Court Overturns Washington's Primary System

KIRO (Ch.7 -- local CBS affiliate), Seattle ^

[ShorelineMike]

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday struck down Washington state's "blanket" primary system, saying it violates the right of political parties to have their own members choose candidates for office.

[ShorelineMike]

First the 9th Circus goes after California ... now, Washington State. I'm sorry, but these 'people' are EVIL.

[jgrubbs]

The U.S. Citizens need to go after the 9th Circus.

[Dog]

What next they going to banned elections across America?

[AntiGuv]

Yeah, except this is perfectly consistent with the Supreme Court's striking down California's blanket primary in 2000. It was inevitable Washington's would get overturned as well..

[Dr. Frank fan]

Actually I'm totally opposed to open primaries (if I understand correctly that this is what "blanket primaries" are). Why should people who are not members of the Republican Party help decide who the Republican Party will put forth as a nominee for something? It doesn't even compute.

[Lazamataz]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejects all elections, saying "free elections violates the right of the people to be heard".

There would have been more at eleven, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the First Amendment, stating that it is "clearly unconstitutional".

[Wphile]

Actually, this ruling is okay. It allows the parties to run the primaries. Currently, people can cross party lines and vote in the other's primary. This ruling should mean that people must choose a party in order to vote in the primary.

[heleny]

CA used to have an open primary, too. In March 2002, we (in CA) had a "modified open primary" where decline-to-state voters could choose the partisan ballot of one party, provided that party allows nonmembers to vote in their elections.

Four parties, including the D and R, allowed nonmembers to vote for the elected office nominees but not for the parties' central committee members.

I think this decision by the 9th CCoA is correct, since political parties should not be required to have their nominees decided by nonmembers. But, I disagree with their decision about the CA recall.

[per loin]

So I have to register as a Dem to vote for Sharpton?

[freedomcrusader]

The 9th gets one right for a change. Blanket primaries are bunk. Granted, people can register for the party they dislike and wreak havoc with primary elections, but the notion that the state can determine how political parties choose their candidates is anathema to freedom-loving people.

If some political party wants to choose their candidates by the amount of rainfall in Slippery Rock, PA for the preceding year then it should be allowed to do so.

[Libertina]

I rather think each party should select their own candidates. CA is another matter.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Yeah, except this is perfectly consistent with the Supreme Court's striking down California's blanket primary in 2000. It was inevitable Washington's would get overturned as well.."

---

Exactly. It's a good thing they're getting overturned, too. The blanket primary was invented to give RINOs a chance to survive GOP primaries by getting RATs to vote for them (famed RINO Tom Campbell got the system approved in CA). Now, if they could only overturn the recall election for that reason and mandate that Arnold face McClintock in a primary, then we'd be in business. Arnold could never survive a Republican primary unless he got hundreds of thousands of RATs to turn out and vote for him.

[Kuksool]

I prefer closed primaries. Open primaries allow RAT operatives to "Freep" our elections.

[Mo1]

What next they going to banned elections across America?

It would not surprise me at all

[MattGarrett]

Actually, I support this decision. Open primaries are the evil.

So one could say that the 9th CCA is like a broken clock which is right occasionally and completely by coincidence!

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Eh, this is no where near as heinous as their action on the California matter.

After the Supreme Court ruling, it was pretty obvious that Washington's primary was going to change. Blanket primaries are subject to lots of game playing, so while they have good points, they have bad ones too.

This just rearranges a few chairs on the deck of the next big ship to go under (after California). The voters are the real problem in Washington (like California), not they system. They want to put people in office who have philosophies that lead to disaster. Until we stop having dominant majorities on the left, we're going to have increasing trouble here. We're just a few steps behind California.

[Kuksool]

With this today's ruling on blanket primaries in WA, could Louisiana's jungle primary be the next to go?

[Lunatic Fringe]

I have to side with the 9th Circuit on this one... only party members should vote in their party primaries.

Remember how Democrats were encouraging registered Dems to vote for McCain in the GOP primaries?

[Psycho_Bunny]

This decision is pretty stupid. 

