Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Unabashed self-interest assures parties in accord

The Spokesman-Review

The following editorial appeared Monday in the Everett Herald:

In a Wenatchee courtroom this morning, lawyers for the state Republican and Democratic parties will be fierce enemies as the GOP challenge of the governor’s race goes to trial.

This week in Washington, D.C., the Senate may enter one of the most bitterly partisan periods in its history. GOP leaders are threatening to employ a rule change so drastic, one of their own dubbed it the “nuclear option.” That’s in response to Democrats’ threats to block up-or-down votes on judicial nominees they deem too extreme.

Perhaps it will surprise you, then, to learn that there is something the parties agree on. In fact, they’re downright chummy about it.

In unison, they’re thumbing their noses at an overwhelming majority of the state’s voters. The state Republican Party, backed by the Democrats and the Libertarians, on Thursday sued in federal court to have the state’s new top-two primary election system thrown out. You know, the system that 59.8 percent of voters approved in November as Initiative 872.

Unabashed self-interest may be the only place where the parties can find common ground these days, and they’re entrenched in it. They just hate the idea of voters deciding who their political leaders will be unless they get to apply their stamp of approval.

The parties object to the new system for two reasons: Like the old blanket primary, it will allow voters to split their ballot in primaries — voting, for example, for a Democrat in one race and a Republican in another. Plus, they want to have total control over whether a candidate gets to carry the party moniker on the ballot.

Guess what that means. Only candidates who stick to the party line will be on the ballot. Moderates need not apply. Compromise? Not likely. Polarization? Get used to it.

Secretary of State Sam Reed, a Republican who has become a champion of voters’ rights, believes the initiative will withstand this legal challenge. Voters in general, and those who long for the return of political moderation in particular, should hope he’s right.