"Will court kill voters' plan for elections?" asks the Everett Herald in its coverage of yesterday's Supreme Court hearing on the state's "Top 2" primary system. The problem is the headline implies the Supreme Court is going to be the culprit in waxing the plan. In reality, the plan already lost in lower courts and is being heard on appeal. Thus, it's already dead. A ruling from the Court will either affirm its burial or resurrect it from the dead.
Perhaps I'm being overly touchy, but it's a personal pet peeve based on the way the media writ large often reports on the Court and its sometimes complex decisions, often implying the Court has demonstrated a policy preference in a given ruling rather than simply making a legal decision based on the applicable statute. Either way, more coverage of the hearing can be found here, here, and here.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 02, 2007 07:25 AM | Email ThisAnyhow, I love McKenna, but he's going to lose this one, and rightly so.
Posted by: cliff on October 2, 2007 10:07 AMOther insitutions where conservatives have lost the battle:
1. K-12 education and the secular progressive agenda of the NEA.
2. University education and the proliferation of Ward Churchills.
3. Secular progressive denominations, is it me, or doesn't it seem that every other day some denomination has some pastor announcing they are gay or that they want to be both Christian and some other religion or they want to be Christian but they aren't sure that God exists.
I think much of the secular progresive victory goes back to Dewey in education and his philosophies of secular progressive thought.
Posted by: WVH on October 2, 2007 10:25 AMIt can be argued that if that is the case, why should all taxpyers support an election which is limited to only certain residents of the state.
Well, we could go to the party caucus system (which the parties still conduct for presidential nominations) and would then be at the parties' expense. However, the state even tried to get away from them by initiating the presidential preference primary, (which I think has been a bust).
I expect that the Supreme Court, on Constitutional grounds, will uphold the lower courts decision.
Posted by: Desert Rat on October 2, 2007 11:39 AMI figure the Supreme Court only took the case to strike down this nonsensical notion that states can take away the right to association, once and for all.
Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2007 11:44 AMIf that's true, then you should oppose the top two system. Because it would result in third party independent candidates very rarely making the general election ballot.
Posted by: Palouse on October 2, 2007 01:47 PMCome the general election, you get to pick the candidate you want to vote for for the office. But (let me point out again), as you are not a member of the party, _you cannot pick the party's candidate_.
Posted by: steve miller on October 2, 2007 02:32 PMYes, you should not be forced to. And you are not, of course. You are only required to pick a party if you want to HELP THAT PARTY choose ITS OWN CANDIDATE. If you are turned off by the parties, then you obviously don't want to help the parties, so you have no desire to participate in their primary process, so what do you have to complain about?
I understand that pols of both parties want the Supremes to agree with lower courts, the pols brought the original litigation. Party politics don't serve people like me well. I hope Mc Kenna wins.
We all have the right to association. That means the right to NOT associate, including the right of any groups, including parties, to say that someone does not belong. The law as passed -- which contains no severability clause, so it is all-or-nothing -- forces political parties to be associated with people it did not choose to associate with. That is unconstitutional. Period, end of story. And McKenna should know that. And it's a terrible shame if he doesn't. I hope he is only pushing this because he feels it is his obligation as AG, and not because he actually believes this clearly illegal law is not illegal.
If you want to abolish mention of political parties on ballots, or if you want to only allow such mention if it is approved by the parties, fine. The law did neither, so it is unconstitutional.
And further, why even HAVE a primary AT ALL if you don't want to have it for the parties? The PURPOSE of the primary is for the parties to determine their nominees for the general election. There is NO POINT otherwise.
That's the worst part: in WA there is a really screwed up view of elections that somehow we need a primary to "cull" our choices. No, we do not. This is taken to such an extreme that one of the most important elections in our state, for SUPREME COURT, was actually DECIDED in the primary! That is unconscionably dumb.
I, like many indies, liked the old system.
Fine. But the old system was inherently unconstitutional. There are lots of things people have liked over the years that they had to give up because they violated the rights of others.
I try to read the materials about each candidate and go to web sites. I vote for the person that I feel most closely mirrors my views and is a person of integrity, no matter their race, creed or religion.
And you can still do that. No one is stopping you. Your argument here has nothing to do with a primary at all, but with the general election, which is for choosing the person you want to win the office. We are not talking about picking the person to win the office here, we are talking about who will be the party's nominee. If you don't consider yourself a part of the party, why on earth would you even want to do this?
For the states rights types, a lot of indies feel the same as I do, so why can't each state do its own thing.
Because of the 14th Amendment, which makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states.
My guess is WA is a state with many indies, like me. I understand the interests of the politcal parties in wanting party unity and cohesion. It just doesn't serve us indies well
Why should it? It's about choosing the party's nominee. If you're independent, and don't want to help either party choose its nominee, then it has nothing to do with you, so it does not, and should not, serve you.
You have a disconnect somewhere: you're not getting either the purpose of the primary, or the fact that the previous blanket primary and the top two violated the Constitutional right to association.
