Read the The Tuesday Count. New edition available now!

Difference between revisions of "Washington Top Two Primaries, Initiative 872 (2004)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(edited aftermath)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
</td>
 
</td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
</table>The '''Top Two Primary Initiative''', or '''Washington Initiative 872''', was on the [[Washington 2004 ballot measures|November 2, 2004]] ballot in [[Washington]] as an {{witpfull}}, where it was '''approved'''. I-872 changes the way that partisan primary and general elections in Washington are conducted by replacing the system of separate primaries for each party with a system in which all candidates for each partisan office appear together on the primary ballot. Candidates are permitted to express a party preference or declare themselves independents, and their preference or status appears on the ballot.  
+
</table>
 +
 
 +
The '''Top Two Primary Initiative''', also known as '''Initiative 872''', was on the [[2004 ballot measures#Washington|November 2, 2004 ballot]] in [[Washington]] as an {{witpfull}}, where it was '''approved'''. The measure changed the way that partisan primary and general elections in Washington are conducted by replacing the system of separate primaries for each party with a system in which all candidates for each partisan office appear together on the primary ballot. Candidates are permitted to express a party preference or declare themselves independents, and their preference or status appears on the ballot.  
  
 
The primary ballot includes all candidates filing for the office, including major party and minor party candidates and independents. Voters are permitted to vote for any candidate for any office, and are not limited to a single party. The general election ballot is limited to the two candidates who received the most votes for each office in the primary, regardless of whether these two candidates are or the same or different parties.
 
The primary ballot includes all candidates filing for the office, including major party and minor party candidates and independents. Voters are permitted to vote for any candidate for any office, and are not limited to a single party. The general election ballot is limited to the two candidates who received the most votes for each office in the primary, regardless of whether these two candidates are or the same or different parties.
 +
 +
==Aftermath==
 +
===Lawsuit by Political Parties===
 +
Following the approval of Initiative 872, the [[Democrat|Democratic]], [[Republican]] and [[Libertarian]] Parties of Washington filed a suit against the new law.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/01/22/washington-state-major-parties-file-amended-complaint-in-case-against-top-two-open-primary/ ''Ballot Access News'',"Washington State Major Parties File Amended Complaint in Case Against “Top-Two Open Primary”," January 22, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/toptwo.aspx ''Office of the Secretary of State'', "Top 2 Primary Litigation", accessed September 23, 2013]</ref>
 +
 +
Reasons for the lawsuit can be found here:
 +
* [http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Democratic%20Partys%20Amended%20Complaint%201-21-10.pdf Complaints from the Democratic Party]
 +
* [http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/Supple.Amend.Complaint.pdf Complaints from the Republican Party]
 +
* [http://www.sos.wa.gov/documentvault/LibertarianPartysMotiontoIntervene-740.pdf Complaints from the Libertarian Party]
 +
 +
On July 15, 2005, the {{JP|United States District Court for the Western District of Washington|District Court for the Western District of Washington}} ruled in favor of the political parties, thus stopping the state or any political subdivision from implementing or enforcing Initiative 872.<ref>[http://www.sos.wa.gov/documentvault/FinalInjunction-856.pdf ''Office of the Secretary of State'', "Final Injunction of the United States District Court of
 +
the Western District of Washington", accessed September 23, 2013]</ref>
 +
 +
The state appealed the case to the {{JP|United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Court of Appeals for the Ninth District}}, where the court upheld the lower court's decision on August 22, 2006. Furthermore, the court required the State of Washington to pay the legal fees of the political parties: $55,097 for the GOP, $37,673 for the Democrats and $16,301 for the Libertarians.<ref>[http://www.sos.wa.gov/documentvault/NinthCircuitOpinion-1684.pdf ''Office of the Secretary of State'', "Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District", accessed September 23, 2013]</ref>
 +
 +
The state then appealed the case to the {{JP|Supreme Court of the United States}}, where the court ruled in favor of the State of Washington and ordered the political parties to repay the state on March 18, 2008<ref>[http://www.sos.wa.gov/documentvault/SupremeCourtJudgmentdated42108-2256.pdf ''Office of the Secretary of State'', "Judgement of the United States Supreme Court", accessed September 23, 2013]</ref>
  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
 
{{Short outcome
 
{{Short outcome
| title = Washington Initiative 872 (2004)
+
| title = Initiative 872 (2004)
 
| yes = 1,632,225
 
| yes = 1,632,225
 
| yespct = 59.85
 
| yespct = 59.85
Line 23: Line 41:
 
| turnoutpct = NA
 
| turnoutpct = NA
 
}}
 
}}
Election results via the [[Washington Secretary of State]].<ref>[https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/press_and_research/PreviousElections/Pages/default.aspx ''Washington Secretary of State'', "Past Election Results," accessed August 8, 2013]</ref>
+
Election results via: [https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/press_and_research/PreviousElections/Pages/default.aspx Washington Secretary of State]
  
