pudge's Journal: Top Two Defeated

The "Top Two" primary was defeated in a preliminary injunction last week. HA!

The decision says that, "In all constitutionally relevant respects, Initiative 872 is identical to the blanket primary invalidated in Reed."

I previously argued that it was not severable, because this is an initiative where the parts are all essential to the whole: without being able to restrict the party affiliations on the ballot, you can't presume the rest makes any sense to the voters. That is also what the court found.

Oh, happy day. No Top Two primary this year.

The next step may be for attempts to make all elections nonpartisan. I don't know the law on that, but it's a bad idea. The question remains: what is your real goal, and do you accept cutting off your nose to spite your face?

If your goal is simply to have primaries open to everyone, then you lost. You can't have it, and you should stop trying. The people who put a candidate on the ballot get to choose who that candidate is, period. The previous blanket primary forced parties to abide by the will of the people, illegally. So they instead tried to take the parties out by allowing their names to be illegally appropriated.

So next, they will try to remove parties altogether. So who puts up the resources to get candidates on the ballot, then? To campaign for them? To get out the information, to get out the vote? And get rid of all that just so you can have a say in who those candidates are, when you *already* have that right? It's ludicrous.

who's election

[ExMember]

I'm all for allowing the parties to choose which candidate(s) they wish to support. What I don't understand is why the government is involved at all. Why is the government paying for and operating elections that are for the benefit of the parties?

Re:who's election

[pudge]

Because the people choose to.

I would not oppose it if the people chose to not do that anymore. But the people want to vote in a primary, so they pay for it. Else it is just a nominating convention that is far less open to the people.

We'll see

[ces]

The Grange isn't likely to want to take "no" for an answer so I think you are right that there may be an attempt to make all offices non-partisan (or at least decline to print party affiliation on the ballot). I don't see the parties dropping out of the game just because they aren't printed on the ballot anymore. However there are some potential issues campaign finance wise with parties being just like any other endorsing organization.

The parties would likely still have some involvement as happens with the

Re:We'll see

[pudge]

I don't see the parties dropping out of the game just because they aren't printed on the ballot anymore.

I doubt that would pass. What's the point? What is the goal? You cannot have an open primary, period. All you can have is no primary, or a closed primary. The Grange is now going to be playing, "if we can't have it the way we want it, you won't have it at all." But why not just try to kill the public primary directly?

So if for instance the law changes to not print a canidates party affiliation o

Re:We'll see

[ces]

Sorry just musing.

I suspect the Grange and other blanket primary supporters will try something.

As I said I think at this point the "Montana' primary we had last Fall seems to be the best comprimise. The political parties and the courts don't seem to have a problem with it and it provides more of an opportunity for participation than what the parties did this year to avoid the top two.

Re:We'll see

[pudge]

Yeah, I was just arguing with a lawyer on soundpolitics.com who thinks Montana will be challenged by the state GOP, too. I don't see why. I see why it may be unconstitutional, but I see no reason for the state party to challenge it. The state party wants public participation, and the public wants to participate. But the public will not accept public voter identification (which both parties want, and our system explicitly does not have), and would sooner abolish the primary than have to be publicly ident

Re:We'll see

[ces]

I thought the parties were OK with the Montana system? If that is found unconstitutional then just about any state that doesn't register by party or has fully open primaries will need to change its primary system. I'm not sure that is a can of worms any of the major parties want to open.

Personally I'm against having the state keep track of my party preference (it is none of the state's business as far as I'm concerned). But past that, like you I just want the damn issue to go away.

Re:We'll see

[pudge]

I thought the parties were OK with the Montana system?

Yes, I think they are, too. He appears to think they are not.

If that is found unconstitutional then just about any state that doesn't register by party or has fully open primaries will need to change its primary system.

Yes, sorta. It is only illegal if a party to the issue challenges it. The parties COULD challenge Montana, but why WOULD they? They can't force people to register by party, and in WA, they won't do it. So you might as well just

Re:We'll see

[ces]

Yes, I think they are, too. He appears to think they are not.

Oh ... I see. Sorry was confused there. Yea, I agree that your correspondent is wrong.

Yes, sorta. It is only illegal if a party to the issue challenges it. The parties COULD challenge Montana, but why WOULD they? They can't force people to register by party, and in WA, they won't do it. So you might as well just opt out of the primary altogether, rather than challenge the primary.

What I meant was if there was a challenge and Montana was foun