Veto overhauls state primaries with Montana-style system

By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

OLYMPIA — Gov. Gary Locke, in a move sparking a chain reaction of court and ballot challenges, yesterday used his veto to install a primary-election system requiring voters to choose one party's ballot before they can vote.

The Montana-style primary approved by Locke would end the state's nearly 70-year tradition of letting voters pick any candidate they want, regardless of party.

The controversial move was touted by Locke as the right choice for Washington state voters, but the governor acknowledged nothing is settled. "We may end up with a totally different system yet again," he said.

Locke noted the law will keep voters' party affiliations secret. However, there's already a case in court that could make ballot choices public — something long sought by the state's Republican and Democratic parties.

The governor used his veto to radically change a law passed by the Legislature last month that set up a Louisiana-style election system, also known as the "Top Two," to replace the state's outlawed blanket primary. It would have let voters cast ballots for any candidates, regardless of party, with the top two finishers advancing to the general election.

Locke took advantage of a section in the bill requiring the state to revert to a Montana primary if the first plan did not hold up in court. He used his veto powers to dump the Louisiana system and put in place the alternative.

"The Louisiana system is a poor option for Washington voters. The Montana election system is a far better one," Locke said yesterday.

He argued that the Louisiana system would have limited voters' general-election choices and would have been challenged in court by the state's political parties.

The governor said he was confident the veto would stick, and he reiterated claims that the legislation seemed designed for him to used a partial veto.

"In the last days of the session there were many legislators who came up and said, 'Do you know how we wrote this?" he said. "They indicated that while they voted for the bill, they would not at all be displeased if I vetoed out (the Louisiana system)."
 
Challenge in court

Washington State Grange officials yesterday said they would challenge Locke's veto in court and expected to file suit within two weeks.

The Grange was the original sponsor of the blanket primary in the 1930s. Federal courts ruled that system unconstitutional last year, forcing state lawmakers to find a replacement.

Jim Johnson, an attorney for the Grange, said its lawsuit would probably challenge Locke's ability to put in place the Montana system, given that the title of the bill called for the Top-Two system. "The subject is apples, but instead (voters) are getting oranges," Johnson said.

Initiative filed

In addition to the lawsuit, the Grange has also filed an initiative, I-872, which would seek to replace the election system approved by Locke with a Top-Two primary.

Grange President Terry Hunt said his group has already circulated 50,000 petitions and, if needed, will hire paid signature gatherers to get the 197,734 valid signatures needed to put the measure on the November ballot. "I'm going to get it on the ballot," Hunt said.

In a separate action, Bellevue attorney Richard Pope filed two referendums yesterday that would repeal the Montana primary. If Pope collects 98,867 valid signatures of registered voters by June 9 for either referendum, the state would be prevented from holding a Montana primary, according to the Secretary of State's Office.

If one of the measures made the November ballot and was defeated, the Montana primary would be reinstated.

Locke's veto was condemned by lawmakers supporting the Top Two system. "It throws everything into further turmoil and uncertainty," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Finkbeiner, R-Kirkland. "Who the heck knows what's going to happen now? ... It's chaos."

The state's Democratic and Republican party chairmen praised the governor's decision. The parties had sued to get rid of the blanket primary because it allowed voters who are not members of a particular party to help select its candidates. "Crossover" voters, they contended, would sometimes try to hurt the party they opposed by voting for a weak candidate in a primary.

"We think it was a very positive step for him to veto (the Top Two)," said Paul Berendt, chairman of the state Democratic Party.

Supporters of the Louisiana primary have argued it's the system that most closely resembles the state's outlawed blanket primary because voters could vote for anyone they wanted, regardless of party.

However, instead of one candidate from each party advancing, only the two people with the most votes would appear on the November ballot.

In some cases, such as in heavily Democratic or Republican districts, two candidates from the same party could face each other in the general election. That could not happen under the Montana primary.

Locke said that's one of the main reasons he opted for the Montana system.

"Imagine being a conservative Republican and entering the voting booth in the November election and seeing only two liberal Democrats on the ballot. Voters want choices in the November election, and the Louisiana system would take choices away."

Drawbacks of La. system

Locke said that if the state had had the Louisiana system in 1996 and 1980, it would have had two Democrats running for governor instead of a candidate from each of the two major parties.

The Secretary of State's Office previously looked at 627 legislative races between 1993 and 2003 and found 25 races where two candidates from the same party would have faced each other in the general election.

Secretary of State Sam Reed, who supported the Top-Two primary, said he doesn't agree with Locke's veto, but will now start work on putting the new primary in place.

"My gut feeling is we will have a Montana primary this fall," Reed said.

Seattle Times reporter Ralph Thomas contributed to this story.

Andrew Garber: 360-943-9883 or agarber@seattletimes.com.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company