Posted by: pudge on October 2, 2007 10:09 PMWhen have you seen to parties get together like they have on this issue. The right of association in this instance makes as much sense as the right of privacy in Roe. This case was about the right of association for the ruling powers in each political party. From the point of view one indie, you can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want, it is still a pig. Parties, like unions have an interest in their own self-preservation. I understand that. I disagree with posters that, at this point, helping the two parties keep a stranglehold on the process is good. Power flows to those in power who want to preserve their power. So, I guess people have to pick their poison.
Posted by: WVH on October 2, 2007 10:51 PMAre we not taught since grade school that the Bill of Rights is for the individual?
What should be argued in the US Supreme Court is what we do about elected officials that change party in the middle of their term. Is that not a breach of trust and fraud to their supporters that got them there? Or how about, what do we do about elected officials that took an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution and yet ban guns, deny students to sing or speak about their Christian values in public schools?
Do you honestly believe that any political party in our State of Washington has a valid selection process for any of their candidates for elected office?
Just how do you think their candidates are selected?
Do you believe that they have an interview to show their educational background and employment history like you would for any job?
Do you believe that they have a question and answer hearing or a debate to show the qualifications and differences between same party candidates for an office for their members to decide who to support?
I cannot speak for the State Democrat Party or the other Independent parties in our state, but can on the Washington State Republican Party in this matter.
Do you honestly believe that the State GOP had a valid selection process for their candidate for Governor in 2004 or for US Senator in 2006?
I was a GOP Gubernatorial candidate in 2004 and Reed Davis was a GOP US Senator candidate in 2006. We both can tell you that the State Party is run by a bunch of good ol' boys and they practice cronyism, as far as I am concern.
See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39086 on Reed
Have you already forgotten how Reed Davis was not allowed to speak at the WSRP Convention in 2006?
In the Fall of 2003, I advocated in a State Senate hearing chaired by Senator Pam Roach for doing away with the Primary and just have a runoff General Election. But elections have become big business for media, advertising, and other campaign vendors who make their millions from campaigns every two years. They have powerful lobbyists to keep things like they are.
Posted by: John W. Aiken, Jr. on October 2, 2007 11:53 PMThe right of association in this instance makes as much sense as the right of privacy in Roe. This case was about the right of association for the ruling powers in each political party.
Only if you define "the ruling powers in each political party" as "the members of each political party." This was about all of us: WE get to choose our nominee, or get to choose how our nominee is selected. The state was taking that absolute right away from us.
From the point of view one indie, you can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want, it is still a pig.
You know, I don't care what you think about it. The bottom line is you want to take away MY RIGHTS for YOUR (incorrectly) perceived benefit.
Parties, like unions have an interest in their own self-preservation. I understand that.
It is not about self-preservation, it is about the right of association. Please stop changing the subject. I know you said that this is not about the right to association, but nothing you said actually backed up that incorrect claim.
I disagree with posters that, at this point, helping the two parties keep a stranglehold on the process is good.
See, this just demonstrates the utter illogic of your claims. The only process the parties have a "stranglehold" on is determining their own nominees! And that is something the parties obviously SHOULD control! And you still have not answered the fundamental question: if you don't want to align with a party, then why do you even care to participate in that process?
Posted by: pudge on October 3, 2007 08:41 AMOr determine how they are selected. Yes, absolutely true, but it is deeper than that: they also get to choose who claims affiliation with them.
What they really mean is that they want to be able to dictate to the voters who they want
Well sure, the parties get to dictate to the voters who the parties want. Of course. That is what the right of association necessarily means.
rather than the best person for the position
You're committing the question-begging fallacy. Who determines who is the "best person"? The nominee of the party is, by definition, the person the party thinks is the "best person." That doesn't mean you have to agree. But how is this in any way a problem?
and say that you still have a choice in the Primary when they shutout and give millions of dollars a thousands of hours of help to their good ol' buddy
This makes no sense whatsoever. The primary is FOR THE PARTY. If you don't like the choices, don't participate, or join the party and change it from within. Or you can take parties out of the system, thus removing any need for a primary at all, at which point parties will choose their nominees at caucus and convention, without any other public input.
Which is your choice?
While the other same party candidate is supposed to be a good Republican and not attack other good ol' boy Republicans by some stupid code of honor when they have no honor.
This veers pretty close to an illogical ad hominem attack. However, if you are referring to the 11th Commandment, that was essentially repealed as a requirement a couple of years ago (a decision I favored).
Since when is the Bill of Rights are for the rights of a political group or an organization?
The right to association necessarily extends to groups, or it has no meaning at all. Yes, it is still an individual right, but the individuals that make up the group are the ones who are collectively making the decision about association (and disassociation).
Are we not taught since grade school that the Bill of Rights is for the individual?
We're taught a lot of silly things in school. But let's take this to your apparent conclusion: the state has the authority to determine, without the assent of the parties, who each party's nominee will be. How does THAT make ANY sense? And that is what the Top Two does. The party is a private organization: what gives the state any right to tell it who its nominee must be?
