Court Overturns Washington's Primary System

KIRO (Ch.7 -- local CBS affiliate), Seattle ^

[ShorelineMike]

First the 9th Circus goes after California ... now, Washington State. I'm sorry, but these 'people' are EVIL.

[jgrubbs]

The U.S. Citizens need to go after the 9th Circus.

[Dog]

What next they going to banned elections across America?

[AntiGuv]

Yeah, except this is perfectly consistent with the Supreme Court's striking down California's blanket primary in 2000. It was inevitable Washington's would get overturned as well..

[Dr. Frank fan]

Actually I'm totally opposed to open primaries (if I understand correctly that this is what "blanket primaries" are). Why should people who are not members of the Republican Party help decide who the Republican Party will put forth as a nominee for something? It doesn't even compute.

[Lazamataz]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejects all elections, saying "free elections violates the right of the people to be heard".

There would have been more at eleven, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the First Amendment, stating that it is "clearly unconstitutional".

[Wphile]

Actually, this ruling is okay. It allows the parties to run the primaries. Currently, people can cross party lines and vote in the other's primary. This ruling should mean that people must choose a party in order to vote in the primary.

[heleny]

CA used to have an open primary, too. In March 2002, we (in CA) had a "modified open primary" where decline-to-state voters could choose the partisan ballot of one party, provided that party allows nonmembers to vote in their elections.

Four parties, including the D and R, allowed nonmembers to vote for the elected office nominees but not for the parties' central committee members.

I think this decision by the 9th CCoA is correct, since political parties should not be required to have their nominees decided by nonmembers. But, I disagree with their decision about the CA recall.

[per loin]

So I have to register as a Dem to vote for Sharpton?

[freedomcrusader]

The 9th gets one right for a change. Blanket primaries are bunk. Granted, people can register for the party they dislike and wreak havoc with primary elections, but the notion that the state can determine how political parties choose their candidates is anathema to freedom-loving people.

If some political party wants to choose their candidates by the amount of rainfall in Slippery Rock, PA for the preceding year then it should be allowed to do so.

[Libertina]

I rather think each party should select their own candidates. CA is another matter.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Yeah, except this is perfectly consistent with the Supreme Court's striking down California's blanket primary in 2000. It was inevitable Washington's would get overturned as well.."

---

Exactly. It's a good thing they're getting overturned, too. The blanket primary was invented to give RINOs a chance to survive GOP primaries by getting RATs to vote for them (famed RINO Tom Campbell got the system approved in CA). Now, if they could only overturn the recall election for that reason and mandate that Arnold face McClintock in a primary, then we'd be in business. Arnold could never survive a Republican primary unless he got hundreds of thousands of RATs to turn out and vote for him.

[Kuksool]

I prefer closed primaries. Open primaries allow RAT operatives to "Freep" our elections.

[Mo1]

What next they going to banned elections across America?

It would not surprise me at all

[MattGarrett]

Actually, I support this decision. Open primaries are the evil.

So one could say that the 9th CCA is like a broken clock which is right occasionally and completely by coincidence!

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Eh, this is no where near as heinous as their action on the California matter.

After the Supreme Court ruling, it was pretty obvious that Washington's primary was going to change. Blanket primaries are subject to lots of game playing, so while they have good points, they have bad ones too.

This just rearranges a few chairs on the deck of the next big ship to go under (after California). The voters are the real problem in Washington (like California), not they system. They want to put people in office who have philosophies that lead to disaster. Until we stop having dominant majorities on the left, we're going to have increasing trouble here. We're just a few steps behind California.

[Kuksool]

With this today's ruling on blanket primaries in WA, could Louisiana's jungle primary be the next to go?

[Lunatic Fringe]

I have to side with the 9th Circuit on this one... only party members should vote in their party primaries.

Remember how Democrats were encouraging registered Dems to vote for McCain in the GOP primaries?

[Psycho_Bunny]

This decision is pretty stupid. 

While the open primary may not be fair to parties, if it were the problem that the 9th Circuit seems to think it is, WE WOULD CHANGE IT OURSELVES.

We have an initiative process.  We can modify our our system.

There's been no movement in WA to change our primaries.  Obviously, we haven't considered it a problem.  Why the f%$# are these Federal Judges sticking their noses in our business?

Coming on the heels of the delay in the CA recall, it seems clear to me that the 9th Circuit is completely out of control.

...and I'm not just blustering....this court is out of control.

[kimoajax]

Similar to that courts decision regarding Oregon's attempt to open the primaries a number of years back. If memory serves, in the Oregon case court ruled that only the parties themselves could open their primary.

At the time RINOs and Dems were in favor of open primaries to "broaden the party and not be exclusionary"...which was pure horse pucky.

The Dems wanted to open the primaries cause it created opportunities for stealth candidates and crossover voters in Republican primary races. The RINOs wanted it cause it disempowered conservatives in the GOP.

I now live in Washington state and in this case I agree with the courts decision. It is a good thing.