Nonpartisan blanket primary

A nonpartisan blanket primary is a primary election in which all candidates for the same elected office, regardless of respective political party, run against each other at once, instead of being segregated by political party. It is also known as a jungle primary,[1] or qualifying primary. In most cases there are two winners who advance to the general election, in which case it is called a top-two primary.

Part of the Politics series
Electoral systems
 Politics portal

For the similar election system sometimes referred to as a “jungle primary” used in Louisiana, see Louisiana primary.

The so-called Louisiana primary, actually a general election, is similar with a runoff if no candidate wins a majority in the first round, but differs in that there is no second round if a candidate wins more than half the votes in the first round.

Under the nonpartisan blanket primary system, multiple winners are selected in the primary election and become the contestants in the general election, as in a runoff election, in a two-round system. However, there is no separate party nomination process for candidates before the first round, and political parties are not allowed to whittle down the field using their own internal processes (such as party primaries or conventions). It is entirely possible that multiple candidates of the same political party could advance to the general election.

This system theoretically elects more moderate candidates, as winning could require appealing to voters of both parties in a two-party system.[2][3][4] In contrast, when a primary uses plurality voting, it is susceptible to vote splitting: the more candidates from the same party that run in the primary, the more likely that party is to lose.[4][2][5][6] Research on California's primaries has shown no increase in moderate candidates,[7] and no increase in turnout among nonpartisan voters.[8][3] Some have proposed using other voting systems in the primary to alleviate this problem, such as the Unified Primary based on approval voting,[4][9][10] or selecting five or more via single transferable vote.[11]

The top-two system is used for all primaries in Washington and California except presidential primaries.

Candidate party preference and ballot disclaimer

Because voters can vote in the first round for a candidate from any political party, the nonpartisan blanket primary has been compared to the original blanket primary, which was used in Washington for nearly 65 years[12] and briefly in California. The blanket primary was ruled unconstitutional in 2000 by the Supreme Court of the United States in California Democratic Party v. Jones, as it forced political parties to associate with candidates they did not endorse. The nonpartisan blanket primary disregards party preference in determining the candidates to advance to the general election and for that reason, it has been ruled facially constitutional by the Supreme Court in the 2008 decision Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party.[13]

Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the 2008 decision, stating: "If the ballot is designed in such a manner that no reasonable voter would believe that the candidates listed there are nominees or members of, or otherwise associated with, the parties the candidates claimed to 'prefer', the I–872 primary system would likely pass constitutional muster." Each candidate for partisan office can state a political party that he or she prefers. Ballots also must feature a disclaimer to voters that candidate's preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate.

Subsequent as applied challenges were struck down by lower courts, and on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from Washington Libertarian Party and Washington State Democratic Party. The Washington State Republican Party had earlier dropped out of the appeal process.

Examples

Both Washington and California implement a two-winner nonpartisan blanket primary by plurality vote.

The plan is used in Texas and some other states in special elections but not primaries. A notable example involved former US Senator Phil Gramm, who in 1983 (while a member of the House of Representatives), after switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party, resigned his seat as a Democrat on January 5, ran as a Republican for his own vacancy in a special election held on February 12, and won rather handily.

There have also been efforts in Oregon to pass a similar law, but the Oregon Senate rejected it in May 2007 and it failed in a November 2008 referendum as Measure 65. Oregon voters defeated it again in November 2014 as Measure 90, despite a $2.1 million donation from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a $2.75 million donation from former Enron executive John D. Arnold to support it.[14]

Maryland has explored a top-two primary, erroneously naming it an open primary, such as in 2019 House Bill 26.[15] Testimony was provided by several organizations, including FairVote and Common Cause, and independent constituents, and included statements about Condorcet systems, proportional representation and single transferable vote, and concerns that a top-two rather than top-three or more primary would not supply adequate choice for voters.[16]

Washington state

Washington, along with California and Alaska, had a blanket primary system that allowed every voter to choose a candidate of any party for each position. That kind of system was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) because it forced political parties to endorse candidates against their will.[13]