A party exists to get people elected, and it chooses its representatives (or at least, the method of selection of its representatives). The state cannot take that away from the parties, or any other private organization. It can't tell Microsoft who its CEO will be, it can't tell the Seahawks who its coach or QB will be, it can't tell Stefan who his editors/authors will be on Sound Politics. It cannot tell the GOP or Dems who their representatives will be.
How is this not obvious to you?
What should be argued in the US Supreme Court is what we do about elected officials that change party in the middle of their term.
No. There is no legal issue here.
Is that not a breach of trust and fraud to their supporters that got them there?
Perhaps, but that is what the courts call a "non-justiciable political question." I participated in a recall of a state rep who did precisely that. That is, in my opinion, a perfect use of the recall.
Or how about, what do we do about elected officials that took an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution and yet ban guns, deny students to sing or speak about their Christian values in public schools?
Those are fine things to bring before the courts; just like the state telling the parties who their representatives are, they are violations of the Bill of Rights.
Do you honestly believe that any political party in our State of Washington has a valid selection process for any of their candidates for elected office?
That is not a legal question. Nothing about their selection process violates your rights.
Just how do you think their candidates are selected?
I know how they are selected. It's pretty simple, really. People consider running, for whatever reason, and other people decide whether or not to back them. If they get enough backing, they win the party's nomination.
Do you believe that they have an interview to show their educational background and employment history like you would for any job?
Sometimes, if they are not well-known already, absolutely. I first met Doug Roulstone in early 2005, and that is precisely what he did when he came to the 39th District GOP.
Do you believe that they have a question and answer hearing or a debate to show the qualifications and differences between same party candidates for an office for their members to decide who to support?
Ditto. See above.
However, again, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, because the "validity" of the selection process has nothing to do with whether the state has a right to overturn that selection processm any more than it would if it didn't like the selection process of any other position for any other private organization.
Have you already forgotten how Reed Davis was not allowed to speak at the WSRP Convention in 2006?
Not at all. I backed Reed's right to speak at convention. I believed then it was wrong, and he is the main reason I backed the changing of the rule, and said so to my representatives on the state committee.
But again, this is off-topic, because it does not in any way justify the state's removal of our rights as a party.
If I may, you are not sounding much like a Republican here. Because YOU don't like that YOU didn't get what you think is a fair shot, YOU want the government to step in and tell a private organization how to conduct itself. That sounds a lot more like a Democrat than a Republican to me.
Posted by: pudge on October 3, 2007 09:00 AMDespite the missive written by my pal Pudge, the duty of each citizen is to advocate for good effective government. This is not about simply my right to choose handpicked candidates put forth by party bosses for whatever reason they choose to pick a particular candidate:
1. they owe the candidate something because they
were a scarificial lamb in another race
2.Cronyism
3. Right family background or connections
4. They are photogenic and have a photogenic family and photogenic dog
I understand why both parties are so adamant about this issue, it serves their purposes.
Like it or not, I think the most practical faorm of governance is probably a two party system that encourages quality candidates of both parties to run.
This current system sucks.
Posted by: WVH on October 3, 2007 10:31 AMNo thank you.
If you don't want to participate in the primary, then don't participate. But supporting the top two means you are trying to prevent MY party's candidates from appearing on the ballot. Sorry, but SCOTUS is going to shoot that down poste haste.
Posted by: Palouse on October 3, 2007 11:18 AMI support having the best candidates emerge and having a system that is practical enough to effectively govern.
Me too. Note that I am not defending the status quo: I am saying, rather, that the proposed solution is unconstitutional. I have been a staunch advocate of election reform for years, including the candidate selection process.
I have actually participated in and donated money to an organization whose main purpose is to take away control of the Presidential Debates from the two main parties; if I were merely here in defense of the Ds and Rs, I obviously would not be working against the Commission on Presidential Debates.
And as others have said, the Top Two hurts ALL parties and political organizations who want to field candidates, not just the Ds and Rs. This is not about Ds and Rs, it's about the right of people to band together to put up a representative that carries their collective stamp of approval, without government intervention.
Multiple party systems while they might look good theoretically often are not practical for governance.
Fine, you can have that belief. But it would be absolutely unconstitutional to get rid of political parties. You could diminish them by removing special considerations: you could not pay for them to have a primary, not put the party affiliation on the ballot, and so on. But you cannot get rid of them.
Despite the missive written by my pal Pudge, the duty of each citizen is to advocate for good effective government.
Sure. But not by taking away constitutional rights of others. It is, on the contrary, the duty of each citizen to NOT infringe on the constitutional rights of others.
You do not have to like how the parties select their candidates. You DO have to justify government's intrusion into that process, if you want to continue to advocate for it. All you've done is complain about the process, but that does not form an argument for government intrusion. I don't like how HorsesAss picks its authors, but I am not calling for government to intrude.
We have that. It's called the libertarians and greens. Indeed, the LP was on the primary ballot not too long ago.
All that's needed for them to be on the primary ballot more often, is to get more votes. All that's needed for them to be on the general election ballot more often is to get more signatures.
Unless we have a Top Two of course ... in which case they will almost never get on the general election ballot. If you want more parties to have more access, then you should despise Top Two.
Posted by: pudge on October 4, 2007 12:12 AM