The future of Washington politics will come before the U.S. Supreme Court Monday.
The voter-approved top-two primary will be the subject of one of the first cases argued in the court’s new term.
The court has agreed to hear an appeal of the decisions overturning the system by the U.S. District Court for Western Washington and the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who will argue in favor of the top-two system, will rely on the court’s decision seven years ago that overturned the blanket primary.
In that case, which overturned California’s blanket primary, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a 5-4 majority, said that, while the blanket primary violated the political parties’ rights to pick their own candidates, a primary that simply narrowed the field would not violate the parties’ rights to free association.
He specifically said that Louisiana’s system passed muster. That state holds a runoff between the top two candidates when no one gets a majority.
With Scalia’s words in mind, the Washington State Grange wrote the initiative which voters approved three years ago that established the top-two system.
A U.S. District Court judge overturned the decision two years ago, and the Court of Appeals agreed.
The state and the grange appealed, and the Supreme Court accepted the case.
If the court upholds the lower-court decisions, the grange promises to offer a new initiative that would remove all party labels from Washington ballots. Secretary of State Sam Reed and other state officials will try to make changes to the pick-a-party ballot. Expect the parties to try to replace the private-choice system with a system of party verification in which each voter’s party choice would be public record.
If, on the other hand, the court reinstates the top-two primary, the parties have promised to hold conventions to name their favored candidates.
State court was right to allow Eyman initiative
The state Supreme Court’s decision to allow Tim Eyman’s Initiative 960 onto the November ballot was a correct one.
I plan to vote against I-960. I believe that the measure, with its requirement for votes on all taxes and fees, and its requirements for more publicity would be expensive, and that the measure is complicated, confusing and probably unconstitutional.
Several organizations sued to keep the measure off the ballot.
The court, however, was correct to avoid ruling on whether the measure is constitutional.
It was the wrong time.
The court repeated that the time to rule on any law’s constitutionality is after it takes effect. American courts do not give advisory opinions.
We will have a chance to vote on it in November. If it passes, someone will challenge its constitutionality.
Evan Smith is the Enterprise Forum editor. Send comments to entopinion@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
