Beyond the Blanket Primary
2000-16
Who speaks for the Republican Party? Who speaks for the Democratic Party? The Libertarian Party? The Green Party?
To most, it is their candidates and their elected officials. Should voters with no allegiance to a party or its ideas choose these spokesmen, at least in part? Or should parties select their own spokesmen? These questions now focus Washington's political parties.
Washington's long-settled nomination process was upended in June 2000 by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the "blanket primary" is unconstitutional. In July, a local court enjoined any further use of the blanket primary in Washington state. Effective January 2001, party primaries will be the rule.
The constitutional background of this decision is straightforward. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association to all citizens. As the Supreme Court said:
"[The] blanket primary…forces political parties to associate with --- to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by ---- those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival."
In other words, it is the Republican Party, and its member and supporters, who determine who represents their party. In the eyes of the Court, political freedom trumps government regulation of the political process.
If the objective is to assure that candidates compatible to the party's philosophy are selected to carry the party's name into an election, there are two questions each party must ask:
-
Who may seek to represent that party as its candidate?
-
Who may participate in the caucus or vote in the primary employed by the party to select its nominee?
Clearly these separate issues interact: the stronger the role of a party in narrowing the primary field to acceptable spokesmen for its philosophy, the more a party may desire to involve non-party members in selecting the final nominee. Conversely, the easier it is for a candidate to file for nomination without any showing of party support, the more critical it is that the primary voting be limited to party members who wish to advance the party’s philosophy.
In many states candidates must demonstrate substantial party support before they may seek to represent a party. Thus, in Colorado and Connecticut, statewide candidates must receive at least 20% or 30% of the vote in their party’s state convention in order to appear on the primary ballot. In New York, the party state committee nominates a single candidate, but other candidates may circulate nominating petitions to demonstrate substantial support among registered members of their party. In Virginia, the state convention generally nominates the candidate and there is no primary.
The most popular system, the closed primary, is employed by 28 states, and limits participation in the primary to members of the party, plus independents if the party's rule permits.
In open primaries, which are used in 20 states, participation in a party's primary is open to any voter, but voters must choose which party's ballot they will use. In most of these states, the list of who voted in the Republican or Democratic primary is available to the parties, as it is in Washington's presidential primary.
A nonpartisan primary is used in Louisiana, a relic of the one-party South. All candidates are listed on the ballot and the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the general election. This system eliminates minor parties and may assure that political parties nominate their candidates by the convention method to assure that only one Republican or Democrat is on the ballot.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is the parties, not the legislature, that determines how party candidates will be nominated. The role of the legislature is to provide stable administration of the system. The legislature has two routes open to it: 1) enact detailed rules and primary procedures codifying the decisions made by each of Washington’s major parties or; 2) enact broad enabling legislation allowing election officials to give effect to a wide range of alternative party rules.
The "one-size restricts all" approach places the legislature deeper into the political thicket than public policy interests require. If the Republican and Democratic Parties choose different approaches on, for example, the number of signatures required on a nominating petition or the ability of independents to participate in a party primary, which will the legislature favor?
On the other hand, by deferring as much as practicable to party rules, the legislature avoids perennial wrangling as one or the other party seeks legislative authority to amend its candidate selection procedure by changing the law.
Elimination of the blanket primary provides Washington's political parties with the opportunity to revitalize the political debate by reasserting control over how their political message will be carried forth in elections.
As our parties and our legislature move beyond the blanket primary, they would be well guided by the comments of the Libertarian Party spokesman John Mills:
"We need less – not more – rules governing the primary selection of candidates. We need more – not less – choices at the general election."