Federal judge will decide fate of blanket primary

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Originally published Saturday, March 9, 2002

TACOMA -- Washington's major political parties urged a federal judge Friday to throw out the state's blanket primary system, which allows all voters to help pick finalists for public offices.

But the state stoutly defended the popular system, created by citizen initiative 67 years ago. Their main argument: Washington is not California.

That's the crux of what U.S. District Judge Franklin Burgess must decide, because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that California's primary, patterned on the system pioneered in Washington in 1935, is unconstitutional.

State lawyers contended that Washington's political traditions are different. Here, for example, no one registers by party, they said.

But party attorneys said the central themes in the high court case, especially the First Amendment rights of the parties, make Washington's primary clearly unconstitutional.

After three hours of impassioned arguments, the judge agreed to issue a summary judgment order, rather than proceed with a full-blown, weeklong trial, which had been set to begin March 25.

He said he'll make his decision "as soon as I can," but gave no hint about timing or how he'll rule.

State lawyers optimistic

Secretary of State Sam Reed, the state's chief elections officer, said state lawyers are optimistic that Washington will get to keep "the primary election system the majority of people want.

"For virtually everyone alive today, the blanket primary has been the foundation of our primary elections system. It's part of our heritage, and we aim to keep it."

Lawyers for the state Republican, Democratic and Libertarian parties told Burgess the high court's ruling makes it clear that states cannot force political parties to allow outsiders to help select their nominees.

The blanket primary allows precisely that kind of crossover voting, with voters allowed to split their ballots at will -- a Republican for this office, a Democrat for that one, a minor party candidate for a third office, for instance.

California and Alaska already have adopted more closed party primaries, but Washington is clinging to hope that the courts may allow the traditional wide-open system here.

Parties united in opposition

Party attorneys said they're on firm constitutional footing in opposing the blanket primary. They noted that all three major parties were united in challenging the primary, even though they seldom agree on anything else.

"The thing we agree on is that there is a core right in this country to form a party, to choose your best standard-bearers and to try to get your agenda adopted into law," said David McDonald, attorney for the Democrats.

That First Amendment "right of association" means the parties have the right to determine who is a bona fide Democrat, who their nominees will be and what the party message will be, he said.

Washington's system lends itself to outsiders -- independents and people from rival parties -- crossing over to influence selection of nominees, he said. The blanket primary is a "severe burden on our First Amendment rights, a wholesale invasion of our right to association," he said.

"The harm to the political parties is real," said John White, attorney for the Republicans. He said the broader pool of voters in a blanket primary "blurs the distinctions between candidates," producing "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" as the lookalike finalists.

Key differences

But attorneys for the state and the Grange, original sponsors of the blanket primary, told Burgess there are some significant distinctions between Washington and California.

In Washington, the primaries are qualifying elections to winnow down the field, not a party nominating process, said James Pharris, senior assistant attorney general. In California, the blanket primary was superimposed on top of the old party-based system that requires registration by party and produces party nominees, he said.

The blanket primary "keeps voters more connected and empowered," he said.

The Olympian Copyright 2002

back to Legislature 2002 index