Rivals confident they'll prevail in blanket primary controversy

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Originally published Friday, March 29, 2002

OLYMPIA -- Washington's newly affirmed "blanket" primary, which caters to the voters' yen for independence and privacy, is likely to withstand further court challenges, confident state lawyers said Thursday.

But Democratic and Republican party leaders, aghast at a federal judge's demolition of their legal challenge of the 67-year-old system, huddled and said their executive committees are likely to order an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The parties, strange bedfellows in their crusade to dump wide-open primary voting, have 30 days to file their notice of appeal. The appeal itself could take two years.

The party chairmen said U.S. District Judge Franklin Burgess' ruling on Wednesday was deeply flawed and virtually ignored a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that threw out a carbon copy of Washington's primary in California in 2000.

"The judge completely lost track of the big picture" that the parties have First Amendment rights to exclude nonmembers from choosing their nominees, said GOP Chairman Chris Vance. "My lawyers say the judge just ignored the Supreme Court."

But victorious Attorney General Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, and Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican, called on their parties to back down. Washington has some of the most competitive campaigns in the country and both major parties are well served by a system that engages voters and produces good nominees, they said.

The parties risk alienating voters, who fiercely defend their right to choose their favorite candidate for each office during the primary, just as they can in the November general election, said Reed, the state's chief elections officer.

Crossover voting and a lack of forced party registration are deeply imbedded in Washington's populist tradition, he said.

State vindicated

Gregoire and her top attorneys said Burgess' ruling vindicates the state's use of the blanket primary -- and gives a strong indication that the state would prevail on appeal.

"The one surprise was how decisive it was," Gregoire said.

"We're feeling as good as we could possibly feel about our chances on appeal," said James Pharris, the senior assistant attorney general who argued the case in Burgess' Tacoma courtroom earlier this month. "If he had asked me to write the opinion, I couldn't have written it any better."

Pharris said Burgess did the state a big favor by laying down a strong line of legal thinking that distinguishes between the way Washington uses the 1930s-era blanket primary and the way California implemented it after its voters approved it in 1996.

California's system was thrown out by the high court in 2000. Justices said the state violated the parties' First Amendment freedom of association, by forcing them to let all voters, not just party members, select the nominees.

History in state

Burgess emphasized Washington's long history with the blanket primary, the lack of party registration and ability of politicians to run for office without party approval.

"Washington's historical perspective is relevant ... because the state's interests in this blanket primary are animated by the electorate's evident desires over a long period of time," he wrote in a 30-page order dismissing the parties' challenge.

His second major point, state lawyers said Thursday, was that the parties failed to show the system harms them or significantly abridges their First Amendment rights.

But party leaders said they remain confident that their case is strong, and that ultimately, the Supreme Court's 7-2 opinion in the California case will give them what they want: primaries that are open only to self-identified party members.

State Democratic Chairman Paul Berendt agreed. "We believe the courts will agree with us and grant us our constitutional rights."

He said crossover voting is a proven fact and that the parties are harmed because they have no control over who runs under their banner and because allowing outsiders to vote in the primary skews campaign messages and sometimes even changes the outcome.

The Olympian Copyright 2002

back to Legislature 2002 index