Skip to comments.
Court Overturns Washington's Primary System
KIRO (Ch.7 -- local CBS affiliate), Seattle ^
Posted on 09/15/2003 11:55:25 AM PDT by ShorelineMike
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday struck down Washington state's "blanket" primary system, saying it violates the right of political parties to have their own members choose candidates for office.
TOPICS: Breaking News; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; primary; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
First the 9th Circus goes after California ... now, Washington State. I'm sorry, but these 'people' are EVIL.
To: ShorelineMike
The U.S. Citizens need to go after the 9th Circus.
2
posted on
09/15/2003 11:57:17 AM PDT
by
jgrubbs
To: ShorelineMike; prairiebreeze; Congressman Billybob
What next they going to banned elections across America?
3
posted on
09/15/2003 11:57:40 AM PDT
by
Dog
To: ShorelineMike
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..
4
posted on
09/15/2003 11:57:47 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: ShorelineMike
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.
To: ShorelineMike
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".
6
posted on
09/15/2003 11:58:19 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(I am the extended middle finger in the fist of life.)
To: ShorelineMike
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.
7
posted on
09/15/2003 12:00:38 PM PDT
by
Wphile
(Keep the UN out of Iraq)
To: ShorelineMike
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.
8
posted on
09/15/2003 12:02:24 PM PDT
by
heleny
To: ShorelineMike
So I have to register as a Dem to vote for Sharpton?
9
posted on
09/15/2003 12:02:39 PM PDT
by
per loin
To: ShorelineMike
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.
To: ShorelineMike
I rather think each party should select their own candidates. CA is another matter.
11
posted on
09/15/2003 12:03:00 PM PDT
by
Libertina
("Leaders" cannot lead me without my consent. I, citizen, have power.)
To: AntiGuv; fieldmarshaldj; Kuksool; Pubbie
"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.
12
posted on
09/15/2003 12:09:37 PM PDT
by
AuH2ORepublican
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: AuH2ORepublican
I prefer closed primaries. Open primaries allow RAT operatives to "Freep" our elections.
13
posted on
09/15/2003 12:14:43 PM PDT
by
Kuksool
To: Dog
What next they going to banned elections across America? It would not surprise me at all
14
posted on
09/15/2003 12:14:44 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
To: ShorelineMike
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!
To: ShorelineMike
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.
To: AuH2ORepublican
With this today's ruling on blanket primaries in WA, could Louisiana's jungle primary be the next to go?
17
posted on
09/15/2003 12:29:42 PM PDT
by
Kuksool
To: ShorelineMike
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?
18
posted on
09/15/2003 12:31:19 PM PDT
by
Lunatic Fringe
(This tag line has been intentionally left blank.)
To: Dr. Frank
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.
To: ShorelineMike
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.
20
posted on
09/15/2003 12:35:09 PM PDT
by
kimoajax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson