Top two primary gets two thumbs down

Washington’s political party leaders blasted the voter-approved top two primary at a Vancouver legislative hearing Thursday, saying it deprives voters of information and will actually narrow their choices in the November general election.

“We believe the voters threw the baby out with the bath water,” state Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz told the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee. “We believe the top two primary damages the election system.”

Progressive Party leader Robert Tice called the primary “a false bill of goods sold to a gullible public.”

But the secretary of state’s office and county auditors defended the primary, which got its first tryout Aug. 19. Judging from voters’ reactions, they said, people appreciated being able to vote for candidates across party lines, with the top two vote-getters advancing to the general election regardless of their political party.

“It was very clear that voters liked the primary, voters understood the primary,” said Katie Blinn, assistant state director of elections. “When it makes sense and it’s clear, they don’t call the government.”

Election officials received more than 20,000 phone calls from angry and frustrated voters in 2004 over the pick-a-party primary, which required them to choose from just one party’s slate of candidates, Blinn said. This year, she said, the phones were silent.

“It was an election that was appreciated by voters,” said King County Auditor Sherril Huff. “In the past we got boxes and boxes of complaints.”

Blinn argued that the top two primary “promotes choice” because it allows the “best candidates” to advance. Like her boss, Secretary of State Sam Reed, she held that political parties are private organizations and that government should not be “promoting the parties’ nominees over all other candidates.”

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, upholding the top two primary in a 7-2 decision after a long legal battle.

The state Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties continue to litigate some section of the 2004 initiative that created the top two primary. But Blinn said just 20 percent of voters favor going back to the pick-a-party system.

“We do believe it is time for the litigation to end,” she said. “This is public money. It is incumbent on the parties to respect the will of the voters.”

That angered Pelz, the Democrat. “I’m a little shocked at the spin the secretary of state put on this,” he said. “The fact is, the top two eliminates minor parties for all practical purposes. The parties help voters make decisions. Choice helps voters.”

Clark County Republican Chairman Ryan Hart echoed those thoughts.

“Elections are about ideas and parties represent those ideas,” he said. “The top two primary is intended to weaken the political parties. Who will step into the vacuum? Special interests will.”

Libertarian Party leader Ruth Bennett pointed out that far more voters will vote in the general election than in the primary. But with third-party candidates all but eliminated, she said, they’ll face a narrower field.

“Does it make sense to have more choices for fewer voters in August and fewer choices for more voters in November?” she asked.

Representatives of the Libertarian, Progressive and Green parties all said they favor a ranked-choice or instant runoff primary. Pierce County chose to experiment with instant runoff voting in August rather than use the top two primary.

With instant runoff voting, voters rank all candidates for a position, from their first choice to their last. If no candidate receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the fewest first-pace votes is eliminated and voters who favored that candidate have their first-place votes transferred to their second choice. The process continues until one candidate receives 50 percent of the first-place votes.

Supporters of instant runoff voting say it reduces election costs by eliminating primaries and also discourages negative campaigning because candidates don’t want to alienate voters who might see them as a credible second-place choice.

But one county auditor said that in a close, high-stakes race such as the 2004 governor’s race, which was decided by 133 votes, it would be difficult to get voters to understand, let alone trust, a computer-generated result in an instant runoff contest.

Not everything went smoothly in the top two primary, state and local officials agreed. Among the glitches the 2009 Legislature will be asked to fix:

-- It’s not clear how legislative vacancies such as the one created by the resignation of
Rep. Richard Curtis last year will be filled under the new system. Under the old system, precinct committee officers nominated three candidates and county commissioners from the legislative district chose from among them to fill the vacancy.

-- There’s no longer a way for the state to identify what constitutes a “qualified political party,” said Vicki Rippie, executive director of the Public Disclosure Commission. That’s important, she said, because under PDC rules, “qualified” political parties are allowed to receive more money from campaign contributors than other groups.

This year, candidates were allowed to identify only which political party they “preferred.” A few invented political affiliations, such as the Bellingham legislative candidate who said he “preferred” the Salmon Yoga party.

For 2008, Rippie said, the PDC grandfathered in all groups that had qualified as minor parties between 2002 and 2007, but that was a temporary fix. “There is not currently a mechanism to recognize new parties,” she said.

-- Candidates for precinct committee officer, which is a political party post, are exempt from the top two primary system, but their names appeared on the primary ballot anyway, and there was nothing to prevent Democrats from voting for Republicans or vice versa.