Opening Pandora’s Ballot Box

On May 19, 1992, Washington voters went to the polls and were asked an extremely personal and private question.

What party do you belong to?

Many were shocked, shocked that a complete stranger would ask them such a question. Many answered under protest. Others refused to vote. Still others felt violated. Poll workers became flak catchers as people objected - some quite strenuously - to the segregated ballot.

Unlike voters in most other states, Washingtonians think it isn’t anybody’s business what party they are. You’d have a better chance getting an answer inquiring into their religion or their sexual proclivities.

But the legal nuances of presidential nominating primaries required state election officials to force voters to choose a Democrat ballot or a Republican ballot. It is at least one reason why the turnout for the state’s first-ever presidential primary was so meager - 13 percent.

There were other explanations. The primary was a beauty contest - that is, the results were being ignored by the Democrats who returned to the precinct caucus when they couldn’t get their way in a rules dispute. And, of course, the Democratic nomination was all but locked up by Bill Clinton at the time. But the threat to Washington’s tradition of independence was a big factor. And it is the only factor that was certain to be still in play in 1996.

Secretary of State Ralph Munro and legislators from both parties think they have a solution. Come March 26, 1996, voters can ask for one of three ballots - Republican, Democrat or independent. The independent ballot will contain the names of both party’s candidates.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that neither party is obligated to count the votes cast on these independent ballots. And neither party apparently will. So voters who value their privacy will have a choice: Declare your party or have your vote ignored.

Some choice.

Munro says it is the best he could do. The U.S. Supreme Court has made the parties the boss when it comes to the rules for presidential nomination. If they want to insist that only people who claim to be Democrats or Republicans take part, they can do so - even if such party identification entails nothing more than a signature on a segregated roster at the polls.

Without the changes imposed by the Legislature, the state would have been left with the same eitheror choice that upset so many in 1992. And that means a primary both parties could have - and would have - ignored. Since the whole point of the primary was to replace the low-turnout precinct caucuses, the status quo would be no change at all. We’d have both low-turnout caucuses and a meaningless primary.

Munro had hoped the parties would be democratic (small D) and count as many votes as possible - that is, count the votes on their own ballots as well as those on independent ballots that name one of their candidates. He didn’t think it was good public relations for parties to disregard voters who support that party’s candidates.

His hope was misplaced. Both parties have some inborn fear that opening up the presidential nominating process will produce fraud and abuse (even though wide-open nominating primaries for governor and every other office in the state have been fraud free). Still, Munro thinks the change will remove an impediment to voter turnout next spring.

Another change could help too. Then again, it could have no impact at all.

That’s the advancement of the primary date from late May to late March. Washington is following the stampede to the front-end of the nominating process. It will join California on March 26. That state moved its primary from June in order to be more significant. If a monolith like California felt it had to move up, what choice did Washington have?

None, concluded Munro and leaders of both political parties.

Yet California remains a problem. Will Washington be dragged into the big time by annexing to the biggest delegate prize of all? Or will it become an afterthought?

Most people who follow this sort of thing think voter interest builds in direct correlation to the appearance of candidates in person and on TV. As candidates campaign in the state - and as more news operations cover those appearances - voters get excited. (Well, maybe not excited, but at least intrigued.)

Candidates will certainly spend a lot of time in California. But will they swing up to Washington while they’re on the coast or will they consider it time better spent raising money and cutting TV commercials for California?

No one knows because it hasn’t happened before. California for years was at the end of the nominating process in June. In the few elections that weren’t decided by then, California was a king maker. In most other years, it was a media event for the already-determined nominee.

With California (and all other big states) moved into March, the dynamics in 1996 will be brand new.

Most agree, however, that had Washington stayed in late May, it would certainly have been ignored - by both candidates and voters.

xxxx

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Peter Callaghan McClatchy News Service