We took the politics out of state's primary

Sound Off is a public forum. Articles are selected from letters to the editor or may be written specifically for this feature. Today, Washington Gov. Gary Locke responds to criticism of his decision to embrace the “Montana-style” primary system.

Two weeks ago, I signed a bill creating a new primary election system for our state. Even before the ink was dry, voices began to rise and fingers began to point. Debate and discussion, claims and counterclaims, and praise and protest have filled the news media ever since. The opinions I’ve heard and read on the subject are typically very passionate. But confusion and misconceptions continue to abound.

I’d like to set the record straight.

This was a new and difficult dilemma for our state. Washington voters were served well by our blanket primary for 70 years. Voters were able to protect their privacy, maintain their independence, and exercise great choice. The blanket primary was popular and effective. Like most Washington voters, I was very happy with it and believed in it.

But the Democratic and Republican parties of our state brought a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of our primary. I remain extremely frustrated with and disappointed by this challenge. I don’t believe this lawsuit served the best interests of Washington voters.

Our state’s political parties prevailed in court. The federal court of appeals ruled that our blanket primary was unconstitutional. We appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court, which chose not to hear the case. The decision stood.

Suddenly our tried-and-true blanket primary was no more.

And suddenly we urgently needed an effective and constitutional replacement election system in this year’s legislative session for the 2004 September primary election.

The legislative and public debate focused on two alternatives — the Montana system and the Louisiana system.

In the Montana system, voters choose from among candidates of a single party in the primary election. The party ballot they select in the primary is completely confidential. There is no record of their choice. Party registration is not required. Voters are free to vote for any person in non-partisan races.

In the November general election, the Montana system is the same as the current system. Voters may vote for any candidate on the ballot, including both major party candidates, smaller party candidates and independents.

Under the Louisiana system, voters may vote for any candidate regardless of party in the primary election. This system then advances only the two candidates with the most votes to the general election in November. Candidates from smaller parties and independents would not be on the November ballot unless they were one of the top two primary vote-getters.

The Legislature passed a bill enacting the Louisiana system, but also provided that the state would revert to the Montana system should the Louisiana system be struck down by the courts, a result many expect. I’ve said all along that I support the Montana election system and oppose the Louisiana system. Accordingly, I vetoed the sections of the bill proposing the Louisiana primary. I signed the remainder of the bill, effectively enacting a Montana election system.

I chose the Montana system because we’re not just choosing a new primary system. We’re choosing an election system for both the September primary and the November general election. And the most important issue to consider when choosing an election system is voter choice.

The Montana system best preserves voter choice in the November general election. Indeed, it keeps our current November general election unchanged. It assures that voters will be able to choose candidates from either major party, as well as candidates from smaller parties and independents.

In 2000, eight political parties were on the general election ballot for statewide and legislative races. And almost one million votes were cast for third-party candidates in statewide races. That’s one million votes that would be eliminated by the Louisiana system. And this doesn’t include local legislative races, city or county council elections, or other local contests. Many general election voters would be disenfranchised by the Louisiana system, forced to select from a ballot without a candidate representing either their preferred party or political views.

The Louisiana system limits voter choice because it advances only the two candidates with the most votes to the general election regardless of party. It virtually eliminates third party candidates from participating in the November election, and makes it likely that two candidates from the same party will often be the only candidates left on the November ballot.

Imagine voting in a general election where the only choices for governor were two liberal Democrats, or two conservative Republicans. Imagine having just one political party represented on the ballot for key contested positions. Whatever your politics, this isn’t much of a choice.

These are not just hypothetical scenarios. A review of recent state political history shows such results would have occurred had we been using the Louisiana “top two” approach.

In 1996, for example, I ran against Republican Ellen Craswell in the November general election — a clear choice between contrasting ideologies for Washington voters. But if our state had used the Louisiana “top two” primary system, my opponent in the November election would have been fellow Democrat Norm Rice.

Also in 1996, our Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, a Democrat, ran against Ann Anderson (Republican), Shawn Newman (Reform) and Art Rathjen (Libertarian) in the November election. This gave voters a broad range of choices. But if our state had followed the Louisiana “top two” approach, the only two candidates on the general election ballot would have been Brad Owen and another Democrat, Paull Shin.

And if we had followed the Louisiana system in 1980, not only would the November ballot have been different, but the election outcome would have been changed. That’s because the top two vote-getters in the primary that year were Jim McDermott and Gov. Dixie Lee Ray, both Democrats. Republican John Spellman would not have advanced to the November election under the Louisiana system-and would not have become governor.

The Louisiana system limits voter choice in the November general election. It shifts the most important election decisions to the primary, when turnout is much lower.

In 2002, voter turnout in our state’s general election was 56 percent of registered voters, but only 34 percent in the primary. In 2000, the November general election turnout was 75 percent, or 2.5 million voters, but the September primary turnout was just half that number. We shouldn’t shift the most significant voter decisions to the primary, when participation is lowest.

But this is what the Louisiana system does. And perhaps it goes even further in limiting voter participation-and minimizing the role of voters. If our state adopted this system, the major political parties have said they will nominate their candidates for primary elections through caucuses or conventions. This means even fewer people will participate in the selection of party nominees. If the party nominees have already been chosen, there will be even less reason to vote in the primary election.

My decision to enact the Montana system should not have come as a surprise to anyone. The state Senate was well-aware that I strongly supported the Montana system when it passed its bill, featuring the Louisiana system. Then the state House of Representatives added the Montana system to the bill.

Both Democratic and Republican leaders in the House pointed out that because of the way the bill was written, a Montana primary election system could be enacted by vetoing the Louisiana system segments of the bill. In fact, everyone in Olympia was discussing this possibility-and asking me what I planned to do. The leaders of the Senate knew this. They directed their attorneys to draft additional language to prevent a partial veto. They had the opportunity to incorporate such language into the bill before it was passed by the Legislature. They chose not to.

I could have just signed the bill as it came to my desk, without choosing one system or the other. I could have let the matter go to federal court, since the state’s political parties promised to challenge the Louisiana system if it was enacted. But that would have left us without a primary system that provides for voter choice and privacy this fall. Instead, we could have ended up with a primary designed by the political parties and a federal judge-with only registered Democrats and Republicans choosing their nominees.

The Louisiana system has been touted as allowing voters to cross party lines in the primary. But this is the very point on which it is legally vulnerable. In ruling that our blanket primary was unconstitutional, the court noted that the system “prevented a party from picking its nominees.” The Louisiana system, which would allow Republicans to vote for Democrats and vice versa, would likely violate the First Amendment for the same reason.

Choosing a new election system to replace the blanket primary so many of us preferred was not easy. In an election year, the last thing many politicians want to do is take sides in a controversy as lively as this one. No matter which way you choose, people are going to be upset.

But the buck stops at my desk. Our state could not afford to defer a decision so critical to our state government. The Montana system is now the Washington system. My decision was made with the best interests of Washington voters in mind. The Montana system best protects voters’ choice, privacy and independence.

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read.