 
==Text of the measure==
 
==Text of the measure==
Line 44: Line 62:
  
 
County auditors, who administer elections at the county level, are expected to save up to $6 million annually for on-going costs associated with implementation of the new primary election system. The state, which reimburses the counties for odd-year primary election costs, would share this cost savings. The current system requires either multiple ballots or a larger consolidated ballot that enables voters to either vote by party for all offices or vote only for non-partisan offices. The new primary election system reduces ballot publishing and processing costs.}}
 
County auditors, who administer elections at the county level, are expected to save up to $6 million annually for on-going costs associated with implementation of the new primary election system. The state, which reimburses the counties for odd-year primary election costs, would share this cost savings. The current system requires either multiple ballots or a larger consolidated ballot that enables voters to either vote by party for all offices or vote only for non-partisan offices. The new primary election system reduces ballot publishing and processing costs.}}
 
==Aftermath==
 
===Lawsuits===
 
 
In the wake of the affirmative vote on I-872, a lawsuit was filed by most of Washington State's political parties against the new law.  The lawsuit was filed in 2005 in federal court.  It worked its was up to the [[judgepedia:Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], where in March 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the law.<ref>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/177045.asp ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'',"State's 'top 2' primary in limbo again after court ruling," August 20, 2009]</ref>
 
 
===Supreme Court ruling===
 
 
In 2008, the [[Judgepedia:Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled that the "top-two" system does not appear to violate freedom of association for political parties but left open the possibility that it might be a violation in practice.<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/08/21/washington-top-two-will-have-trial-in-u-s-district-court/ ''Ballot Access News'',"Washington “Top-Two” Will Have Trial in U.S. District Court," August 21, 2009]</ref>
 
 
===2010 lawsuit===
 
 
On [[BC2010#January|January 22, 2010]] [[Democrat|Democratic]] & [[Republican]] Parties filed amended complaints. The complaints can be found here:<ref>[http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/01/22/washington-state-major-parties-file-amended-complaint-in-case-against-top-two-open-primary/ ''Ballot Access News'',"Washington State Major Parties File Amended Complaint in Case Against “Top-Two Open Primary”," January 22, 2010]</ref>
 
* [http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Democratic%20Partys%20Amended%20Complaint%201-21-10.pdf Democratic Party complaint]
 
* [http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/Supple.Amend.Complaint.pdf Republican Party complaint]
 
 
A hearing on the amended complaints will be heard by the federal court in Seattle, Washington, in November 2010.<ref name=long>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/28/MNN11E1LJA.DTL&type=politics ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Parties weigh longshot challenges to Proposition 14", June 28, 2010]</ref>
 
 
The 2010 legal action is in response to what the country's highest court said in their 2008 ruling on the question of whether or not voters are confused about the party affiliations of the names they see on their November general election ballots.  The plaintiffs said in their original 2005 lawsuit that voters will be confused about this.  In their 2008 ruling, the court said that this concern about voter confusion is "sheer speculation." The reason the court said this is that at the time the original lawsuit was filed and then heard, there was no empirical evidence available about what voters, in fact, believe about the partisan affilations of the names on general election ballots because no such votes under the "Top Two" system had taken place.
 
 
In 2010, with empirical evidence now available to help the courts discover what voters do, in fact, believe about the partisan affiliations of the names they see on November general election ballots, the plaintiffs have gone back to the federal courts with this new evidence which they claim proves their earlier assertion about what voters believe.<ref name=long/>
 
 
==Lawsuit against==
 
 
After I-872 passed, Washington's three largest political parties -- Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians -- filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have I-872 declared unconstitutional.  The political parties prevailed in their trial.  The State of Washington filed an appeal to the [[Ninth Circuit]].  The Ninth Circuit agreed with the trial court and the political parties.  The State of Washington then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and the country's highest court overturned the lower courts and declared that I-872 and the "Top Two" primary system is constitutional.<ref name="I-872">[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010724670_partycash07m.html "Seattle Times" Judge orders GOP, Libertarians to repay state $70K, January 6, 2010]</ref>
 
 
The Ninth Circuit, when it ruled in favor of the political parties, ordered the State of Washington to pay them for the legal fees they had incurred to bring the lawsuit: $55,097 for the GOP, $37,673 for the Democrats and $16,301 for the Libertarians.  When the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, it also ordered that the political parties repay the State of Washington for those costs.  In January 2010, a federal district judge ordered that the GOP and Libertarian Parties proceed forthwith to repay their part of the bill; the Democratic Party had already done so.<ref name="I-872"/>
 
