Was granted writ today.
Case basically involves whether a 2004 proposition. Question is whether a so-called "blanket primary" is truly non-partisan if candidates are allowed to identify their parties on the common ballot, and the top two winners are nominated to run in the general election.
Consider this case to be son of "California Democratic Party v. Jones".
Hasn't been an AP article out on this one yet that I've found, but if you read scotusblog.com, all the info is there.
The question is whether this is the bastard son of
Jones or a distant cousin.
Washington state had used a blanket primary since the 1930's (the majority of its existence as a state). In a blanket primary, all candidates from all parties appear on a single ballot. A voter may vote for one candidate regardless of party for each office. So in effect, a voter may in the Republican primary for governor, the Democratic primary for senator, and so on. The candidate with the most votes for each party advances to the general election. Washington state had a special provision for minor parties. These candidate chose a single candidate by a convention process prior to the primary. If the candidate received a certain percentage (IIRC, 1%) of the total vote in the blanket primary, he would appear on the general election ballot.
California (by citizen initiative) instituted a blanket primary in the late 1990's, and this was challenged in court. California's law differed slightly in that it applied to all parties, and in the one primary it was used, there were a couple of legislative races with a contest for the Libertarian nomination, while the Democrat and Republican candidates were unopposed. Large number of voters cross-over to vote in the Libertarian primary for that race.
One of the major arguments in
Jones was that this diluted the political message of the Libertarian party, which really wasn't concerned with electing anyone, but simply wanted to put their radical views into the political debate. In any event, after the California system was overturned by the US Supreme Court, it was applied to Washington and Alaska, where a similar system had been approved.
In its decision, the USSC justices suggested that if the primary had been choosing the winner of the election, rather than the party nominees, then it would a legitimate exercise of state authority to define the process by which its officers are elected.
In Washington, the legislature passed a Top 2 primary system, but it was vetoed by Governor Locke. Meanwhile the Grange placed a similar measure on the ballot by initiative, and it was approved by the voters. Before it could ever be used, there was an injunction, and it has been working its way back to the USSC ever since.
The Federal District court basically considered the Top 2 primary system to be a blanket primary in disguise - in part because in its campaign the Grange said it would be just like the system Washington had used for almost 70 years, where the voter simply votes for which candidate they want, regardless of party. There are also some conflicts with the Washington Constitution, which provides for a role for the political party of a legislator to choose a replacement in case of vacancy.
Washington State and the Grange has argued that the system is not a blanket primary since its purpose is not to choose the nominees of the parties, but simply to winnow the field for the general election.
The Appeals Court appeared to mostly discard the reasoning of the district court and focused on the fact that a candidate could run with the name of a political party that might not support him. The State argued that there was nothing to stop political parties from endorsing a particular candidate on the primary ballot.
Since the USSC had appeared to endorse a system similar to that which Washington state implemented, it will be interesting to see how they decide. They may agree with the Appeals Court, which would then permit a fairly simple modification by which parties have control over use of their name on the ballot.
California voters turned down a referendum that would have implemented a similar system. It may have been closer to Louisiana's system in that a winner could be elected at the primary.
Alaska has made their blanket primary voluntary. Political parties can choose whether they want to be in the open (blanket) primary, or want to have a closed primary. If they have a closed primary, they can choose who they want to permit to vote. Alaska has several classes of indepedent voters (eg. Unaffiliated, Undecided, Undisclosed, Independent, None-of-the-Above, and Not-At-Home).
