Blanco may be back in.

[SPC]

I think we finally did away with open primaries for federal races, so we ought to have a single Republican challenger against Landrieu.

Was the doing away of open primary (actually more like a blanket primary, albeit with the option of an all-Democratic or all-Republican runoff and for a majority winner to be elected outright unlike it used to be in Washington State) for federal races in Louisiana voluntary on the state's part, or forced by the courts like the blanket primaries in California and Washington State?

It was voluntary.

[Brandon H]

It was voluntary.

Previously, the primary would be held on the national election day and then the run off was held a month later. Louisiana Congressmen would miss meetings that help determine committee assignments, the selection of offices and several  other things. The late election put them at a disadvantage.

[jimrtex]

I think we finally did away with open primaries for federal races, so we ought to have a single Republican challenger against Landrieu.

Was the doing away of open primary (actually more like a blanket primary,  albeit with the option of an all-Democratic or all-Republican runoff and for a majority winner to be elected outright unlike it used to be in Washington State) for federal races in Louisiana voluntary on the state's part, or forced by the courts like the blanket primaries in California and Washington State?

Note: you're confusing "primary" with "party primary".  A blanket primary is a party primary where voters are allowed to cross-over and vote in the primary of another party on an office by office basis.  Louisiana is a party primary only in the sense that candidates can run under the name of a political party.

Louisiana's open primary had been overturned by the USSC in 1997, but that ruling was because it was held before November (any runoffs were held on the November election date for the rest of the country).  Since most races were decided in October, the court ruled that they weren't complying with the date set by Congress.   Louisiana then sat on its hands and said, "what do we do now?".  Ultimately, the federal district court ordered that the existing system be used, but with the primary date moved to November.  A year or so later, the legislature changed the state law to match the court decision.

Louisiana continues to hold their state elections on the old schedule in the odd years.  They also had some local offices elected on the old schedule in even years, so that you could have an open primary for local offices; then a local runoff + federal open primary; and finally a federal runoff.

When the USSC ruled against the California blanket primary (which was later applied to similar blanket primaries in Washington state and Alaska), numerous justices mentioned the open primary in Louisiana as an example of a primary system that might be legal.  The distinction was that in Louisiana, the primary was simply part of the process of selecting state officers, while, in California and Washington, the primary was selecting the nominees of the parties.  In particular, the cross-over provisions of a blanket primary violated the right of association of adherents of a political parties (the right to associate with like-minded individuals in putting forward candidates of your choice, includes the right to not be forced to associate with other persons who may not share your political beliefs).

When initiatives in California and Washington state put forward replacement schemes that were closer to the Louisiana system, opponents brought up the spectre of Cajun-style primaries, that might result in  Californians or Washingtonians having to choose between Edwin Edwards and David Duke.

"The special interests behind Prop. 62 want California to join Louisiana as the only state in the nation with a bizarre system based on Louisiana law that SEVERELY RESTRICTS voter choice in November elections.

There's a reason NO OTHER STATE has such a system—it's deeply flawed and undemocratic!

It helped Ku Klux Klan Leader David Duke run for Governor and has resulted in Louisiana having one of the LOWEST VOTER TURNOUTS in the nation. We shouldn't pattern California on Louisiana's bad laws."

-- From California voter pamphlet opposition arguments.

The Top-2 initiative passed in Washington 60:40%, while failing in California 46:54%.  I suspect that one reason both measures included two candidates going forward was to avoid the problem in Louisiana where one candidate often had a majority, so that no runoff was held.

The federal district court in Washington, and 9th Court of Appeals have ruled against implementation of the Top-2 primary, which will be heard before the USSC this session.  The proponents have argued that the system is similar to the Louisiana system (that is, it is constitutional, because it is like the system the justices wrote approvingly of in the blanket primary case).  However, the strongest argument agains the Top-2  primary may be that the use of party labels on the ballot imply that a candidate is supported by a party, and denies the parties the right to choose their own candidates.  If the USSC rules based on this argument, then it could ultimately have an effect on the Louisiana system (which is still in place for non-federal elections).

[Kevinstat]

Thanks Jimrtex.  While I have some issues with a "Top-2" primary system - like the possibility for a candidate sure to get past the primary having some of his/her supporters vote for someone he/she feels is a push over in the general election, which is something the more clever opponents of Instant Runoff Voting (those who support other alternative methods or even backers of our current system who have learned to say something other than "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" or bringing up how the little old ladies will be confused) like to point out - I don't like the idea of well-funded parties being able to have something overturned in court after the voters voted for it over what I'm sure was a much better funded opposition than the Grange and supporters were able to contribute to the campaign for the top two system, especially when it was a comprimise between the earlier system and the system that would have gone in to effect otherwise (the regular, open or closed, primary system) after the existing system was overturned in the courts.  (I know that was a huge sentence, but I didn't know where to stop.)