While the open primary may not be fair to parties, if it were the problem that the 9th Circuit seems to think it is, WE WOULD CHANGE IT OURSELVES.

We have an initiative process.  We can modify our our system.

There's been no movement in WA to change our primaries.  Obviously, we haven't considered it a problem.  Why the f%$# are these Federal Judges sticking their noses in our business?

Coming on the heels of the delay in the CA recall, it seems clear to me that the 9th Circuit is completely out of control.

...and I'm not just blustering....this court is out of control.

[kimoajax]

Similar to that courts decision regarding Oregon's attempt to open the primaries a number of years back. If memory serves, in the Oregon case court ruled that only the parties themselves could open their primary.

At the time RINOs and Dems were in favor of open primaries to "broaden the party and not be exclusionary"...which was pure horse pucky.

The Dems wanted to open the primaries cause it created opportunities for stealth candidates and crossover voters in Republican primary races. The RINOs wanted it cause it disempowered conservatives in the GOP.

I now live in Washington state and in this case I agree with the courts decision. It is a good thing.

[RetiredArmy]

Your correct. This keeps, say the democommies, from ganging up and voting down a stronger opposition party's person and getting the weaker one to win. Thus having their stronger against our weaker one. That helps them in states like Mexicofornia, Oregon, WA state, NY state, Taxsichuttus, etc., where they have the majorities.

[nina0113]

Virginia has this now - you can vote in either primary, but only one. I generally vote in the Dem primary, supporting the least offensive Dem (though next year I might pick Sharpton just for grins). For the real election, I'm in there pulling the R lever.

[Blood of Tyrants]

THE 9TH CIRCUS HAS DECLARED THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES VIOLATES THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER AND SUSPENDED THE US CONSTITUTION.

[Dr. Frank fan]

While the open primary may not be fair to parties, if it were the problem that the 9th Circuit seems to think it is, WE WOULD CHANGE IT OURSELVES. We have an initiative process. We can modify our our system.

The initiative process is great for when the legislature and courts do not do their jobs properly. However, in this case, the court did its job just fine (as far as I can tell).

To argue against the decision you need to explain to me why a non-Republican (or non-Democrat) should have the right to help decide who the Republican (or Democrat) nominee for something will be. The idea is bizarre on its face, if you even do just a tiny bit of thinking about what a "political party" is and why it exists.

There's been no movement in WA to change our primaries. Obviously, we haven't considered it a problem.

Well, then you are wrong not to consider it a problem. Open primaries are an impingement on the right to free association (among other things).

Why the f%$# are these Federal Judges sticking their noses in our business?

Because apparently your state was violating its citizens' right to free association.

Now, to be fair, I'm not sure that was the basis for the 9th's ruling. It may have been some totally wacky basis. Knowing the 9th, it wouldn't surprise me.

However, the fact remains that forcing "open primaries" on political parties is unjustifiable. Whether or not a majority of Washingtonians know it, or are mad enough about it to start an initiative process.

Coming on the heels of the delay in the CA recall, it seems clear to me that the 9th Circuit is completely out of control. ...and I'm not just blustering....this court is out of control.

That may be, but doesn't mean this decision by itself is bad. In fact, going with your "out of control" theory, maybe they made this decision to try to "cover their tracks"... they make the anti-recall decision, but then they make this one (which helps ideological conservatives against RINOs for example, as described in earlier posts), so they can claim to have done things to anger "both sides"... who knows?

[angry elephant]

You're right. I was the court reporter on this litigation and the Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians all wanted the blanket primary changed. What was happening was that in a Republican district, if there were two conservatives and one Rhino running, the Dems would vote in the primary for the Rino.

[yonif]

What next they going to banned elections across America? Maybe banning the bible will be next.

[CatoRenasci]

Acutally, Califonia had an open primary ("cross-filing") in effect years ago. The open primary that the 9th struck down was a modern version of it. I remember 'cross-filing' back in the '50s. I think it went away in the '60s.

[goldstategop]

I agree with this decision. Political parties should have the right to choose and nominate candidates in accordance with their philosophy and who pledge to carry out the party's platform. An "open" primary is simply a way for liberals to interfere with Republican Party processes.

