Constitutional Law

Federal judge upholds Wash. 'top 2' primary system

By By The Associated Press

SEATTLE — A federal judge upheld Washington?s primary system against a challenge from the state?s Republican and Democratic parties yesterday, but he struck down the way Washington runs elections for the parties? grassroots organizers.

Washington?s voters adopted a new primary system in 2004, after the old blanket-primary system was deemed unconstitutional. Under the new system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation, and their party preferences are listed on the ballot.

The political parties don?t like the new system because it means they won?t necessarily have a candidate in the general election — the top two primary finishers could both be Republican, for example — and because candidates they don?t like can write ?prefers Democratic Party? or ?prefers Republican Party? on the ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new system in 2008, but said it could create confusion depending on how the ballots were designed. The case came back to U.S. District Court in Seattle, and Judge John C. Coughenour ruled yesterday that the ballots make clear that the candidates listed are not necessarily endorsed by the political party they prefer — and thus, the ballots don?t violate the parties? First Amendment right of association.

?The political parties may not admire Washington?s new election system in which their designated candidates do not always advance to the general election, but that disappointment does not raise constitutional concerns,? Coughenour wrote.

Secretary of State Sam Reed welcomed the decision, while Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz said the party would take a hard look at whether to appeal.

?We disagree with the premise that voters are not confused by this party preference nonsense,? he said.

The judge did grant another request made by the parties in striking down the way the state runs elections for precinct committee officers, the grassroots organizers of the political parties. The judge said having such officers listed on ballots sent to all voters allows people to vote for those organizers regardless of party affiliation. That does violate the parties? association rights, the judge said.

Reed spokesman David Ammons said the secretary of state and county elections officials welcomed that part of the decision. There are 6,000 precincts around the state, and printing candidates? names for each party in each precinct is extremely expensive, he said.

The next precinct committee officer elections are in 2012, and because of the state?s budget woes, Reed?s office was already planning to seek permission to skip listing those candidates on ballots next year, Ammons said.

?For the moment, it looks like we?re out of the PCO election business,? he said. ?Taxpayers have been paying for the internal elections of private organizations. The counties will be really relieved to be free of that burden.?

That drew an angry response from Pelz.

?It?s unfortunate that the chief elections officer takes the position that we can?t afford to hold elections,? Pelz said. ?He should be an advocate for voting, not for canceling elections.?

Full post as published by First Amendment Center on January 11, 2011 (boomark / email).