  
 
==Support==  
 
==Support==  
Line 176: Line 167:
  
 
==References==  
 
==References==  
{{reflist}}
+
{{reflist|2}}
  
 
{{2004 ballot measures}}
 
{{2004 ballot measures}}

Revision as of 15:57, 23 September 2013

Voting on
Elections and Campaigns
Campaignsandelections.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Ballot measures
in Washington State
Seal of Washington.jpg
Constitutional amendments
Initiatives to the People
Initiatives to the Legislature
Statutes referred by Legislature
Veto referendums
Political topics on the ballot
LawsHistoryConstitution

The Top Two Primary Initiative, also known as Initiative 872, was on the November 2, 2004 ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People, where it was approved. The measure changed the way that partisan primary and general elections in Washington are conducted by replacing the system of separate primaries for each party with a system in which all candidates for each partisan office appear together on the primary ballot. Candidates are permitted to express a party preference or declare themselves independents, and their preference or status appears on the ballot.

The primary ballot includes all candidates filing for the office, including major party and minor party candidates and independents. Voters are permitted to vote for any candidate for any office, and are not limited to a single party. The general election ballot is limited to the two candidates who received the most votes for each office in the primary, regardless of whether these two candidates are or the same or different parties.

Aftermath

Lawsuit by Political Parties

Following the approval of Initiative 872, the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian Parties of Washington filed a suit against the new law.[1][2]

Reasons for the lawsuit can be found here:

On July 15, 2005, the District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled in favor of the political parties, thus stopping the state or any political subdivision from implementing or enforcing Initiative 872.[3]

The state appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District, where the court upheld the lower court's decision on August 22, 2006. Furthermore, the court required the State of Washington to pay the legal fees of the political parties: $55,097 for the GOP, $37,673 for the Democrats and $16,301 for the Libertarians.[4]

The state then appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the court ruled in favor of the State of Washington and ordered the political parties to repay the state on March 18, 2008[5]

Election results

Initiative 872 (2004)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 1,632,225 59.85%
No1,095,19040.15%

Election results via: Washington Secretary of State

Text of the measure

The language that appeared on the ballot:[6]

Initiative Measure No. 872 concerns elections for partisan offices.

This measure would allow voters to select among all candidates in a primary. Ballots would indicate candidates’ party preference. The two candidates receiving most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Should this measure be enacted into law?[7]

Fiscal impact statement

The 2004 State of Washington Voters Pamphlet lists the fiscal impact statement as follows:[8]

Summary of Fiscal Impact

Initiative 872 would authorize a primary election allowing the two candidates with the most votes to advance to the general election, regardless of political party, starting with the primary election in September 2005. Annual costs for this primary election system could be as much as $6.0 million lower for the state and counties compared to current law. The lower cost of the primary election system is due to ballot size, the number of ballots, and associated processing procedures. One time costs for public education and voter notification of changes in the primary election system may cost the state $1.3 million.

Assumptions for Analysis of I-872

As the State Elections Officer, the Secretary of State is projected to spend up to $1.3 million on one-time costs associated with implementing the new primary system. The most notable one-time cost is a voter outreach campaign to educate voters about changed requirements. The Secretary of State’s Office is expected to spend up to $1 million to conduct a media campaign and up to $305,000 to publish an eight-page primary voter’s pamphlet prior to the primary election in September that explains the primary system changes to voters. Other state one-time costs associated with implementing a new primary are as follows: developing new election processes/procedures; designing a new ballot; and training election and poll-site staff on new processes. The Secretary of State’s Office estimates that they would spend up to $25,000 dollars on these activities.

County auditors, who administer elections at the county level, are expected to save up to $6 million annually for on-going costs associated with implementation of the new primary election system. The state, which reimburses the counties for odd-year primary election costs, would share this cost savings. The current system requires either multiple ballots or a larger consolidated ballot that enables voters to either vote by party for all offices or vote only for non-partisan offices. The new primary election system reduces ballot publishing and processing costs.[7]

Support

Supporters

Key supporters of I-872 included:

  • Terry Hunt, president of the Washington State Grange
  • State senator Bill Finkbeiner
  • State representative Brian Hatfield
  • Secretary of State Sam Reed
  • John Stanton, Chair and CEO of Western Wireless
  • State senator Darlene Fairley.

Arguments in favor

These arguments in support appeared in the official State of Washington Voter Guide:[9]

VOTE FOR THE PERSON — NOT THE PARTY

Last year the state party bosses won their lawsuit against the blanket primary, and in 2004 they convinced the Governor to veto legislation allowing voters to continue to vote for any candidate in the primary. Most of us believe this freedom to select any candidate in the primary is a basic right. Don’t be forced to choose from only one party’s slate of candidates in the primary. Vote Yes on I-872.

