Forum

Let’s get this straight: The U.S. government invaded Iraq because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but since our military couldn’t find any, we now say that we fought to defeat terrorism.

Our government had only a couple of allies because the United Nations didn’t see justification for attacking, but with the mop-up costing more than we’d expected in time, money and lives, we’ve asked the United Nations to help re-establish an Iraqi government.

The Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American troops as liberators, making victory quick and cheap, but we continue to hear of Iraqis killing Americans; a need to keep soldiers, including guardsmen and reservists, in Iraq for a year; and a need to spend an additional $87 billion to keep the effort going.

Victory in Iraq is in our national interest, but our government has made no move to raise taxes to pay for it or start a draft to provide needed manpower.

Our government says it wants to establish Iraqi self-government, but it has done little or nothing to help local governments get started.

Ruling on blanket primary

The state Legislature must now act, following a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that Washington’s blanket primary system is unconstitutional.

The Legislature should adopt a primary from which the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to the general election. This would be the best answer for four reasons:

1) It would continue to allow voters who don’t want to declare a preference for one party to participate in narrowing the field for the general election In a 2001 survey, nearly three-quarters of Washington voters said that they disapproved of efforts to make them pick a party before they vote.

2) It would protect the parties’ right of association because they could still hold caucuses and conventions to recommend candidates.

3) It would create a general election with only two names on the ballot, forcing a one-on-one competition between the two top choices of all voters in the primary. The primary would give us all a chance to express our preference, with the general election acting as a runoff. This would practically guarantee that the winner would have a majority rather than a mere plurality. Non-mainstream candidates could have their place in the primary, but voters would choose between the top two in November.

4) It would make the general election meaningful in situations like this week’s King County Council primary, where two Democrats but no Republicans ran, or the 1998 Legislative election, in which the one Democrat got 8 percent of the primary vote and the three Republicans all got between 29 and 32 percent.

Legislative action is needed after a panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided 3-0 Monday to apply a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision to Washington. The Supreme Court had said that a similar system in California violated the parties’ right to free association but said that Louisiana’s system, which advances the top two, regardless of party, does not offend the parties’ interests, since it merely narrows the field for the general election.

In 2001, Legislative efforts to adopt a Louisiana-type primary were blocked by then-Speaker-of-the-House Clyde Ballard, a highly partisan Republican.

The blanket primary, first adopted in Washington in 1935, made this the first state to allow voters to pick nominees from any political party or even to mix and match — picking a candidate for governor from one party and a candidate for senator from another, for example.

Alaska later adopted the blanket primary, but when California copied it, that state’s parties challenged it, ultimately prevailing in the 2000 Supreme Court decision.

Washington’s Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties then challenged the system, filing suit against Secretary of State Sam Reed. The Washington State Grange, which sponsored the blanket primary system in 1935 and proposed a substitute system following the 2000 ruling, intervened on Reed’s behalf.

U.S. District Court Judge Franklin Burgess ruled in March 2002 that Washington could keep its system, saying that Washington’s and California’s blanket primaries are significantly different, and that Washington’s political parties had failed to show that they had suffered any harm.

In California, he noted, voters register by party, while in Washington, they do not.

Burgess said the blanket primary is “a constitutional exercise of the state’s power to regulate elections.”

In defense of the system, the state’s attorneys argued that maintaining it was a compelling public interest because it encouraged greater participation in the nominating process.

Also, they argued, the winners of the primaries are “the ‘nominees’ not of the parties but of the electorate.”

In the nonpartisan races this year, the top two move from the primary to November, I want the same thing to happen in the partisan contests next year.

Tacoma’s answer not Seattle’s

We hear of high ridership on the light-rail line in Tacoma, but that means nothing for the proposed Seattle-Tukwila line. The situations are entirely different.

That’s because the Tacoma line actually goes someplace. It connects the Tacoma Dome and downtown Tacoma.

I can imagine a time when I would have used the Tacoma line. My daughter was playing basketball at the Dome. When I arrived for the tournament, I found I didn’t have the cash to pay to get in. Instead of driving downtown to find a bank, I might have taken the trolley.

On the other hand, I can think of no time I would take a trolley between downtown Seattle and Tukwila, especially on a circuitous route that would take longer than current bus lines.

Of course, the 14-mile Seattle-Tukwila line is supposed to be just the beginning of a longer line from the Airport through Downtown under Capitol Hill to the University and Northgate, but the extensions, especially in tunnels, are sure to cost more than we can afford.

Evan Smith is Enterprise Forum editor.