[bigfootbob]

"With this today's ruling on blanket primaries in WA, could Louisiana's jungle primary be the next to go?"

I hope so. The RINO Washington State Secretary of State, tried to institute a primary system based on that nonsense in Louisiana. I hope he doesn't try again now the 9th circus has ruled.

[leprechaun9]

The governmnet should not be involved in either financing or running PRIMARY elections.

The D & R political parties are PRIVATE oganizations. They, and only they, should decide how to select their candidate for the GENERAL election. If they wish to put Donald Duck, or Pluto for that matter, on the ballot as their candidate for a political office, that it their right.

Of course, the wisdom of that choice, or any choice, will be measured after the VOTERS have their say. The election and entertainment industries have usurped the operation of our government and the selection of representatives as props for their industries. They don't solve any problems and are rarely held accountable for the wild speculations that dominate their actions!

[Chad Fairbanks]

Bttt

[Psycho_Bunny]

All this decision does is disenfranchise split-ticket voters.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

With this today's ruling on blanket primaries in WA, could Louisiana's jungle primary be the next to go?

We can only hope. It was originally set up by the Edwin Edwards based on the belief that 2 RATS would end up in the runoff. While it hasn't worked out quite as planned(heeheehee), it still stinks.

[steveegg]

The 9th Circus has no business ruling either direction here. There is, despite the fact that virtually everything done by elected federal officials is based on party affiliation, no official federal recognition of party in the actual election process. The "free association" clause in the US Constitution, like the remainder of the 1st Amendment, specifically only binds Congress. That leaves no apparent federal hook for a Federal Appeals Court.

Philosophically, I am of a mixed mind on this. If the political parties really want to include only their members in the primary process, they ought to go to the caucus system and pay for the process of selecting their candidates themselves. Barring that, they should either live with the rules and be happy, or live with them until they can be changed through the legislative process.

[StriperSniper]

So I have to register as a Dem to vote for Sharpton?

Depends on where you live, but as these cases continue, eventually yes.

(Go Al Go!)

[steveegg]

Actually I'm totally opposed to open primaries (if I understand correctly that this is what "blanket primaries" are). Why should people who are not members of the Republican Party help decide who the Republican Party will put forth as a nominee for something? It doesn't even compute.

When the Pubbies (and Dems) have the state and local governments pay for that nomination process, they give up sole control of who gets to vote. The career pols on both sides could have either rammed through a closing of the primaries through the legislature (assuming that it isn't a Constitutional provision) or decided to hold caucuses instead of public primaries. They didn't have the balls to do the former, and they're too cheap to pay for their own nomination processes; therefore, they took the cowards' way out and ran to not just any court, but a court that had no business sticking its nose in, to do their "dirty" work.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not entirely opposed to closed primaries. They could have done it a right way (though I prefer they go the caucus route).

[Dr. Frank fan]

All this decision does is disenfranchise split-ticket voters.

What's a "split-ticket voter"? Anyway, whoever they are, they are not "disenfranchised" at all. That is a dirty lie. They, like all eligible voters, may vote in the actual election, just as always.

As for primaries (which are technically not "elections" for any government position - the winner of a primary does not become part of the government): if they don't belong to or want to register in a political party, obviously they won't help decide who the nominee is. Just like: if you don't hold stock in a company, you don't get to help pick the CEO. If you're not a member of the NRA, you don't get to help pick its President. (Should Barbara Boxer be sent a ballot for NRA President?)

I mean, really, there's a quite simple concept in play here. People who are actually in the organization in question are the ones who should participate in its collective decision-making, at least, if that's the way the organization wants it. To argue for anything else really doesn't make any sense.

Say you and 4 buddies have a weekly poker night going. You guys decide that it makes sense to pick one of you, the Beer Czar, who will be responsible for buying the beer and keeping track of the beer fund and all that. To decide who this trusted person will be, you have a vote for the Beer Czar.