MORE COMPETITIVE PRIMARIES AND GENERAL ELECTIONS

Under I-872, the two candidates with the most votes in the primary win and go on to the general election ballot. No political party is guaranteed a spot on the general election ballot. Parties will have to recruit candidates with broad public support and run campaigns that appeal to all the voters. That’s fair – and that’s right.

PROTECT PRIVACY AND INCREASE PARTICIPATION

Under I-872, you will never have to declare party or register by party in order to vote in the primary. In the primaries in 2000, the turnout in Washington was more than twice as high as in states with party primaries – because voters in this state could support any candidate on the primary ballot. Vote Yes on I-872.

RETURN CONTROL OF THE PRIMARY TO THE VOTERS

The September primary this year gave the state party bosses more control over who appears on our general election ballot at the expense of the average voter. I-872 will restore the kind of choice in the primary that voters enjoyed for seventy years with the blanket primary. Protect Washington’s tradition as a state that elects people over party labels. Vote Yes on I-872.

Rebuttal of Statement Against

I-872 gives voters more choices in the primary and better choices in the general. All the voters will decide who is on the November ballot. Whether it’s one Republican and one Democrat, one major and one minor party, or even an Independent — they will be the candidates the voters want the most. The primary and general election should be decided by voters, not by exclusive party organizations that might be dominated by special interests![7]

The argument in support was prepared by Terry Hunt, Bill Finkbeiner, Brian Hatfield, Sam Reed, John Stanton, and Darlene Fairley.

Donors

About $725,000 was raised and spent on the campaign in favor of I-872.[10]

Top donors included:

  • Washington State Grange: $678,510
  • John Stanton, $10,000

Opposition

Opponents

Key opponents of I-872 included:

  • Judy Golbert, Chair, President of Washington League of Women Voters
  • Gary Locke, a former Governor of Washington
  • Ken Eikenberry, a former Washington Attorney General
  • Jocelyn Langlois, acting chair of the Libertarian Party of Washington
  • Jody Grage Haug, Membership Chair of the Green Party of Washington
  • Joan Thomas, past President of the Seattle League of Women Voters

Arguments against

These arguments in opposition appeared in the official State of Washington Voter Guide:[11]

I-872 REDUCES YOUR ELECTION CHOICES THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND OTHER CONCERNED CITIZENS URGE YOU TO MAKE SURE WASHINGTON VOTERS HAVE CHOICES IN NOVEMBER

Vote No on I-872! Don’t be fooled. I-872 creates a Louisiana-style primary that would sharply reduce your choices in general elections. Over a third of the statewide and congressional candidates who appeared on the general election ballot in 2000 would have been eliminated in the primary if I-872 had been the law.

Third Parties and Independents Eliminated: If I-872 is passed, third parties, minor parties and even independents will be eliminated from the general election ballot, leaving (in most cases) one Republican and one Democrat. In November 2000, 180,000 voters who voted for third party candidates in the general election would never have had that choice if I-872 had been the law. Insulating the top two political parties from competition is a bad idea. Single-Party Elections Will Result: Under I-872 many voters will not be able to vote for a candidate that represents their philosophy because the two top vote-getters in a race may be of the same party resulting in only one party being represented on the November ballot. In one-third of the races for Governor in the last twenty-five years, I-872 would have resulted in two general election gubernatorial candidates from the same party. In fact, the voters’ ultimate choice for Governor in 1980, John Spellman, would never have appeared on the November ballot.

We urge you to preserve Washington’s independent, multi-partisan election system by voting No on I-872.

For more information, call 206.652.8904 or visit www.No872.org.

Rebuttal of Argument For

The League of Women Voters and many others believe I-872 is bad for Washington. I-872 does not “restore the kind of choice” voters had in the past. It reduces everybody’s choice in the general election.

It decreases general election ballot diversity by eliminating third party candidates and independents. Some November ballots may have choices from only one party for an office.

Support good government and general election choices. Vote No on I-872.[7]

Donors

The campaign in opposition to I-872 spent about $55,000.[12]

Most of the donors were Democratic and Republican party committees, including the state committees of each party. The largest single donor in opposition was the Democratic Party of Washington State, which gave $33,900 to the effort to defeat 872.

Path to the ballot

Initiative 872 was filed on January 8, 2004 by Terry Hunt of the Washington State Grange. Signatures were collected to qualify it for the ballot. The measure was placed on the ballot as provided for by the state constitution.[13]

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

External links

References