Washington’s primary system a mish-mash of unsatisfactory outcomes

Thanks to my father Allen Hayward -

It’s hardly surprising that many Washington voters are shocked and angry to learn that they must identify a party choice in order to be able to cast a vote in the presidential primary.

In many states, having to declare a party preference in order to vote in a primary is common practice, but not in Washington.

The confusion comes from the fact that we have two very different laws in place, one dealing only with the presidential primary process and one dealing with all other state elections.

The presidential primary is an actual “partisan primary” in which the Republican candidate represents the Republican Party, and the Democratic candidate represents that party.

This election is run by the state of Washington but is really for the two major political parties. Initiative Measure 99, passed by the Legislature in 1989, created the presidential primary, but it is crafted to be for and by the parties.

Chapter 29A.56.RCW. RCW 29A.56.050 Washington State law says that if the parties demand voters identify themselves by party, the Secretary of State must accommodate that request.

It should not surprise anyone that since the law was written by and for the parties, it provides that the public will pay for the election and that the parties will get the list of names of persons who signed up for their party.

They even get the list when they refuse to use any of the election results in determining their state delegate allocation. The Democratic Party, for example, has always gotten the list but never actually paid attention to the results for purposes of awarding delegates.

They will get the list again this year.

Other state elections are run under a very different law and are of an entirely different type. Chapter 29A.52, which spells out the law of our “top-two” primary system, is based on Initiative Measure 872, which was passed by the voters in 2004 and was subsequently challenged in court by both parties before going into effect in 2008.

Under the top-two system, which applies to elections from U.S. Senator on down the ballot, political parties are rendered irrelevant.

First, the elections are called “partisan,” just like the presidential election is supposed to be, but the state has a unique definition of what that term means for top two elections.

Under the top-two system, candidates are all nominated by themselves, not a party. The fact that they may use up to 16 characters to express a party preference but need not use the space, or name a party in the space, is what makes it a partisan election.

See RCW 29A.04.110, which offers the specific definition that eliminates party status in our state elections.

If a candidate does choose to put some letters or numbers in the space after their name on the ballot, by law those characters or numbers are given no meaning by the state.

While voters often get confused, which is why the parties fought I-872 in the courts. A candidate saying they prefer Republican or Democratic Party does not mean they are of that party or in any manner supported by that party. See RCW 29A32.112

The reason voters need not express a party preference in our state office elections is that the parties have nothing to do with our state office elections. It’s understandable after having had a system for many years under the law before the top-two system that voters would think that the party preference statements have some meaning.

They do not. The top two vote winners advance. If they both happen to have said they prefer the Republican Party or both say prefer the Democratic Party, that means nothing.

All candidates are on the ballot as self-nominated individuals. No candidate represents any party on the ballot.

The state does not require any party disclosure by voters in these elections because these elections have nothing to do with party preference.

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

By Matthew Hayward 9/19/2025 The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning. This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement. Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

How the Drug War Killed Liberty

By Matthew Hayward 10/25/2025 When the State Declares War on Behavior Earlier this month, President Trump ordered United States military strikes off the coast of Venezuela, killing alleged “narcoterrorists.” He later boasted, “ We’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. ” Those words should chill every American who believes in liberty. Fifty years after Nixon declared his war on drugs, it has evolved from domestic raids to international executions, all under the same failed philosophy that government violence can cure human vice. When the state declares war on human behavior, it always loses and takes the people down with it. Every prison cell, every overdose, every cartel bullet is a monument to the arrogance of government trying to legislate morality. Back in 1988, Ron Paul said it best on The Morton Downey Jr. Show: “You can’t legislate morality. You can’t force people to be better by passing laws. If you want to solve moral and social problems, y...

Reality Is Rigged and You Can Hack It

By Matthew Hayward 7/29/2025 Manifesting Reality: How the Matrix, Quantum Entanglement, and Consciousness Intertwine Look, science fiction and science fact have been flirting for decades. But lately, the line between the two is starting to disappear. The idea that we’re living in a simulated reality isn’t just a late-night stoner theory anymore. It’s a framework, a lens to view those weird, unexplained moments that leave you thinking, "What the hell just happened?" Quantum entanglement, synchronicity, manifestation… they all start to make a lot more sense when you stop pretending reality is some rigid, mechanical machine. It’s not. It’s code. And if you’re paying attention, you might just figure out how to rewrite it. NPCs vs Manifestors: Who’s Really Running Things? Picture the world like a massive open-world video game. Some people are just running the default programming. They go to work, follow the script, consume what they’re told, and never ask questions. NPCs. Then the...

Search This Blog