Thread: Another Wrong USSC Decision

State ballot could pit two from same party
OLYMPIA — A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Tuesday shoved Washington politics into a strange realm where two candidates from the same party could run against each other in the November election.

The decision also means minor political parties could largely vanish from the general-election ballot. And it may help more moderate candidates win office.

All of that, and perhaps more, stems from the 7-2 ruling that upholds a top-two primary system approved by state voters in 2004.

"This is a very big deal for the state of Washington," Secretary of State Sam Reed said, adding he expects the decision to fundamentally change politics in the state.

Only one other state — Louisiana — uses a similar primary system in which the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.

The Supreme Court decision caps — for now — nearly eight years of litigation over whether voters should be able to vote for any primary candidate, no matter which party they claim.

For most of Washington's history, the state had a "blanket" primary that let voters do exactly that. Republicans could vote for Democrats and vice versa.
The top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election.

However, in 2000, the state's major parties sued to get rid of the system.
They complained that it allowed interlopers — voters who didn't share their beliefs — to help select their candidates, and that it infringed on their right to pick their own nominees for the general election.

The parties won those early court decisions, and in 2004 state lawmakers replaced the blanket primary with a different system, more to the liking of the parties, that forced voters to choose one party's ballot before voting. They could no longer vote for candidates in the opposing party.

What nonsense.

What's the purpose of a primary? To allow the political parties the means to determine which candidate to run in the general election.

What's the potential result of the USSC decision? To deny political parties the ability to place their candidates on the ballot in the general election.

A voter in Warshington want's to vote for Joe Blowstreesquirrels in the Green Party?

Then he should register as a Greenie and then he can vote for Joe.

If he's not a member of the Green Party, why should he care who the Greenies nominate?

So what the USSC has done is restricted the freedom of the Green Party to put nominees on the state ballot, since they'll have to get one of the "top two" positions.

But allowing the voters the opportunity the have any one they want, they've resctricted choice to only the top two.

And yet the liberals complain that Bush nominated a "conservative" court. Only Scalia and Kennedy dissented.

Does this ruling also uphold the republicans can only vote republican and vice versa? If so, doesn't this law in itself pretty much eliminate any type of third parties realistic chances?

Originally Posted by metheron

Does this ruling also uphold the republicans can only vote republican and vice versa? If so, doesn't this law in itself pretty much eliminate any type of third parties realistic chances?

Yep, it ends the idea of third party candidacies, unless that third party can push a Republican or Democrat under the bus.

And if that party can do that, they'll change the rules again.

It's funny.

Apparently no one believes the loss of voter freedom is a big issue.

I guess you people would only get upset if the law required only white men to be on the ballot.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

It's funny.

Apparently no one believes the loss of voter freedom is a big issue.

I guess you people would only get upset if the law required only white men to be on the ballot.

I really don't think that anyone here is going to disagree with you on this point FFA. It is a pretty fucked up way to shut out future candidates. Saying much more than that would merely be redundant.

Originally Posted by mdmx96

I really don't think that anyone here is going to disagree with you on this point FFA. It is a pretty fucked up way to shut out future candidates. Saying much more than that would merely be redundant.

Nah, there's usually a Democrat moth circling the candle. That, after all, is who this benefits, considering that the states using this rule, Loseranna and Washington, are both Democrat fiefdoms.

If not even they are willing to defend it, it's really hosed.

Or, more likely, they figure this thread topic is one they should ignore to avoid drawing attention to it.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

It's funny.

Apparently no one believes the loss of voter freedom is a big issue.

I guess you people would only get upset if the law required only white men to be on the ballot.

It's pretty hard for people to agree or disagree with what they probably don't even understand.


It's just another consolidation of power for the government and another loss for private organizations to remain sovereign. Typical legislating from the bench bullshit.