Washington state’s primary system has been in a state of flux ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled five years ago that California’s “blanket primary” was unconstitutional. Washington’s major political parties used that ruling to pounce.

They’ve never liked that voters could also cross over in Washington’s elections. They said that because Democrats could help determine Republican primary winners and vice-versa, their First Amendment right to select their parties’ nominees was being abridged.

The courts have agreed on multiple occasions, with the latest blow coming from U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly, who on Friday tossed the voter-approved Top Two primary system.

Zilly’s ruling will return the state to the Montana-style system used last November, unless Top Two proponents can persuade him to hold off until they’ve exhausted all of their appeals.

The state is already exhausted by this confusing, five-year battle. There is little point in using a primary system this fall that in all likelihood won’t be around for the following election.

The state should plan for a Montana-style format this September, because voters are familiar with it. It should also consider whether another attempt to revive some principles of the blanket primary is realistic or even worth it.

The Washington State Grange spearheaded Initiative 872 (the Top Two primary) as a way to preserve the 70-year-old blanket primary. But in designing a primary system that was similar, it had to radically alter the general election.

Under I-872, the top two vote getters in a primary square off.

That raised the possibility of a Democrat facing a Democrat or a Republican facing a Republican. Though I-872 attained the approval of 60 percent of the voters, we wonder whether such a system would’ve maintained its popularity with such a limited range of choices in the general election.

It seems clear from Judge Zilly’s ruling that the only way to restore a blanket-style primary and preserve the rights of parties is to adopt a system where candidates’ political affiliations are expunged from the ballot.

Once party labels are introduced, parties have a right to determine their standard bearers.

But a nonpartisan ballot is a solution that’s worse than the problem. There is value to the voter in listing a candidate’s party affiliation.

The Montana-style primary, where voters have to declare a party preference and are handed a corresponding ballot, is not controversial in the surrounding states of Idaho, Oregon and Montana. It is the type of system used by most voters in the United States.

The damage done to the general election under I-872 would not have been worth it. Now, a federal judge has ruled that it is unconstitutional. Reason trumps the reasons to continue this fight.