Top 2 Legal Challenge Court Date Set

The Democratic and Republican parties are challenging the current statewide primary system, known as the Top 2, in US District Court. A court date of October 4, 2010 has been set by Judge John C. Coughenour for Washington State Republican Party v State, cv-05-927.

This year in Pierce County, charter amendment 3 would move county level elections to the statewide primary system. Currently, this would mean a move to the Top 2 primary system.

If amendment 3 passes and the parties win their lawsuit, then Pierce County will be at the whim of what happens on a statewide basis. The last time the Top 2 was thrown out, the legislature gave us the pick-a-party primary as our statewide primary system.

Don't put us at the whim of the state legislature.

Reject amendment 3.

Pierce County Better Government League

The Pierce County Better (sic) Government League is advocating the passage of three proposed charter amendments all affecting our county level elections systems. Collectively, the three amendments attempt to rig the system in favor of allowing existing members of the County Council to keep their jobs for over a decade with little to no competition. To read more about the collective impact of these amendments, see NoRiggingtheSystem.com.

One section of the PCBGL website deals exclusively with proposed amendment 3 and its proposal to move Pierce County to the "statewide primary system." Below in italics is some of the verbiage on their website with our responses interspersed.

"In 2006 Pierce County adopted the experimental 'Ranked Choice Voting' system for most county elections."

Australian and Irish voters who have been using Ranked Choice Voting for decades are likely to find the word "experimental" amusing. RCV has a long history of success in promoting democracy.

. ...RCV has hurt voter turnout,..."

In 2008, when RCV was used in Pierce County, voter participation rates for county level elections were higher than in 2004 and 2006 the two previous comparable election cycles. RCV has not hurt voter turnout.

"...cost more tax dollars to administer..."

In 2008, the vast majority of costs incurred by Pierce County were one-time investments in software and hardware. Properly implemented in 2009, the RCV race would have saved money for Pierce County.

"RCV did not replace the unpopular 'pick-a-party' primary as claimed in 2006, but instead denied voters the 'top two' primary."

In 2006, the statewide primary system used by Pierce County was the pick-a-party primary. The lawsuit by the Democrats and Republicans to prevent the Top 2 from becoming law had prevailed. For county level elections, the voters of Pierce County went with RCV as the replacement for the statewide primary then in effect. In 2007, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decisions and the state of Washington is now using the Top 2 as the statewide primary system. The Supreme Court left open the possibility of the Democrats and Republicans overturning the Top 2 on other grounds. The Democrats and Republicans are currently suing in court to overturn the Top 2. We do not know how this will come out.

Amendment 3 provides that Pierce County will move to elect its officials with the statewide primary system, not the Top 2. If the Democrats and Republicans prevail in their lawsuit and amendment 3 is approved, Pierce County will be using the pick-a-party primary system again. Just like in 2006.

The PCBGL claims that there is no way the Democrats and Republicans will prevail in their lawsuit. We have no such foresight, but this begs the question of why use the phrase "statewide primary system" rather than the Top 2.

"RCV is bad for democracy, it grants new powers to the political parties to control who files for office and rewards political extremism."

RCV is good for democracy. The RCV law does two things about candidacies. First, it dramatically reduces the number of signatures required for independents and third party candidates to get on the ballot. In 2008, this resulted in one independent and one third party candidate on the ballot. This is the first time in years we had such candidates on the ballot. Second, our RCV law requires that candidates get permission from the parties to use their labels on the ballot. Candidates can run as independents if they are not successful in getting a party label.

What happened to the number of candidates when we shifted to RCV? In 2006, in five races, we had five incumbents running for re-election. Four of them were unopposed by any challenger. The remaining incumbent had just one challenger. In 2008, we had seven races with three incumbents running for re-election. There were a total of 22 candidates on the November ballot. None of the incumbents ran unopposed.

While most voters appreciate having more choices on the ballot, the PCBGL prefers to limit the number of candidates. In fact, PCBGL wants our election system to go back to a world where voters are not "confused" by having multiple candidates on the November ballot. Voters choosing amongst lists of candidates is called democracy. Amendment 3 is bad for democracy.

"The 'top two' primary is the constitutional alternative that is most like our beloved blanket primary."

RCV is a constitutional alternative to our beloved blanket primary. RCV allows one to pick the person, not the party. RCV allows independents and third parties on the November ballot. The Top 2 is currently under legal challenge.

Reject Amendment 3. Reject all three amendments.

Novoselic and Anderson Announce Their Candidacies

Krist Novoselic and Julie Anderson announced their candidacies yesterday.

Novoselic, former bass player for Nirvana and current Chairman of Fairvote, is running for Wahkiahum County Clerk and "prefers Grange Party". Novoselic's candidacy appears to be a protest against the Top 2 system which prevents private associations from controlling the use of their name on the ballot. Novoselic is the Grangemaster of the Gray's River Grange and he has opposed the Grange's support of the Top 2 election system in the state of Washington. Part of the point of Novoselic's candidacy is the lack of ability of the Grange to control who signs up to represent their group on the ballot.

Novoselic prefers the ballot access system embedded in Pierce County's RCV charter provision. This system allows ready access for independents and third party candidates while allowing the parties and other groups to control who uses their name on the ballot.

Anderson, Deputy Mayor of Tacoma, has announced her candidacy for Pierce County Auditor. While the position is non-partisan, Anderson is a well known Democrat and will have the support of the Pierce County Democrats, but she will be working to get the support of others as well. The other candidate in the race so far is Jan Shabro, a well known Republican. Shabro was appointed to replace Pat McCarthy as Auditor earlier this year by the Republican dominated County Council. This should be an interesting race as both candidates are well known politicians in the county.

According to Anderson's website, "I’m running for Auditor because Pierce County deserves fair and practical leadership that is directly accountable to the voters – not political parties. There is no obstacle that cannot be overcome with the right mix of pragmatism, imagination and hard work. And there is no government that can function without an informed and engaged citizenry." She will be emphasizing her non-partisan public service as a member of the Tacoma City Council as compared to Shabro's partisan positions.

Whatcom County Opportunity to Save Money

Whatcom County would save significant costs by adopting Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and folding the primary into the general election for its county level officials. Whatcom County's system of electing its county level officials in odd-numbered years is significant in obtaining more cost savings. Whatcom County should adopt RCV.

Much has been written and said about the costs of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Pierce County, but little analysis has been done for Whatcom County elections and how they would be affected by the adoption of RCV for county level elections.

Whatcom County can take advantage of the experience in Pierce County, Washington as well as Aspen, Colorado to save money for its taxpayers. Plus Whatcom County has the advantage that it holds its county level elections during odd-numbered years.

To see how this would work, let's examine the last set of county level elections in Whatcom County. In the August 2007 primary election, 6 jurisdictions in Whatcom County held primaries for one office or another. The County had one County Council seat in the primary, while the City of Bellingham had a primary for the Mayor's race as well as two City Council seats. The bills received by the various jurisdictions are a function of the number of races requiring a primary in the Top 2 system.

The total cost of the election was about $238,600. The costs were allocated amongst the various jurisdictions and the county's bill was $47,866. If Whatcom County county level officials were elected using RCV in 2007, the county's bill for this election would have been $0 because there would have been no primary for county level elections. This would have been a savings of $47,866 for the county.

The amount of potential savings once every two years is a function of the convoluted Top 2 primary system we use. Primaries are held in the odd-numbered years for those races with three or more candidates. This means local jurisdictions incur costs in the primary when "too many candidates" file to run for office. The more offices with "too many candidates" the more the expense. So the City of Bellingham had three races with "too many candidates" so their bill for the August primary was higher than Whatcom County's bill. Potential candidates are placed in the position of costing taxpayers money by running for office and participating in our democracy.

RCV would eliminate this anomaly by folding the primary into the general election. Whatcom County voters would then be placed in the position of welcoming more candidates as more choices in November. The current Top 2 system makes filing week like Russian roulette for the taxpayers of the various jurisdictions. The voters are rooting for more choices and the taxpayers are rooting for no primary. It does not need to be this way. RCV solves this dilemma.

In 2008, Pierce County did not experience this cost savings since all counties in the state of Washington must pay for the federal and state level primaries held in their respective counties. These primaries only occur in even-numbered years. Thus, the county had to pay for the primary despite the fact that there were no county level races happening. Whatcom County is in a far different position than Pierce County in this respect. Interestingly, there are a couple of charter amendments on the Pierce County ballot this year to move county level elections in Pierce County to odd-numbered years similar to how King, Snohomish and Whatcom County handle their elections.

Pierce County spent a significant amount on software provided by its existing elections systems vendor. Pierce County used an extra ballot card for the RCV races with the attendant additional costs for printing and postage. In Aspen, Colorado, the elections department hired an outside consultant to help with the RCV elections. The outside consultant helped the elections department use their existing systems to handle the Top 2 elections and use off-the-shelf optical scanners plus open source software to tabulate the RCV results. The fees charged in Aspen were $7,500 plus expenses. These charges were substantially less than the cost savings associated with eliminating a run-off election. By using a strategy similar to Aspen's approach, Whatcom County could drive down the costs of implementing as compared to Pierce County. In addition, having the odd-numbered year elections would result in substantial cost savings by eliminating the need for a primary for the county level positions.

The Whatcom County situation is such that RCV will save Whatcom County money if it adopts RCV for its county level officials. The voting public would be put in the position of welcoming more candidates rather than dreading the costs. This would strengthen our democracy.

Whatcom County should adopt RCV to elect its county level officials. Once this is accomplished it becomes feasible for other Whatcom County jurisdictions such cities and school districts to use RCV to save money for their taxpayers as well. We are sure that the City of Bellingham would like to have the cost savings without sacrificing candidate participation.

Note: The cost allocation numbers are based on information received from Whatcom County Elections.

Top 2 Threatens Rights of Political Association

Krist Novoselic, Grangemaster for the Grays River Grange #124, writes in the local Grange newsletter about his concerns for the rights of political association under the Grange sponsored Top 2 primary system we are using in the state of Washington right now.

Political parties should have the right to determine who can use their label on the ballot. The Top 2 allows any candidate to say they "prefer" any party. Dino Rossi can "prefer" Democrat and Christine Gregoire can "prefer" Republican. No one can stop them. The Top 2 system will lead candidates to choose the label which they believe will help them get elected. The labels will become worthless. The system will regress into a non-partisan system.

Some people in the Grange want to destroy the parties. Novoselic is not one of those people. He is advocating the overturning of the Top 2 as a way of saving the political parties.