Should the rest of us get to participate in this vote? So that, for example, 4 out of 5 of you guys pick Honest Abe to be the Beer Czar, but the rest of us (who outnumber you 5) chime in and say "no, we think Shifty Pete should be your Beer Czar", and you're required to respect that decision? Be consistent now.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The "free association" clause in the US Constitution, like the remainder of the 1st Amendment, specifically only binds Congress. That leaves no apparent federal hook for a Federal Appeals Court.

Unless they use the 14th Amendment to impose protection of 1st Amendment rights on the states - as they've been doing for quite some time, of course.

[steveegg]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejects all elections, saying "free elections violates the right of the people to be heard".

There would have been more at eleven, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the First Amendment, stating that it is "clearly unconstitutional".

That about sums it up.

[Dr. Frank fan]

When the Pubbies (and Dems) have the state and local governments pay for that nomination process, they give up sole control of who gets to vote.

Two wrongs don't make a right :)

[FreedomCalls]

This is a GOOD ruling. The Republican Party should be able to choose its own candidates. Why should Democrats, Greens, Marxists-Leninists, Socialist Workers, or any other fringe party members have a say-so in who the Republicans choose to run? I'm all for going back to smoke-filled rooms to select candidates rather than open primaries that anyone from any party can vote for my party's selection to run for office.

[Peach]

I can't keep up with these lunatics.

[steveegg]

Unless they use the 14th Amendment to impose protection of 1st Amendment rights on the states - as they've been doing for quite some time, of course.

Does that mean I can use the 14th to shut down the Federal Reserve, or disband the 9th Circus (both constituted by Congress in accordance with powers granted it, but both in violation of my due process and equal protection under the 14th)?

[steveegg]

Two wrongs don't make a right :)

But 3 rights make a left :-)

[Theodore R.]

This "blanket primary" has been around for some time. I wonder why the Ninth Circuit ruled on this today?

Actually, I agree with the Ninth Circuit here. I think we should abolish all open, blanket, and junge primaries. We should have closed-primaries only. That way there can be no "raiding" by the opposition to nominate weak candidates in the other party's primary.

[Teacher317]

Attention morons: politcal parties do not have rights. Only individual citizens have rights!

Pathetic.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"With this today's ruling on blanket primaries in WA, could Louisiana's jungle primary be the next to go?"

---

That's a good question. I would think so, since it similarly prohibits parties from deciding who their one candidate will be. If the jungleprimary is overturned, there would be up to four elections in Lousiana (instead of the current two): (1) the primary for each party, (ii) the run-off in case the winner gets below 50%+1, (iii) the general election in November, and (iv) a run-off in December in case the winner gets below 50%+1. Of course, LA could get rid of the run-off, or amend it so that a candidate needs to get 40%+1 to win (that's the way it is in NC's primaries), but I assume they'd stick with the run-offs. After the Supreme Court ruled that LA couldn't declare a candidate to be "elected" if he got 50%+1 in the jungle primary held in the summer (it violated Congress's power under Article I to set the election), LA merely moved the jungle primary to November and declared "elected" the candidates with over 50%, and set up a December run-off to decide races with no majority.

If the Louisiana RATs have to hold a real primary, with only Democrats voting, we might see them nominate some black liberals who won't get 40% in the general. Getting rid of the jungle primary would really help us in LA.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Attention morons: politcal parties do not have rights. Only individual citizens have rights!

Point taken. Well then, do I as an individual have the right to voluntarily make a free association with like-minded people, and then with those people (and no others) make a mutual agreement to put one of us forth ("nominate" him) for election to some government position, in the hopes that by combining our votes to our mutual advantage instead of splitting them up, we will see our world view advanced in office, by the person we carefully "nominate" to represent our world view?

Because that's what a primary is.

[CyberAnt]

These people are doing exactly what the liberals planned on - legislating from the bench .. which of course is what Schummer claims the republicans want to do; typical!

[VRWCmember]

Matters governing how the parties in ANY state choose their nominees are up to the STATE LEGISLATURE not the federal courts. If the parties want this changed, then they can lobby their respective state legislature members to change it. If the people want it changed, they can push for a referendum or ask the legislature to change it. The courts should not be involved at all.