tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post6497485564043493934..comments2024-03-17T08:07:12.695-05:00Comments on Between The Lines: Supreme Court looks likely to end LA blanket primaryJeff Sadowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-14233528281311314552007-10-12T09:51:00.000-05:002007-10-12T09:51:00.000-05:00There is a movement for a Louisiana-style "top two...There is a movement for a Louisiana-style "top two" in <A HREF="http://oneballot.com/" REL="nofollow">Oregon</A>. In 2006, the proponents got a late start and failed to get enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. A "top two" measure also failed in the legislature's 2007 session.<BR/><BR/>Now the advocates are trying to put an initiative on Oregon's November 2008 ballot. There is a court fight over whether its ballot title may include <A HREF="http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/10/11/fierce-court-battle-in-oregon-over-ballot-title-for-top-two-initiative/#comments" REL="nofollow">"open primary."</A><BR/><BR/>During California's failed 2004 "top two" initiative campaign, a judge prohibited the proponents from calling it an "open primary," since it in reality is a nonpartisan general election with a runoff.Steve Rankinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07352056744691309807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-51337046345153546892007-10-11T15:11:00.000-05:002007-10-11T15:11:00.000-05:00The Louisiana/"top two" weakens political parties ...The Louisiana/"top two" weakens political parties because they cannot perform their basic function of officially nominating candidates, and more than one candidate from the same party can be on the general election ballot (the first round). Also, it's possible for mulitiple candidates to split the party vote and prevent that party from having a candidate in the runoff.<BR/><BR/>Even when party labels are left off a "top two" ballot, the candidates' party preferences are generally well known. Putting those preferences on the ballot makes it easier for voters to get that information. And when a party endorses a candidate, the party publicizes that fact whether party labels are on the ballot or not.<BR/><BR/>Suppose a voter asks a candidate if he has a party preference, and the candidate replies, "Yes, I do, but I'm not allowed to say what it is." How ridiculous is that?<BR/><BR/>The Louisiana system (popularly called the "open primary") is an extension of the old one-party (truly no-party) system, in which elections were decided in the Democratic primary, with a Democratic runoff if necessary. It sometimes produces extreme choices, e.g., the 1995 gubernatorial runoff between Mike Foster and Cleo Fields. That was a white conservative Republican versus a black liberal Democrat.<BR/><BR/>The "top two" without party labels is used in most judicial elections in the U. S. It's also used to elect the great majority of municipal officials in the U. S. Are those elections unconstitutional?Steve Rankinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07352056744691309807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-44600621557777676712007-10-10T19:41:00.000-05:002007-10-10T19:41:00.000-05:00Speaking for Washington State, it has been pretty ...Speaking for Washington State, it has been pretty clear from the outset that candidate expressions of "political party preferences" on the ballot, without come corresponding indication of support from the political party, leads to voter confusion, weakens political parties generally, and serves no legitimate state interest.<BR/><BR/>If the stories coming out of Louisiana are any indication, the whole purpose of the Louisiana system is to direct outcomes toward the consensus candidate, to the detriment of ideological candidate. CDP v Jones is just one of several election law cases that hold that states cannot direct outcomes through seemingly neutral regulations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-66624290870370267302007-10-10T15:17:00.000-05:002007-10-10T15:17:00.000-05:00I have followed since 2001 the controversy surroun...I have followed since 2001 the controversy surrounding Washington state's election system.<BR/><BR/>In 1996, California enacted its partisan blanket primary by popular initiative and first used it in 1998. This put all candidates of all parties on the same primary ballot, and the top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election. In 2000, the U. S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reversed the two lower courts and struck down California's blanket primary.<BR/><BR/>Washington state had used the partisan blanket primary since 1936 and attempted to keep it. In 2004, however, the federal courts also declared it unconstitutional. In November 2004, Washington voters passed an initiative for a Louisiana-style "top two" system. (All candidates, including independents, run in the same election. The top two vote-getters, <I>regardless of party</I> advance to the runoff.)<BR/><BR/>Washington's "top two," because of federal litigation, has not been implemented. They have instead used open primaries. (The parties have separate primary ballots, and each voter picks a party on primary day.)<BR/><BR/>In his majority opinion in the 2000 California case, Justice Scalia called the "top two" a "nonpartisan blanket primary." He said that it is constitutional because "voters are not choosing a party's nominee." (In his dissent, Justice Stevens-- correctly, in my view-- stated that the "top two" is a general election with a runoff.)<BR/><BR/>The Louisiana/"top two" is a nonpartisan system because the parties have no way of officially nominating candidates, and the general election (the first round) is not limited to one candidate per party. (Each party, of course, may <I>endorse</I> a candidate.)<BR/><BR/>In my view, when party labels are put on a Louisiana/"top two" ballot, it's mainly for the voters' information. If a candidate has a party preference, he has that preference whether the party likes it or not. Thus, I was surprised on October 1 when the justices showed sympathy for the parties' argument against allowing party labels on the "top two" ballot. If SCOTUS indeed strikes down the "top two" for that reason, there will be a new Washington initiative for a "top two" <I>without</I> party labels. And the voters will again pass it overwhelmingly.<BR/><BR/>Louisiana, unlike Washington, registers voters by party, and it will be interesting to see how this ruling affects the Bayou State.<BR/><BR/>All of this (and more) is covered in greater detail <A HREF="http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2005/09/should-mississippi-change-its-primary.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>~~ Steve Rankin<BR/>Jackson, MississippiSteve Rankinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07352056744691309807noreply@blogger.com