For decades, Washington's primary elections have been conducted in accordance with the state's populist traditions - no political party registration and easy ticket splitting. Last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down California's blanket primary means our state's cherished primary-election system has to change.
The best idea is only the least worst, and that is to make the primary much like odd-year local elections in cities and special districts: The primary becomes a qualifying race with the top two vote-getters of any party advancing to the general election.
The primary plan, best articulated by Secretary of State Sam Reed, and mentioned as a possible alternative by the court, affirms voters' passionate beliefs in selecting the person rather than the party.
Unlike city council elections, a candidates' party affiliation would appear on the ballot and in the voters pamphlet. (City council candidates run without party affiliation disclosed.) The more information, the better.
One hitch, and it's considerable, is no party would be assured its candidate would advance to the general election. In the 1996 governor's race, for example, votes show what would happen under a new system. Republican candidate Ellen Craswell would not have advanced to the general election against Democrat Gary Locke. Instead, the top two vote-getters, both Democrats, Locke and Seattle Mayor Norm Rice, would have faced off.
That has obvious drawbacks, but in the future might push the parties toward mainstream candidates. The plan is also flawed by a provision allowing a candidate who collects 60 percent of the vote in the primary to advance to the general election ballot alone. This turns off debate too early and ought to be changed.
In the months before the primary, parties could hold conventions, select their best candidate and signal their preference to voters. They should pay for that part of the process themselves.
When it comes to party affiliation, Washington voters are like Neapolitan ice cream: one-third Democrat, one-third Republican, another third independent, Libertarian or unaffiliated.
Lawmakers wondering how to honor both the court ruling and the state's political tradition are finding that no idea sits well because each forces voters or parties to give up a privilege now held dear.
Another approach is an open primary with no lists and no party registration. Voters accept a single party ballot for that election. They can ticket split to their heart's content in the general election. But during the primary, they are Republican, Democrat or Libertarian for a day.
The mechanics are tricky. So many ballots could be in circulation, questions of fraud may arise. Any list created to account for ballots would be pursued by political parties and the media. Voters adamant about preserving privacy would be hopping mad.
Some people want to abandon the primary altogether and return to party nominating conventions. That's too easy. Primaries have a way of crystallizing issues, focusing voters and stirring interest in the public process.
California, not Washington, political interests took this case to the Supreme Court. The court tossed out California's primary, modeled after Washington's, because it forced political parties to associate with - and have nominees determined by - people who don't affiliate with the party and sometimes affiliate with a rival.
Lawmakers are exploring another plan allowing voters to accept one of four ballots - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Multi Party. Since many people don't consider themselves aligned with a party, the temptation would be to take a Multi Party ballot.
But parties wouldn't be required to tally those ballots, and that's why the idea rests on shaky ground. Media and public pressure may or may not force the parties to accept the Multi Party ballots.
The parties don't seem overly concerned how voters feel about the primary. In their adamant behavior, all they do is further alienate themselves from average voters who want a full, private voice in selecting candidates.
Try the Reed approach, and if that fails, an open primary with privacy. The worst thing lawmakers can do is get so flummoxed by the challenge of reinventing a primary they do nothing.
That would be ducking an issue crying out for prompt attention and clear thinking.
Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
