pudge's Journal: Choose Your Own Candidate

WA Secretary of State wants to allow anyone on the primary ballots to say they are from any party they choose to say they are from. He said the other day, "on the thought that somehow you can say to somebody, you can't call yourself a Republican or Democrat (on a ballot), just doesn't wash."

But the Supreme Court disagrees with him. In California Democratic Party vs. Bill Jones, Secretary of State of California, Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee. That process often determines the party's positions on the most significant public policy issues of the day, and even when those positions are predetermined it is the nominee who becomes the party's ambassador to the general electorate in winning it over to the party's views. ...

... our cases vigorously affirm the special place the First Amendment reserves for, and the special protection it accords, the process by which a political party "select[s] a standard bearer who best represents the party's ideologies and preferences." The moment of choosing the party's nominee, we have said, is "the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power in the community."

In other words, Reed is clearly wrong, and either he doesn't know it, or he is pandering to the voters who don't know or don't care.

The party gets to choose its candidate. The only way the voters got around this is by not having a partisan general election: if you disregard party in the general election, then therefore the primary is not selecting the nominee of the party, so the primary can be open. But that doesn't mean the party cannot choose their nominee prior to the primary, and nothing Sam Reed can say will take away this clearly existing right of political parties.

Right of the party over right of the individual

[Ra5pu7in]

My impression of what Reed is saying is that if a person gets onto the ballot some other way than as the candidate selected by a party during their primary - say through a petition with a given number of signatures - then they should have the right to list themselves as a member of that party even if they are not the party's official representative.

For example, I am a registered Libertarian. Say Joe Schmoe is selected to be the official gubernatorial candidate that the Libertarian party chooses in the pri

Re:Right of the party over right of the individual

[pudge]

My impression of what Reed is saying is that if a person gets onto the ballot some other way than as the candidate selected by a party during their primary - say through a petition with a given number of signatures - then they should have the right to list themselves as a member of that party even if they are not the party's official representative.

Yes, and he is incorrect.

However, I get onto the ballot by collecting some required number of votes on a petition. If I am understanding this correctly, I wo

Re:Right of the party over right of the individual

[Quantum Jim]

Would it be legal to use a title such as, "Unoffical Libertarian"?

Re:Right of the party over right of the individual

[pudge]

You have two choices: affiliate of a party, or Independent. You would need to have an actual party called "Unofficial Libertarian Party" or somesuch.

Re:Right of the party over right of the individual

[Ra5pu7in]

The mark of "Libertarian" next to your name on the ballot is not saying that you consider yourself to be a Libertarian, but that you *represent* the members of the Libertarian party. And you do not, so you should not get to put that next to your name on the ballot.

Guess I never read it that way before. Then again, I have never in my life voted party-line, so the party affiliation next to a candidate's name has minimal importance to me. Curious about this, I went looking at the Supreme Court decision

Re:Right of the party over right of the individual

[pudge]

the requirement that a candidate could only list the party if they were the duly nominated candidate of their respective party does not seem to exist in California code and is only stated in the Supreme Court decision without having an actual source referenced.

The Court didn't base that on the California code. They based it on the First Amendment.

Re:Right of the party over right of the individual

[Ra5pu7in]

Okay, now that I've had time to research this further, I have to concede that while it isn't part of the state election code or the actual decision being made in the Supreme Court case you linked to, there is considerable past case law that establishes the right of political parties to only have their chosen candidate listed on a primary or general ballot as a representative of their party. Specifically, Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin [findlaw.com] builds on earlier decisions to state that "The National Party an

Re:Right of the party over right of the individual

[pudge]

Yeah, the silly thing is that this all can be "fixed" by simply making the label next to someone's name more descriptive (or, as ces apparently wants, to remove it altogether). This is simply about the right of the party to affiliate with whom they choose, for others to not co-opt their names.

Just trademark the parties

[Sloppy]

Just have the party nominees put a "(TM)" after their party names on the ballot. That oughtta get the point across.

Well

[ces]

I'd be for making all offices in Washington non-partisan if that is what it takes.

I wouldn't be supprised to see the Grange coming up with an initative to do so if the parties make the current 'cajun' primary moot.

The only question would be if a state-level initative would be able to make races for federal office non-partisan.

But then again I'm one of those Washington natives who didn't see anything wrong with the old blanket primary either.

It might do some good as well as people who share similar ideol

Re:Well

[Red Warrior]

What's interesting is that what Reed is saying is flying DIRECTLY in the face of the decision in the blanket primary lawsuit. The crux of which was "we can't have blanket primaries because political PARTIES have the right of free association to determine who will represent them." If the party members have the right to determine who runs as a Republican on the ballot, then the party members have the right to determine who runs as a Republican on the ballot.

To say that AFTER the (court directed) partisan pri

Re:Well

[ces]

Yea, I agree that what Reed is saying goes against the crux of the ruling in both the CA and WA primary lawsuits. I also agree he should know better.

