Home » Blogs » liwi's blog

New Rules for WA “Top-Two” Primary Let Candidates “Prefer” Parties that Oppose Them

Submitted by liwi on Sat, 04/26/2008 - 09:13.

The Washington Secretary of State has proposed rules for implementing the “top-two” primary which survived Supreme Court scrutiny in the Washington State Grange case. The rules call for listing a candidate's party “preference,” not affiliation, whether that party likes it or not--or even if the "party" does not exist.

The candidates in the first round of the blanket primary will not have a political party identification next to their names on the ballot. Instead, underneath each candidate’s name will be the phrase "Prefers Democratic Party" or "Prefers Republican Party" or a similar note for another party–or even for a tag-line which is not a real political party.

This could actually be fun. Each candidate will have 16 characters with which to identify a “preference.” It is assumed most will choose "Prefers Democratic Party" or "Prefers Republican Party," but there is nothing proposed to stop someone from choosing "Prefers No New Taxes Party" or another made-up name.

SCOTUS held that the top-two system was not obviously and necessarily unconstitutional (this is called “facial” unconstitutionality) and invited further litigation about whether the system was unconstitutional as applied, in particular, whether there was actual voter confusion about the party affiliations of persons and rights of political parties to freely choose their own candidates.

Given the near-certainty of further litigation about voter confusion, a real problem for the Secretary of State was coming up with a way of explaining to voters that a candidate may “prefer” a party but that same party may not “prefer” the candidate in any way. It could even be actively opposing him or her.

The solution proposed so far: a disclaimer on each ballot and on a separate sheet enclosed with the mailed ballot: "Each candidate for partisan office may state a political party that he or she prefers. A candidate's preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate."

That should clear it all up!

The Washington Office of the Secretary of State posted text of the rules on its Web site at http://secstate.wa.gov.

»

Why Do You Think Candidates can List Nonexistent Parties

Submitted by Buster (not verified) on Sat, 04/26/2008 - 12:44.

I think the proposed rules say that the candidate can list a political party preference, not a preference for an imaginary political party. The proposed rules say:

WAC 434-215-120 Political party preference by candidate for
partisan office.

(1) On a declaration of candidacy, a candidate for partisan congressional, state, or county office may state his or her preference for a political party, or not state a preference. The candidate may use up to sixteen characters for the name of the political party. A candidate’s party preference, or the fact that the candidate states no preference, must be printed with the candidate’s name on the ballot and in any voters’ pamphlets printed by the office of the secretary of
state or a county auditor’s office.

(2) If a candidate does not indicate a party that he or she prefers, then the candidate has stated no party preference and is listed as such on the ballot and in any voters’ pamphlets.

(3) If the name of the political party provided by the candidate would be considered obscene, the filing officer must notify the candidate and allow the candidate the opportunity to change the name of the political party prior to the end of the filing period. The filing officer may petition the superior court for a judicial determination that the party name may be rejected or edited. The court shall not enter such an order unless it concludes that the matter is obscene.

»

The state officials

Submitted by liwi on Sat, 04/26/2008 - 14:33.

The state officials themselves think so--"there'll be some goofiness.? See Times Tribune article, quotes.

"According to assistant director of elections Katie Blinn, Secretary of State Sam Reed thinks most candidates will take a traditional path and write in Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green. Some might be more descriptive but still honest with phrases like “Liberal Democrat” or “Fiscal Conserv.”

“Will there be some goofiness?” Blinn asked. “Yes, but there always has been.” Goofiness as in coming up with a fanciful name for a party such as the one Spokane newspaper reporter Rich Roesler suggested: “Prefers A Good Budweiser Party.”

Note the rules states "If the name of the political party provided by the candidate would be considered obscene, the filing officer must notify the candidate and allow the candidate the opportunity to change the name of the political party prior to the end of the filing period"--this does not say "change the preference to a non-obscene party, just change the the name of the political party," as if names are permutable by the candidate.I

»