Win-win primary solution evades state lawmakers

DAVID AMMONS

OLYMPIA -- It's not unusual for Washington state's lawmakers to get bollixed at budget-writing time or in a tizzy when they have to consider raising the gas tax.

But when it comes to getting totally wrapped around the axle, nothing seems quite as vexing as this year's elusive quest for an overhaul of the state's popular, but doomed, "blanket" primary.

It's on every legislator's must-do list, but so far, nada.

Attorney General Christine Gregoire says she absolutely has to have a bill by week's end for ammunition in a court case brought against the state by the political parties.

She may be kept waiting.

Although lawmakers have known since last summer that a primary fix was required, neither house has voted for a bill -- or even gotten one out of committee. It's not that they haven't tried. One plan after another has had a few moments in the sun, only to be derailed.

For the moment, the favored solution is one that was dismissed originally -- a Louisiana-style primary that sends the top two vote-getters to the general election regardless of party.

Even that late-blooming plan is no sure thing, particularly given the vocal opposition of House Co-Speaker Clyde Ballard, R-East Wenatchee, and the fact that Gov. Gary Locke and Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach, prefer a rival plan.

Even though the federal courts are breathing down the state's neck, it's possible that the Legislature won't be able to produce a plan, and that an appointed-for-life judge, rather than elected lawmakers, will create the new primary.

That would be the ultimate bummer for legislators who already feel stuck with a problem not of their own making, with no suitable solutions. Their choice: anger their parties or anger the voters.

Is it any wonder that some lawmakers even think that the only halfway safe vote is no vote at all -- let the parties and the court take the inevitable heat. Of course, angry voters still could blame lawmakers for not lifting a finger to protect their wide-open voting rights.

Voters -- and lawmakers -- want what they can't have: no change.

The vice grip

For as long as most folks can remember -- ever since the Legislature adopted a Grange initiative back in the Great Depression -- voters have enjoyed America's most wide-open system of primary voting.

Under a system later copied by Alaska and California, all candidates are herded onto a single ballot. Without having to register by party, voters could pick their favorite for each office, often splitting their tickets.

Washington voters tell pollsters and politicians they view it as a right -- a matter of privacy and of choice. And after 65 years, it's a part of the landscape.

Washington's setup survived several court challenges, but the California copycat initiative of 1996 was its undoing. Parties there went to court, triumphing with a 7-2 Supreme Court opinion last June.

The high court held that political parties' right of free association under the First Amendment allows them to exclude outsiders from their nominating process.

In Washington, the parties allowed one last use of the old system last year, but gave notice that they intend to assert their newly guaranteed right to a more closed system.

"This whole thing is not our fault," says state Republican Chairman Chris Vance. "It's not our fault the blanket primary is unconstitutional."

Vance and his Democratic counterpart, Paul Berendt, say the issue is simple: No one but their own members should be picking the party standard-bearer. They believe voters will eventually accept change.

The fix

Lawmakers' first gambit was to try to persuade the parties to back off.

The parties told them to buzz off.

So Locke and lawmakers tried to find something as close as possible to the current system -- that the parties and the court would accept.

That has proven spectacularly futile.

Lawmakers' two main objectives are to maintain voters' privacy -- meaning no party registration or public list of which party's ballot someone chooses -- and to allow crossover voting.

Guess what the parties' absolute bottom-line demands were?

No crossover voting. Mandatory voter lists so they can identify supporters for fundraising and campaign purposes.

Many plans were floated, and discarded.

Eventually lawmakers have arrived back with essentially two choices, each with problems:

n¿ Cajun style. Currently used by only Louisiana, this system has the beauty of simplicity. It's not really a nominating primary, but a "qualifying election" where the top two move on to the general election primary.

It's also not without its drawbacks. Foremost is the quirky possibility that the finalists could be from the same party. If it had been in place in 1996, for instance, voters would have chosen between two Democrats for governor.

n¿ Voluntary declaration. This plan, a variation on Snyder's original bill, would create a single ballot. Voters could identify themselves by party and then vote only for that party's candidates, with no record kept of which ballot the voter took. Or voters could identify themselves as unaffiliated and then vote as in a blanket primary, although the parties could decline to accept these votes.

This is the same system used for the presidential primaries.

Critics say voters would be furious if they thought their ballots didn't count. County auditors say this system would be difficult and costly to administer -- possibly twice as expensive.

Where from here?

It's still fairly murky, but Reed and key lawmakers in both houses are putting their money on the Louisiana-style primary passing within two weeks. "The votes are there in both houses," says Reed. "The problem is the leadership."

That was a reference to Ballard's flat statement that he would block a House vote on the bill. Ballard says it does harm to the parties and that lawmakers won't want to cross them. He also believes voters wouldn't like the system.

Rep. Dave Schmidt, R-Bothell, co-chair of the House Select Committee on Elections, says a strong majority of his caucus favor the plan and that Ballard might be persuaded to bow to the will of his colleagues.

Or not.

David Ammons is the state political writer for The Associated Press and has covered the statehouse since 1971. He may be reached at P.O. Box 607, Olympia, WA 98507, or at dammons@ap.org on the Internet.

The Olympian Copyright 2001

back to main Legislature 2001 index