Supreme Court Throws A Curve To Political Parties – OK’s Modification Of Washington’s “Blanket Primary”

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

The U.S. Supreme Court opened a door to change yesterday – or opened a can of worms. In a decision upholding the State of Washington’s modified “blanket” primary, it dramatically reduced the ability of the major parties to control their own nomination process.

The Washington system advances the two top vote-getters from the primary election to a run-off in the general. While participation in the primary is “closed” – only democratic registrants may vote in the ‘democratic’ side of the primary – in the runoff all voters can participate (as today) with the difference being the top two vote-getters could easily be from the same party in areas dominated by that party.

If the Democrats could keep any Democratic candidate from filing in the primary, then Democratic voters could be the margin of victory between two Republicans in November. Presumably this would force GOP candidates toward the “center” in an effort to appeal to the more liberal Democratic voters.

It has the potential of producing many more competitive elections and of dramatically weakening the major parties. Instead of difficult primaries (like Obama/Clinton) being resolved in June, they would go on until November with Republicans choosing which Democrat wins.

The two parties would fight back. Republicans would seek to file “Trojan horse” Democrats in otherwise GOP safe seats. They would hope Democratic voters would support the Democrat in sufficient numbers that the Democrat would finish second even as Republicans divided 60% of the votes cast in the primary election. With three or more Republican contestants, a single Democrat would be almost guaranteed a slot in the general even if he or she spent no money.

For this new system to work as intended, the law that governs access to the primary election ballot would also require tightening. Instead of the 40-60 signatures required under current law we could up that to 400, making it less likely that the other party would seek to game the system by filling a ‘ringer’.

Two obvious changes would follow the institution of this system in California.

The cost of our campaign system would triple. More competitive campaigns means more money will be required. Who will supply it?