The Municipal League of King County

Does Not Take a Position

I-872 – Preserving People’s Choice (“Top Two” Primary)

November 2, 2004 General Election Ballot

Summary

 Initiative 872 reverses the recent legislative action to institute a “Montana-style” nominating primary in which voters in the primary election select a political party and vote only for candidates of the one party.  I-872 would eliminate any declaration of party preference and would advance to the general election the two candidates of any party who get the most votes.  Also known as a “Top Two” primary, I-872 would qualify candidates for the general election by number of votes rather than nominate them by party affiliation. 

 In Washington State, citizens used the “blanket” primary for 70 years (one of only three states that have used this system; California used the blanket primary for one election, Alaska used it for six years).  In 2003 a U.S. Supreme Court decision declared the blanket primary unconstitutional because it violates a political party’s First Amendment right of association by violating its right to select its nominees.  The Legislature adopted a “Top Two” qualifying primary, but it was vetoed by the Governor, instead creating a nominating primary with private declaration of party affiliation.  The proposed measure would again create a qualifying primary which, because voters are not selecting party nominees, does not interfere with any constitutionally protected interest of a political party.

 The blanket primary had been in place in Washington since 1935 when it became law through an initiative to the Legislature by the Washington State Grange.  Today the Grange is choosing to sponsor this measure to create a new primary election system that allows voters to select candidates without having to indicate a party preference. 

ARGUMENTS FOR THE MEASURE

 I-872 proponents made the following arguments in support of the measure: 

·        Most of the voters in Washington are independents who want to support candidates of any political party—they want to vote for the person, not the party.

·        With a “Top Two” primary the results are more representative of the political preferences and opinions of the state’s voters.

·        With a qualifying primary rather than a nominating primary, the parties will work harder to ensure that they recruit quality candidates who can move forward to the general election.

·        Political parties should not have control over the primary election process because these are publicly funded elections and these are public officials we are electing.  Voters, not parties, should have the freedom to choose the process at every step. 

·        While it is possible that the two candidates appearing on the general election ballot could be from the same party, this would have occurred less than 5% of the time in the past ten years if the qualifying primary had been in place. 

·        Minor party candidates would continue to appear on the primary ballot and may have a chance to appear on the general ballot in districts where only one of the major parties runs a candidate (about 15% of all legislative districts in the state). 

·        I-872 proposes a primary system that is as close as possible to the previous blanket primary while conforming to the court decision.

 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MEASURE

 I-872 opponents cited the following arguments against the measure: 

·        The current open primary system guarantees voters the greatest amount of choice in the general election, while I-872 would limit the choice to just two candidates.

·        Under the proposed measure, many districts would end up with less actual choice of perspectives because the top two vote-getters could be from the same party.

·        The minor parties might not survive under the proposed system because they would no longer have the exposure of appearing on the general election ballot.

·        The turn-out in general elections is greater than in primaries so it is important to ensure the greatest choice in the general.

·        The current primary encourages more candidates to run for office.

·        The courts will find the primary system proposed by I-872 unconstitutional because it disenfranchises voters who would have no candidate of their party to vote for.

·        The current system is not controlled by the parties because any candidate can self-identify a party affiliation. 

·        This issue calls for a more careful consideration of other possible options, including proportional representation.   We should not rush to change the new system until that process has occurred.

POSITION and RATIONALE

 The Municipal League takes no position on I-872. 

 BIC members found the issue had persuasive arguments on both sides.