Subject: Re: [EL] a different take on top-two chances in 9th circuit
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 1/13/2011, 1:02 PM
To: "richardwinger@yahoo.com" <richardwinger@yahoo.com>
CC: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Reply-to:
"rick.hasen@lls.edu"

Richard is right.  My view is that the top two is not a party primary, and therefore minor parties have no basis to complain.  In other words, political parties have no right to demand that a state conducts a party primary.  If they did, then nonpartisan primaries used in cities would also be unconstitutional.
Richard and I debated this on the listserv about a year or so ago, so I don't expect to engage in an extended discussion over this again.
Rick

On 1/13/2011 11:42 AM, Richard Winger wrote:
Rick Hasen has pooh-poohed the idea that the 9th circuit might overturn Washington state's top-two system.  His discussion focuses only on the freedom of association problem, and makes no mention of the ballot access problem.

Munro v Socialist Workers Party is the leading US Supreme Court precedent on ballot access, when the barrier to the election itself is running in a prior primary and polling a certain share of the vote.  Munro v Socialist Workers Party said there is no constitutional difference between a petition barrier to the general election ballot, versus a primary vote showing.  And it went on to uphold an old Washington state law that said it is constitutional to require candidates to run in a blanket primary and poll 1% of the vote cast for that office, as a condition of being on the November ballot.

The US Supreme Court has not weighed in on the ballot access problem with top-two primaries.  The March 2008 decision of the US Supreme Court in Washington State Grange v Washington State Republican Party said in footnote eleven that the Court was not deciding the ballot access argument.

The only court that has upheld top-two against the ballot access argument is the US District Court in Washington state.  That court ignored the US Supreme Court language in Munro v SWP which said that there is no distinction between a petition barrier and a vote test barrier in a prior election.  Instead, the US District Court depended on a sentence in Munro v SWP that is dicta.  Justice White said the burden on a candidate who has access to a primary ballot, but not a general election ballot, is "slight."  But the Munro case involved a special US Senate election in which the prior and the general were only 4 weeks apart.  Also that special election was in an odd year, not in the prime campaign season for an even-year national congressional/presidential election.

Rick would probably respond that top-two systems aren't about parties.  I would say to that, that I am not talking about the rights of parties.  Voters have a right to vote for someone in the general election besides the two strongest candidates.  And candidates have a right to run in the general election even if they aren't one of two strongest candidates.  Voters and candidates have rights in the general election, particularly in congressional elections, which Congress has mandated to be held in November.

On the average, a candidate running in top-two or blanket primaries needs 30% of the vote in order to advance to the November election.  30% is way too high a ballot access barrier.  Courts have long ago invalidated all other barriers to the general election that are in excess of 5% of the electorate.

In 2008, the 9th circuit invalidated the Arizona ballot access law for independent candidates, and yet the ballot access barrier under the Washington state top-two system is far, far more stringent than the Arizona law.

_______________________________________________ election-law mailing list election-law@mailman.lls.edu http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine School of Law
rhasen@law.uci.edu

William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org