The top two primary train left the station more than two years ago, and Washington state voters are loving the ride. Primaries in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were held under the format, and everyone (except unreasonable political party leaders) seems to love the system.
The train has picked up speed through the years, especially with a 7-2 endorsement by none other than the U.S. Supreme Court. Californians jumped aboard last year as voters there approved the primary that advances the top two vote-getters to the election regardless of party.
The train accelerated even more last week when U.S. District Judge John Coughenour of Seattle, just a week before a trial was to begin in his courtroom, dismissed challenges brought by the two political parties. Secretary of State Sam Reed said he was “absolutely delighted with this great and sweeping victory for the voters … .”
We’d like to think this latest affirmation will silence the political party leaders who stand forlornly back at the station, hoping the train will stop. Reed would like to think so, too, according to his statement: “We believe this is the end of a decade of litigation and I call on the parties to forgo any further appeal, and spend their money and time and energy on party-building, candidate recruitment and all the valid roles they play in our political system, rather than on legal challenges that cost so much for them and for the taxpayers of Washington.”
Yes, we’d like to think all of that … but we can’t. Our suspicions that the indefatigable party leaders will continue this foolishness was confirmed in Tuesday’s Seattle Times. Democratic Party attorney David McDonald unabashedly noted in a story by Susan Gilmore: “We think the case is pretty vulnerable on appeal.” And from Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser: “We remain convinced that our constitutional rights will ultimately be vindicated and protected, and we will be considering our next steps in the coming weeks.” Which should leave our state’s 3.6 million voters exclaiming, “Sheesh! Will these guys ever give up?” Again, we’d like to think so …
The only reason this silly struggle has continued beyond the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2008 was that the high court, essentially, said the top two primary is fine, depending on how a state implements it. Party leaders have said that, in our state, voters are confused when candidates are presented on ballots as saying they “prefer” a political party. Confused? What a ridiculous claim and, as Judge Coughenour wrote, our state’s top two primary “does not create the possibility of widespread confusion among the reasonable, well-informed electorate.” Our interpretation of that statement: If you’re not reasonable enough or well-informed enough to understand a top two primary, you probably won’t get much sympathy in a courtroom.
Party leaders obviously don’t want to cede any power to the people, but such an intransigent stance clearly is undemocratic. Party leaders also don’t want to admit the obvious: The top two primary is a winnowing process that belongs to the people, not a nominating process that belongs to the parties. If the parties want to have nominating processes, fine, go for it. But when you go for it, pay for it. Don’t expect the public to pay for it as in the past.
Party leaders, stop trying to solve a nonexistent problem. Stop trying to block a primary that people of all political persuasions have loved for three years. Focus your attention instead on presenting the best possible candidates.
