Democrat for the next one and a minor party candidate for a third office, for instance.
California and Alaska, which adopted Washington’s system, already have adopted more-closed party primaries, but Washington has been allowed by the courts to continue using the wide-open system here while the case is litigated.
The parties are expected to appeal the latest ruling.
"We’re very disappointed,” said Democratic state Chairman Paul Berendt. "We believe that we’re being denied a fundamental right to freely associate and to choose our nominees for all the partisan offices for the state of Washington.
"This is important. When you allow crossover voting and people other than party members choose your nominee, it changes your message. It waters down your message and homogenizes things. You end up with officeholders who aren’t strong leaders on the issues of the day."
Republican spokeswoman Mary Lane, when asked about an appeal, said "I would imagine that would be the case. We need to analyze it.”
Berendt said only Louisiana and Washington now allow wide-open primary voting. In Louisiana, the two top vote-getters for each office advance to the general election, without regard to party label. The Washington Legislature came close to switching to the so-called "Cajun primary" last year, but decided to wait and see if the court would bail out the blanket primary.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
