Washington's 'Blanket' Primary Rejected

[demdave]

OLYMPIA, Wash. - The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) struck down Washington state's "blanket" primary system Monday, saying it violates the right of political parties to have their own members choose candidates for office.



The judges cited a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision that found a similar system in California unconstitutional.


Washington's system, adopted in 1935, allows voters to pick nominees from any political party. Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld, part of the three-judge appellate panel that issued the ruling Monday, wrote that that system violates the parties' right to choose their own nominees.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=548&ncid=703&e=7&u=/ap/20030915/ap_on_el_ge/blanket_primary

[hang a left]

1. Seems the 9th Circuit is

going to use Bush V Gore against the SC.

[goobergunch]

3. This isn't Bush v. Gore

this is a different case regarding California's primary.

[goobergunch]

2. This ruling is consistent with SCOTUS precedent...

and won't affect the presidential race.

[hang a left]

13. My point was that the 9th District

sites Bush V Gore in both of it's rulings today. Washington primary and California recall.

[Bandit]

18. You need to rethink that

No where did they site Bush* vs Gore. They sited a case involving California's primaries.

[RobertSeattle]

4. Damn --- I'll miss voting for the wackiest Republican Candidate...

...Not really.
I mean it!
Not really!!!

:evilgrin:

[jono]

5. It's OK

because if you didn't register as a Repub, they probably didn't count your vote anyway.

[demdave]

6. I don't see how this is not a positive thing. Parties should pick their

own candidates. If the state Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties have challenged the law, I would call that bipartisan support.
I wouldn't want the Reps. voting in our primary to try to influence our choice. Am I missing something or is this just a dinosaur that slipped through the cracks and is now ready to dissappear?

[sybylla]

7. My SO would agree with you

He believes that Wisconsin shouldn't have an open primary either. Here, it isn't quite so "ala carte" as in Washington. You either have to vote all repug or all dem, but he thinks that it still allows for cross-over voting which could skew results.

I'm a prime example. In 2000, there were no interesting primary campaigns for dems so I voted repug and chose the one repug candidate I thought I could stand. He lost anyway but you never know. If there aren't any wild repug primaries next February, the repugs could seriously skew the dem selection process here.

[demdave]

9. Are refering to your primary as open as opposed to a caucus?

I don't know of any other way to close a primary. The primary is usually the only election you have to declare a party preference. So it would be the natural time to change parties.


As for the 2000 election, I thought crossing over to vote for McCain, knowing full well that I would vote for Gore was dishonest and I refused to do it. I don't want it done to me and I will not participate in the act.

[sybylla]

15. In Wisconsin, we don't have to register as belonging to a party

You can register the same day you vote in any election and they don't care what party you are affiliated with. You only register as a voter, not a party member. You can vote which ever party you want.

That's what is meant by Wisconsin's open primary.

on edit: clarity. Oh, and is it dishonest or merely covering all the bases. Perhaps if more cross-overs had voted for a real repug, we might not be in the pickle we are in now with the PNAC Puppet regime.

[absolutezero]

17. nj has it the same way

when you vote in the primaries (if dem and repuke are on the same day) they ask you which primary you'd like to vote in

[jono]

8. I disagree

We Washingtonians like having the flexibility we've had for over 65 years. (I say "we Washingtonians" generally because polls I've seen indicate that the voting public wants to keep the system we have - so it does have bipartisan support, but only of the parties, not the voters.)

Sure, we could cross over and pick an unpopular Repub candidate, but there's no reason that Repubs can't do the same, so it's not like it puts anyone at a comparative disadvantage. Besides, IIRC the parties are not required to count the unaffiliated ballots anyway.

on edit: correcting my bad math

[demdave]

10. How do you know who are unaffiliated?

If I walk in and say I am a Rep, but I am really a Dem., how would they know? Can't you change party at the polls or is there a more strict process in your state?

[jono]

11. It's based on ballot type

When you walk into the poll, they ask you, "Do you want a Republican ballot, a Democrat ballot, or an unaffiliated ballot?" The party ballots have only the party candidates; the unaffiliated ballot lists all candidates of all parties, and you choose one.

[demdave]

12. So I could crossover vote and influence the other party's election.

That was the problem I don't like, but it doesn't sound quite as open as the story made it out to be. Thanks.

[jono]

14. A little more info

Here's a little more info for you, based on the 2002 ruling that was appealed and overturned:


(Judge) Burgess, however, said in a bluntly worded, 29-page ruling that political studies and experts suggested that "cross-over voting with malicious intent simply does not occur."

"The political parties' evidence that there is a burden on their constitutional right of association is, for the most part, incompetent and inadmissible, and at best, it is insubstantial and speculative," he wrote.

The judge noted some key differences between California's and Washington's primary laws.

Washington, unlike California, has never required voters to register by political party in order to vote, and "in Washington, unlike California, a candidate for a partisan office need not first pass muster with a political party to which he chooses to align," Burgess said.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/64227_primary28.shtml

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. A question from outside the USA

The more I hear about the primary system, the stranger it sounds.

Assuming that no Republican challenges Bush, wouldn't it be in the best interests of a Republican voter to register as a Democrat this year, and choose the Democrat they think will appeal to the undecided voters the least? Or do people hope that they wouldn't do this because it would mean they can't choose Republicans in other races, eg House of Representatives?

To my way of thinking, if you choose to vote for a party in the primary, your vote should be forced to stay with the nominee of that party for the real election. But from what I've heard, registered voters can still vote for another party in the final vote. Have I got that right?

[sybylla]

20. You appear to have it right

The primary system varies from state to state, which is probably why you are hearing contradictory information and perhaps a bit of confusion.

If you vote in the primary, most states require you to vote only in the party to which you are registered. Other states, like Wisconsin have an open primary where you can vote for any party regardless of your party affiliation but you can only vote for primary candidates in the party you choose. And other states have caucuses, which I haven't entirely figured out myself. The primary is merely for the selection of each party's candidate and separate from the final election, at which time, you can vote along party lines or for a mixed party ballot if you so desire.

In the 2000 primary, I chose to vote on the Republican ballot because there were no local or state primary races on the dem ballot in my area. I would not have done so if my reps or senators had any competition in the primary. Some people, including my husband, dislike the open primary system because then, as a party, you risk having outsiders choose your candidate. But the open primary was put into effect early last century mainly to take power away from political machines that were corrupting the system.

Hope that helped. I'm no expert so perhaps someone else will chime in as well.

[AntiCoup2K4]

19. this fucking sucks!

I was looking forward to voting for Pat Buchanan or whatever other right wing extremist challenged the Idiot in Thief for the GOP nomination :grr: