Posted at Ballot Access News
Washington state held a “top-two” primary on August 19, at which all voters received the same ballots. Each ballot listed all candidates, with party labels worded “Prefers (such-and-such) Party.”
The Constitution Party candidates for Secretary of State, and for Auditor, each polled over 6%. If this had been the November general election, such showings would have entitled the Constitution Party to become a qualified party, since the law defines “party” to be a group that polled 5% for any statewide race. However, it doesn’t count, since this was just a primary. Furthermore, despite their good showings, the Constitution Party candidates won’t have their names printed on the November ballot, since they didn’t place first or second.
For Secretary of State, Constitution Party member Marilyn Montgomery polled 88,728 votes, or 6.46%. For Auditor, Constitution Party member Glenn Freeman polled 94,148 votes, or 6.89%.
6 responses so far ↓
1 darolew // Oct 3, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Thank you, Sam Reed. /sarcasm
2 Chad // Oct 3, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I didn’t know why you hated Sam Reed so much then I saw his “accomplishments” page.
“When Sam took office in 2001, he set to work on his chief priority to protect voter rights. One of the great victories came earlier this year when the United States Supreme Court reinstated the voter approved, Top Two Primary. ”
How the hell is that even remotely close to any kind of voter’s rights?
I now know one more person that I will not vote for.
3 TN // Oct 3, 2008 at 10:24 pm
“When Sam took office in 2001, he set to work on his chief priority to protect voter rights. One of the great victories came earlier this year when the United States Supreme Court reinstated the voter approved, Top Two Primary. â€
Just to clarify, the Top Two primary was passed by referendum (I-872) in ‘04. Regardless of the efficacy or fairness of the law, the Secretary and A-G do have statutory obligations to defend state laws against court challenge. I might be equally perturbed if Reed cherry-picked the voter initiatives he chose to defend against lawsuits.
In that sense, I think Reed’s bio meant he was “defending voter rights” in the sense that he was generally defending the rights of voters to enact laws through the initiative process (in this case I-872), not necessarily that he personally considered or didn’t consider I-872 to be a hallmark of equitable access legislation. (Notwithstanding, of course, the fact that Reed personally endorsed 872 on the ballot in ‘04. )
4 sunshinebatman // Oct 3, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Top two runoff is a great idea… it of course increases voter rights by giving them two votes rather than one. What doesn’t make sense is to have the 5% ballot acces rule applied ONLY to the runoff race! It should apply to the primary. This law should be changed so it applies to the primary. Hopefully 3rd-party activists there are looking into that.
5 Catholic Trotskyist // Oct 3, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Yes, Sam Reed is a hero, and his greatness should be transformed into him taking over all election management for the entire United States. The top two runoff system does defend voter rights, and if a third party campaign would actually get some support, it could thus get second place and have a real chance. But the fact that it hasn’t proves that third parties other than the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America are a waste of votes.
God bless Sam Reed, god bless the pope, god bless Ted Kennedy. Amen.
6 Brandon H. // Oct 4, 2008 at 11:59 am
So if you make it to the run-off, as long as you hold your opponent to under 95% you are ballot qualified.
Leave a Comment