The Washington State Legislature passed a new primary system in 2004, which would have created a top-two nonpartisan blanket primary system. It provided an open primary as a backup, giving the governor the option to choose. Although Secretary of State Sam Reed advocated the blanket, non-partisan system, on April 1, 2004 the Governor used the line-item veto to activate the Open primary instead. In response, Washington's Initiative 872 was filed on January 8, 2004 by Terry Hunt from the Washington Grange, which proposed to create a nonpartisan blanket primary in that state. The measure passed with 59.8% of the vote (1,632,225 yes votes and 1,095,190 no votes) in 2004.[17] On March 18, 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, that Washington's Initiative 872 was constitutionally permissible. Unlike the earlier blanket primary, it officially disregards party affiliation while allowing candidates to state their party preference. However, the court wanted to wait for more evidence before addressing the chief items in the complaint and remanded the decision to the lower courts.[13]

Starting in the 2008 election, Washington state implemented this Top 2 primary,[18] which applies to federal, state and local elections, but not to presidential elections.[19] There is no voter party registration in Washington, and candidates are not restricted to stating an affiliation with an established major or minor party. The candidate has up to 16 characters to describe on the ballot the party that he or she prefers.[20] Some candidates state a preference for an established major party, such as the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, while others use the ballot to send a message, such as Prefers No New Taxes Party or Prefers Salmon Yoga[21] Party. Since this is a "preference" and not a declaration of party membership, candidates can assert party affiliation without approval of the party itself, or use alternate terms for a given party. Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's 2008 stated preference was for the "GOP Party", although he is a prominent Republican.[22]

Washington state legislature, 14th district, 2010

First Ballot, August 17, 2010[23]

Candidate Party Preference Support Outcome
Norm Johnson Republican 10,129 (44.26%) Runoff
Michele Strobel Republican 8,053 (35.19%) Runoff
Scott Brumback Democratic 4,702 (20.55%) Defeated

Second Ballot November 2, 2010[24]

Candidate Party Preference Support Outcome
Norm Johnson Republican 19,044 (52.5%) Elected
Michele Strobel Republican 17,229 (47.5%) Defeated

In this race a three-way primary led to a two-way race between two members of the same party (Republicans) in the general election. With over 20% of the population voting for the Democrat and neither Republican winning close to a majority in the primary, both of the Republican candidates had to appeal to Democrats and other voters who did not support them in the first round. For example, incumbent Norm Johnson came out in favor of same-sex civil unions, moving to the left of challenger Michele Strobel, who opposed them.[25]

Washington state legislature, 38th district, State Senate, 2010

First Ballot August 17, 2010[26]

Candidate Party Preference Support Outcome
Nick Harper Democratic 7,193 (35.09%) Runoff
Rod Rieger Conservative 6,713 (32.75%) Runoff
Jean Berkey Democratic 6,591 (32.16%) Defeated

Second Ballot November 2, 2010[27]

Candidate Party Preference Support Outcome
Nick Harper Democratic 22,089 (59.73%) Elected
Rod Rieger Conservative 14,892 (40.27%) Defeated

In this heavily Democratic district, Berkey was officially endorsed by the 38th District Democratic Party,[28] but Democratic challenger Nick Harper bankrolled ads for the Republican candidate in an effort to "Squeeze the Middle" and prevent the moderate incumbent Berkey from running in the general election.[29][30] When Berkey placed third in the primary by a margin of 122 votes, the Moxie Media scandal ensued: the state's election watchdog committee unanimously voted to refer the case to the state Attorney General Rob McKenna, who within hours "filed suit, alleging multiple campaign-finance violations."[29] Despite the call of several former state senators to hold another election, the election results were upheld and Berkey was prevented from running in the general election.[29][30] Harper easily won the subsequent uncompetitive runoff election.