I'm not sure what he is trying to accomplish by this. (other than to try to shame the parties into participating in the new primary)

FWIW, I didn't like the parties filing suit, nor did I like the outcome. I liked the blanket primary system. You and I are with a majority of WA citizens in that regard, IIRC.

I've found that it is mostly people who recently mo

Re:Well

[Red Warrior]

The question is would you support making all state and local offices non-partisan so we can vote for the person and not the party?
After all that is the Washington way: when the powers that be don't listen to the voters whack them upside the head with an initiative.

At this point, I would be for *anything* that would disrupt politics as usual in this state. The politicians seem to thick for whacks upside the head. But that's no reason to stop doing it.

(Yes.)

Re:Well

[ces]

At this point, I would be for *anything* that would disrupt politics as usual in this state. The politicians seem to thick for whacks upside the head. But that's no reason to stop doing it.

(Yes.)

Well toward this end I've signed the stronger performance audit initative. I know the auditor doesn't like certain provisions of it but I want something stronger than the toothless bill the legislature was working on (BTW did this pass or not?).

In addition to making all state and local races non-partisan I'd lik

Re:Well

[pudge]

BTW did this pass or not?

It never went anywhere. Died in committee.

Re:Well

[ces]

It never went anywhere. Died in committee.

Grumble, I thought it was going to get through this year.

Good thing I signed the performance audit initative I guess then. I hope it makes it onto the ballot (as well as passes).

Re:Well

[pudge]

I've found that it is mostly people who recently moved here from out of state who object the most to the old blanket primary.

No, it isn't. It's mostly people who are involved with parties who object to it. People involved with parties want to have their rights. People not involved with parties don't care.

Re:Well

[ces]

No, it isn't. It's mostly people who are involved with parties who object to it. People involved with parties want to have their rights. People not involved with parties don't care.

Yes and no. I'm assuming people who are reasonably involved in politics as the unwashed masses don't give a fig (or prefer the old way of doing things).

However even among those who are quite involved politically, people who grew up here or who have been around for a long time tend to either favor the blanket primary or are neu

Re:Well

[pudge]

This includes a few elected officials and LD chairs.

I didn't mean that literally everyone involved in parties supports the right of the party to nominate. However, my greater mistake was that I forgot to exclude elected officials: nearly all of the elected officials I know support a blanket primary, whereas nearly all the party officials I know support the closed primary.

The big thing is nobody objected for years or thought to have the blanket primary overturned until after the decision on California's

Re:Well

[pudge]

The question is would you support making all state and local offices non-partisan so we can vote for the person and not the party?

Why not do that now? How would that, substantively, change *antything at all*? Again, without parties, a primary is useless, so we go back to not having primaries and just have a general election, where you would in theory vote for a person and not a party anyway.

You cannot prevent parties from participating in the election: that would likely be unconstitutional. You could

Re:Well

[ces]

Why not do that now? How would that, substantively, change *antything at all*? Again, without parties, a primary is useless, so we go back to not having primaries and just have a general election, where you would in theory vote for a person and not a party anyway.

We have primaries for non-partisan offices and have for some time. Check out any of the judical races, the Superintendent of Public Instruction race, School board races, or any number of other local races (mostly things like water, sewer, or fire

Re:Well

[pudge]

We have primaries for non-partisan offices and have for some time.

I am well aware of this. And they serve no actual purpose. It is one election for the price of two.

If the races are non-partisan the parties' ablity to participate is sharply limited by campaign finance rules. For example the State GOP might endorse a particular canidate but any sharing of lists, phone banking, or other co-ordinated campaign activity would be subject to the same limits as those of any other organization such as Unions.

Re:Well

[ces]

Thus crippling the election system, as the parties are what make the system go.

Yes and no. City of Seattle races seem to work just fine without the parties.

Re:Well

[pudge]

Sorry, I didn't mean the entire system, I was thinking of the larger races.

Re:Well

[pudge]

I'd be for making all offices in Washington non-partisan if that is what it takes.

If that's what *what* takes? What's the real point here? The purpose of the primary is for parties to select their candidates. Without parties, primaries are irrelevant.

Re:Well

[ces]

If that's what *what* takes? What's the real point here? The purpose of the primary is for parties to select their candidates. Without parties, primaries are irrelevant.

Well most states still bother with primaries for non-partisan offices.

For example this fall the top two canidates for Richard Conlin's Seattle City Council seat will advance to the general election.

I suppose you could do away with the primary elections and have free-for-all general election ballots.

Re:Well

[pudge]

Well most states still bother with primaries for non-partisan offices.

Yes, and they serve no purpose. At least, no purpose of a primary. It is a general election, and then we have another general election.

For example this fall the top two canidates for Richard Conlin's Seattle City Council seat will advance to the general election.

Exactly. This is really two general elections.

I suppose you could do away with the primary elections and have free-for-all general election ballots.

Which would be no