I have kind of a collectivist (read: socialist, at least in some respects) majority rule mindset that way.  I actually posted on a conservative website that I didn't care about the constitution after Maine's district court issued an injunction against the Maine Rx plan that had been adopted by the legislature over intense lobbying opposition and allowed the state to negotiate for lower drug prices.  I ended up recanting that statement soon after later and I now generally post elections speculation or relevent statistics or background on a current topic on that site, although I throw in a clever liberal zinger now and then.  Interestingly though, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually heard the Maine Rx Case in early 2003 after the Curcuit Court overturned the District Court in May 2001, and seemed to uphold it tentatively in their May 2001 decision (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-188 ).  Justices O'Connor, Renquist, C.J. (the official manuscripts use those abbreviations to denote the Chief Jusice) and Kennedy seemed dissent in the parts where the Court didn't declare Maine Rx unconsitutional, agreeing with the plurality that the District Court's injunction was not improper.  But what really surprised me is that Justice Clarence Thomas not only "voted" to allow the plan to stand but issued a concurring opinion in which, as I remember reading at the time, he argued that Maine Rx was clearly Constitutional.  So in that case he went to the left, as many would see it, of everyone else on the court, which is interesting as he is generally regarded as one of the Court's most conservative justices along with Justice Scalia, although now that Justice Alito is on the bench he might be seen along with Scalia as being on the conservative end of the Supreme Court.

Long tangent aside, I hope the Supreme Court either overturns the overturning of the Top-2 primary or makes it clear, if it isn't clear already, that it would be constitutional if candidates other than those somehow approved by the party in the election district (like at a caucus or convention) were not allowed to have a qualified parties designation on the ballot.  That would probably be the best ruling IMHO.  Perhaps they could remand the case (if that's the word) back to a lower court or do something so the Grange and their allies wouldn't have to circulate another, similar petition and go before the voters again on a not-subtantially different measure to get a Top-2 primary instated.

[jimrtex]

Thanks Jimrtex.  While I have some issues with a "Top-2" primary system - like the possibility for a candidate sure to get past the primary having some of his/her supporters vote for someone he/she feels is a push over in the general election, which is something the more clever opponents of Instant Runoff Voting (those who support other alternative methods or even backers of our current system who have learned to say something other than "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" or bringing up how the little old ladies will be confused) like to point out - I don't like the idea of well-funded parties being able to have something overturned in court after the voters voted for it over what I'm sure was a much better funded opposition than the Grange and supporters were able to contribute to the campaign for the top two system, especially when it was a comprimise between the earlier system and the system that would have gone in to effect otherwise (the regular, open or closed, primary system) after the existing system was overturned in the courts.  (I know that was a huge sentence, but I didn't know where to stop.)

I don't know that in Washington state the pro-forces were outspent.  After the blanket primary had been declared unconstitutional, the legislature passed legislation for the top-2 primary, but also included the pick-a-party primary as a backup in case of legal challenge.  Governor Locke then vetoed the top-2 primary.  Meanwhile the Grange had already filed to circulate their petition, and then after the veto actually circulated their petition.

In the voter's pamphlet, supporters include the Grange, the Secretary of State, and individual Dem and Gop legislators.  The opponents included the LWV, Gov. Locke, a former GOP state chairman, and Libertarian and Green parties.

The blanket primary had been in place for decades (since 1935) in Washington.  It was only after California adopted the system, that it was challenged in the courts.  After the USSC made its ruling, the Washington system was then challenged.  There were some technical difference between California and Washington, so it was not an entirely automatic decision to overturn the Washington law.

I don't see the supporters of one candidate switching to back a weaker challenger in the primary.  Imagine a district where there is a close balance between the parties, and one Democrat candidate and 2 GOP candidates.  Many voters, particularly independents, but also including some Democrats, may perceive the primary as determining the GOP "nominee".  There is some chance then that the chosen GOP candidate will have more appeal to cross-over voters.  If some hard partisan Democrats vote for a GOP candidate that they perceive as a weaker challenger, perhaps because he is seen as being more extreme, they possibly risk eroding enough Democrat support so that the single candidate isn't among the top 2.

Long tangent aside, I hope the Supreme Court either overturns the overturning of the Top-2 primary or makes it clear, if it isn't clear already, that it would be constitutional if candidates other than those somehow approved by the party in the election district (like at a caucus or convention) were not allowed to have a qualified parties designation on the ballot.  That would probably be the best ruling IMHO.  Perhaps they could remand the case (if that's the word) back to a lower court or do something so the Grange and their allies wouldn't have to circulate another, similar petition and go before the voters again on a not-subtantially different measure to get a Top-2 primary instated.

I just re-read the 9th Court of Appeals decision.  Basically, they concluded that the Top-2 system remains a partisan primary, despite it not selecting party nominees, because of the appearance of party designations on the ballot, and the critical role of party designation in determining who most voters vote for.  The decision also concluded that the objectionable provisions could not be severed, because there is no assurance that the voters would have approved the system had they not been part of the system.

That is, if Washington state were to permit only one candidate per party; or multiple candidates if they were officially endorsed by the party; or completely removed party designation from the ballots, it could resolve the constitutional questions, but it would not be a system that Washington voters had approved.

[Kevinstat]

Just got around to reading this.  Thanks again for the info.