Washington state US Senate race, 2010

First Ballot, August 17, 2010 (only top three vote-getters listed)[31]

Candidate Party Preference Support Outcome
Patty Murray Democratic 670,284 (46.22%) Runoff
Dino Rossi Republican 483,305 (33.33%) Runoff
Clint Didier Republican 185,034 (12.76%) Defeated

Second Ballot November 2, 2010[24]

Candidate Party Preference Support Outcome
Patty Murray Democratic 1,314,930 (52.36%) Elected
Dino Rossi Republican 1,196,164 (47.64%) Defeated

In this race, the three leading candidates' competition resulted in a more moderate and popular Republican facing off against the incumbent Democrat, with a relatively close general election. Clint Didier and Dino Rossi were the two main Republicans vying to run against the incumbent Democratic Senator Patty Murray. Rossi had much greater name recognition, had narrowly lost two races for governor, and was favored by the party establishment. Didier, a former tight end for the National Football League's Washington Redskins, had never run for elected office and was endorsed by Tea Party favorites Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. Didier might have been able to win the GOP nomination from Rossi in a closed primary that rewards candidates for appealing to the hardline of their base, but the more moderate Rossi was easily able to defeat Didier in the Top Two primary. While one might expect more Democrats in the Top Two primary to vote tactically for Didier, the Republican candidate who was doing much worse in polls against Murray, most Democrats seemed content voting for Murray. If any tactical voting occurred, it seemed to be on the Republican side, with the vast majority of the Republican voters choosing Rossi, perceived as a more electable candidate. In this case, the Top Two primary resulted in a more moderate Republican candidate running against the Democratic incumbent, and likely a much more competitive race than if the Tea Party candidate had run against Murray.[32]

Washington 4th Congressional District, 2014

The 4th district is a large and predominantly rural district in Central Washington that encompasses numerous counties and is dominated by the Tri-Cities and Yakima areas. Republican Doc Hastings, who represented the 4th district since 1995, retired.[33] The two winners of the top two primary were the Tea Party candidate Clint Didier (endorsed by Ron Paul) and Dan Newhouse, the former Director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture under Christine Gregoire and former State Representative.[34][35] In a close general election, Newhouse prevailed.

Top two primary results[36]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Clint Didier 33,965 31.81
Republican Dan Newhouse 27,326 25.59
Democratic Estakio Beltran 13,062 12.23
Republican Janéa Holmquist Newbry 11,061 10.36
Republican George Cicotte 6,863 6.43
Democratic Tony Sandoval 6,744 6.32
Independent Richard Wright 3,270 3.06
Republican Gavin Seim 2,107 1.97
Independent Josh Ramirez 1,496 1.40
Republican Glen R. Stockwell 547 0.51
Republican Gordon Allen Pross 178 0.17
Republican Kevin Midbust 161 0.15
Total votes 106,780 100.0
General Election - November 4, 2014 [37]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Dan Newhouse 77,772 50.81
Republican Clint Didier 75,307 49.19
Total votes 153,079 100.0
Republican hold

California

California's blanket primary system was ruled unconstitutional in California Democratic Party v. Jones in 2000 because it forced political parties to associate with candidates they did not endorse. Then in 2004, Proposition 62, an initiative to bring the nonpartisan blanket primary to California, failed with only 46% of the vote. However, Proposition 14, a nearly identical piece of legislation, passed on the June 2010 ballot with 53.7% of the vote.[38]

Under Proposition 14, statewide and congressional candidates in California, regardless of party preference, participate in the nonpartisan blanket primary. However, a candidate must prefer the major party on the ballot that they are registered in. After the June primary election, the top two candidates advance to the November general election. That does not affect the presidential primary, local offices, or non-partisan offices such as judges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.[39] The California Secretary of State now calls the system a "Top-Two Primary".[40]

Federal elections

The 2012 general election was the first non-special election in California to use the nonpartisan blanket primary system established by Proposition 14. As a result, eight congressional districts featured general elections with two candidates of the same party: the 15th, 30th, 35th, 40th, 43rd, and 44th with two Democrats, and the 8th and 31st with two Republicans.

In the 2014 general election, eight congressional districts featured general elections with two candidates of the same party: the 17th, 19th, 34th, 35th, 40th, and 44th with two Democrats, and the 4th and 25th with two Republicans.

