Muni News
VOLUME 91, ISSUE 1  - Winter 2001

If we used the term nominating elections instead of primary elections, their purpose would be better described. In 1935, Washington adopted the blanket primary when nominating candidates for office. It is one of only three states that has used this method. Under the blanket primary system, the names of all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are grouped together under the office for which they seek nomination. The name of each candidate’s political party is placed after his or her name on the ballot. Voters are permitted to vote for any candidate they choose irrespective of party affiliation. This plan makes it unnecessary for voters to declare their party affiliation at any time and gives the independent voter the fullest opportunity to select candidates of either or both parties.

Critics of the blanket primary contend that in a primary election, voters should not be permitted to vote for candidates of both political parties because it weakens party responsibility and permits cross-over voting and raiding. Supporters of the blanket primary contend that the voters want to see the best people selected to run for office irrespective of party affiliation and that the blanket primary increases voter participation. Since 1935, the blanket primary has withstood challenges in state court, and legislative proposals to amend the blanket primary have failed to pass. However, a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has made it necessary to modify the way in which Washington voters nominate partisan candidates.

In 1996, an initiative was passed in California that replaced that state's closed primary nominating system with a blanket primary. On June 26, 2000, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of California Democratic Party et al v. Jones. The Court determined that California's blanket primary violated a political party's First Amendment right of association, by violating a political party's right to select its nominees.

The Washington State Republican and Democratic Parties have challenged Washington State's blanket primary in federal court. Under an agreed order, the 2000 primary was not opposed by the plaintiffs. The order also stipulated, however, that after the 2000 general election, the state Legislature must adopt new election laws that do not conflict with the political parties' associational choices, or the federal court would order changes to the nominating process.

The Secretary of State has proposed several possible alternatives to the blanket primary. He held several hearings in the fall of 2000 to gather input from the public on 8 options to be considered.

(For more expanded descriptions, go to www.secstate.wa.gov/elections ).

There are several different systems for nominating partisan candidates in use in the United States at present. Fifteen states use the Closed Primary -Independents Excluded, thirteen states use the Closed Primary-Independents Included, eleven states use the Open Primary-Public Declaration of Party, nine states use the Open Primary-Private Declaration of Party.

Since the Supreme Court ruling on the Blanket Primary, California and Alaska have gone back to a Closed Primary so Washington and Louisiana are the only two using the Blanket Primary.

With the findings from the public hearings and the ruling from the Supreme Court in mind, the Municipal League of King County adopted the following criteria for selecting a new form of primary election for the state:

• It must meet the requirements of the United States Constitution.
• It must be as close to the current blanket primary as possible.
• It must provide as much choice to the voter as possible.
• It must provide as much independence to the voter as possible.
• It must provide as much privacy to the voter as possible.

Of the various alternatives, a “qualifying primary” received more support than any other option at the public hearings. Under this system all voters are allowed to participate and to choose from among all candidates for office without regard to party affiliation. The top two candidates at that election then go on to the general election ballot without regard to party, even if they are both from the same party. Only Louisiana uses this system and Louisiana is known to be a one party state. Based on the fact that the blanket primary has already been challenged in court in Washington, it is safe to assume that the Louisiana system would not be agreed to by the political parties in our state.

Since the public does not wish to give up the present primary system, the new system should be as close to the present one as possible. Of the options at the hearings, the Municipal League of King County supports an Open Primary with a private declaration of party.

This option most closely meets all of the criteria and thus is the most acceptable.