Voters obliged to pick a party

OLYMPIA - Starting this September, Washingtonians wishing to vote in the state primary election will first have to do something they haven’t had to do since the 1930s: pick a party.

The state Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments over how to replace Washington’s popular but unconstitutional “blanket primary.” Within hours, the court issued a two-sentence ruling saying it will not overrule Gov. Gary Locke’s controversial veto, which established the new system.

That means that, starting in September, Washington’s primary elections will work much like those in Idaho or Montana. Voters will have to pick one party and choose only among that party’s candidates.

Locke stressed that voters’ choice of party will be a secret. And the November election will remain unchanged – any voter can pick any candidate, regardless of party.

Nonetheless, critics of the new system predict angry voters – and a lot of thrown-out ballots.

“This is going to be hellish confusion,” said Jim Johnson, attorney for the Washington State Grange. He predicted a slew of void ballots, as perplexed citizens try to vote the same way they have for nearly 70 years. Independent-minded Washingtonians are going to be very reluctant to pick a party, he said.

“There will be a lot of people who just won’t do it,” he said.

The system isn’t totally new to Washingtonians, who must pick a party in the presidential primary every four years. (Washington canceled this year’s presidential primary, since the parties had already selected their candidates.)

State primary elections keep the ballot manageable and ensure that a winning candidate has the backing of a majority of voters. This year, for example, 14 people launched campaigns for governor, including six Republicans and five Democrats. September’s primary will winnow the field down to just one top contender from each party.

In the 1930s, organized labor and the Grange pushed successfully to create the blanket primary. It allowed voters to “cross over,” picking among Republicans for one slot, and Democrats for another.

The system, later copied by Alaska and California, was popular with voters. But the political parties hated it.

“Members of the other parties had a voice in choosing our candidates,” said Paul Berendt, state Democratic Party chairman.

So the state’s major parties – Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians – sued and won. Washington’s blanket primary was dead.

This spring, with all the enthusiasm of people being asked to stroll through a minefield, state lawmakers tried to craft a replacement primary. They finally came up with a two-part solution.

Lawmakers picked a controversial “top-two” system, in which the top two vote-getters – regardless of party – would face off on the November ballot. And in case the courts torpedoed that, too, lawmakers included a backup plan: the Idaho-style system.

Locke dislikes the top-two system, because it would squeeze minor-party candidates completely off the November ballot. In heavily partisan areas, the top two candidates might be from the same party.

“In many parts of the state, you will end up with only Democrats or only Republicans on the November ballot,” he said.

So, in April, he vetoed the top-two section of the bill. The move infuriated some lawmakers and the Grange, which supports the top-two primary because it looks the most like what Washingtonians are used to.

On Thursday, the Grange tried to convince the Supreme Court to overrule Locke’s veto. Nope, the court said.

“Locke’s legacy will be a disastrous primary,” Johnson predicted.

Not so, Locke said.

“I don’t think there will be confusion, if the instructions are clear,” he said. He said he wishes the state didn’t have to change at all.

But with Thursday’s court ruling, Locke said, “At least we know we have a definite election system that will be in place for the September primary.”

The Grange, meanwhile, is pushing ahead with its Plan B: a citizen’s initiative to set up a top-two primary. The Grange says it can gather the necessary 200,000 voter signatures by early July. The proposal would go before voters in November.

In some ways, the court’s decision Thursday helps the Grange, Johnson said. He thinks that voters will be so angry and unhappy at being asked to pick a party in September that they’ll be much more likely to vote for the top-two version in November.

“I’m a glass-half-full kind of guy,” he said.