Guest columnist
I-872's Louisiana-style primary the wrong choice for Washington

By Judy Golberg
Special to The Times

Judy Golberg

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

To read the press accounts of the Louisiana primary initiative, I-872, one would think it is a free lunch — everyone gets to vote however they wish in the primary, with no ill effects.

But when you look more closely, you see that I-872 is a radical proposal to restrict voters' choice in the general election.

Washington state has a proud tradition, for more than a century, of allowing independent candidates and minor parties fair and equal access to the November general-election ballot. Like almost every state in the Union, we present the voters with the full range of parties and ideas in November, when the greatest number of voters participate.

If Initiative 872 becomes law this November, our tradition will come to an end.

I-872 would create a Louisiana-style primary in Washington state. This system, used only in that one state, lets the voters choose any candidate in the primary, but then pulls the rug out from under them by limiting the general election to only the top two primary candidates, regardless of party.

I-872 is not about the blanket primary. Washington's old blanket-primary system, which the League of Women Voters supported, has been found unconstitutional by the federal courts, and can never come back.

Backers of I-872 constantly talk about the blanket primary, apparently hoping that voters will be confused and think that a vote for the initiative would somehow recreate the old primary. It would not. The Louisiana primary is a very different beast, and it is a sharp departure from our Western ideas of fair and democratic elections.

Here are two important reasons why the League of Women Voters urges you to vote no on I-872:

• Under I-872, there would almost never be an independent or third-party candidate on the general-election ballot. Since only the top two candidates in the primary would move up to the general, the general would almost always be limited to Democrats and Republicans.

We believe that independents, Libertarians, Greens and other small parties make a valuable contribution to our democracy even when they do not win the election. They raise ideas that the two major parties are too timid to suggest, they give the voter a way to cast a protest vote against mediocre major-party candidates, and they do a lot to keep the Democrats and Republicans honest by pointing out when the "emperors" have no clothes. I-872 would create a virtual duopoly for the Democrats and Republicans.

• Under I-872, many primaries would result in two candidates of the same party being the only candidates on the general election ballot. In the Louisiana system, since it does not matter which party the primary candidates are from, two from the same party are often the nominees for the general. It would sharply reduce voters' real choice if there is only one party represented in the general election.

This is not an unlikely scenario; if we had used the Louisiana system in this state, the 1980 and 1996 elections for governor each would have had two candidates from the same party in the general election, and no one else. And it almost happened again this year, in our primary for attorney general.

There are a lot of ideas floating around about how to change our election system to make it more democratic, more representative and more efficient. Some of the ideas make sense, and some do not.

The League supports an open system that does not require advance party registration, keeps voters' party preference from becoming a matter of public record and encourages minor-party participation.

A problem with adopting a sweeping change like the Louisiana primary by initiative is that the Legislature cannot amend or repeal an initiative for two years without a two-thirds vote of both houses. This means that if the Louisiana-style primary turns out to be as unpopular here as it is in Louisiana, we are stuck with it until at least 2007, and all other good ideas are effectively blocked.

The League of Women Voters organ-ized the campaign against I-872 because we think it is a bad idea for Washington. All four of the state's political parties, the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Greens, agree with us and have endorsed "No on I-872."

Judy Golberg is president of the League of Women Voters of Washington.