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.

Grassroots Revolt Against GOP Elitism

By Matthew Hayward In the complex arena of political strategy, even those who occupy the highest echelons of power can falter, demonstrating a profound disconnect between their strategic intentions and operational execution. The recent failure to secure the endorsement for their preferred candidate, Dave Reichert, is not merely a setback; it is a revealing exposé of the grave strategic missteps at the heart of the Republican party's establishment in Washington State. These seasoned campaigners, these stewards of conservative strategy, have evidently underestimated the critical importance of grassroots engagement. While I acknowledge the logic behind promoting an established politician strategically positioned geographically and perceived as moderate in our swing state—a strategy driven by considerations of electability, which admittedly has its merits—the incessant focus on this argument and complete lack of any meaningful engagement and education has alienated the grassroots yet a...

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

When the Census Goes Beyond the Constitution

By Matthew Hayward The Census: From Counting People to Collecting Control The Constitution established the census as a straightforward tool for representation—nothing more, nothing less. Article I, Section 2 mandates an enumeration every ten years to determine how many representatives each state is allotted. That’s it. Simple. Effective. Proportional representation was the goal, and the census was designed to achieve it. So how did we end up here—with government agents asking about the number of bathrooms in our homes, our ethnic identities, and everything in between? This is the creeping hand of central planning at work. What began as a tool to empower individual representation has been twisted into a mechanism to empower bureaucrats, planners, and those who believe they know better than free individuals how to run their own lives. Central Planning: The False Promise of Data The justification for prying into the most intimate details of our lives is always the same: “We need the ...

Search This Blog