In the 2016 general election, the U.S. Senate race featured two Democrats running against each other, and seven congressional districts with two Democrats running against each other: the 17th, 29th, 32nd, 34th, 37th, 44th, and 46th. There were no races with two Republicans running against each other.

California 15th Congressional District, 2012

The 15th district is based in the East Bay and includes Hayward and Livermore. Democrat Pete Stark, who represented the 13th district from 1993 to 2013 and its predecessors since 1973, lost reelection here to fellow Democrat Eric Swalwell in the general election after Stark won the primary.

California's 15th congressional district election, 2012
Primary election
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Pete Stark (incumbent) 39,943 42.1
Democratic Eric Swalwell 34,347 36.0
No party preference Christopher "Chris" J. Pareja 20,618 21.7
Total votes 94,908 100.0
General election
Democratic Eric Swalwell 120,388 52.1
Democratic Pete Stark (incumbent) 110,646 47.9
Total votes 231,034 100.0
Democratic hold

Criticism

Critics of the nonpartisan blanket primary object to calling it an open primary, and one judge in California even barred proponents from using the term in their advertisements.

Though the intention is to allow multiple candidates from the majority party to advance to the second round (including, hopefully, one more representative of the broader population), critics note that this can also happen to a minority party when that party runs fewer candidates than another and thus faces less vote-splitting. Under the nonpartisan blanket primary, a party with two candidates and only 41% popular support would beat a party with three candidates and 59% popular support if voters split their votes evenly among candidates for their own party (this could be avoided by using a proportional system such as single transferable vote instead of plurality in the primary). For example, in Washington's 2016 primary for state treasurer, Democrats won a majority of the vote but failed to move on to the general election:

First Ballot, August 2, 2016[41]

Candidate Party Preference Support Outcome
Duane Davidson Republican 322,374 (25.09%) Runoff
Michael Waite Republican 299,766 (23.33%) Runoff
Marko Liias Democratic 261,633 (20.36%) Defeated
John Paul Comerford Democratic 230,904 (17.97%) Defeated
Alec Fisken Democratic 170,117 (13.24%) Defeated

Second Ballot November 8, 2016[42]

Candidate Party Preference Support Outcome
Duane Davidson Republican 1,358,541 (58.28%) Elected
Michael Waite Republican 972,587 (41.72%) Defeated

The nonpartisan aspect means that political parties cannot control which candidates are allowed to use the party name. Partisan primaries allow for one candidate from each party to advance to the general election; no other candidate may use the party name in their campaign.

Political Science Professor Todd Donovan published an article in 2012 for the California Journal of Politics & Policy called "The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?"[43][44] Donovan was the only expert witness in favor of the top-two idea,[45] for the as applied court challenge of Top-Two. His academic paper states, "The partisan structure of Washington's legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system." Donovan concluded, "The aggregate of all this did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary."

In Washington, major parties resorted to an alternate process of party endorsement for partisan legislative and county administrative positions.[46] This ensures that one official party candidate will be in the primary, theoretically reducing the risk of intra-party vote splits. However, the law does not allow nominations or endorsements by interest groups, political action committees, political parties, labor unions, editorial boards, or other private organizations to be printed on the ballot.[47]

The indication of party preference as opposed to party affiliation opens the door for candidates to misrepresent their leanings or otherwise confuse voters. In 2008, a Washington gubernatorial candidate indicated party preference as "G.O.P." instead of Republican. A public poll found that 25% of the public did not know that the two terms mean the same thing.[48]

Further research on California's 2012 jungle primaries suggests that a jungle primary does not tend to lead to large amounts of crossover votes.[49] Most voters who crossed over did so for strategic reasons. Furthermore, there is evidence that having the top 2 candidates from the same party could lead to a drop in voter participation in the second round.

With regards to reducing political polarization, this does not seem to hold true. Due to lack of crossover votes, an extreme candidate from the majority party can still win over a moderate from the other party.[50][51][52][53] Though the intention of the system is to get a moderate from the majority party, this will not happen if there is no moderate, the moderate lacks name recognition, or voters are unsure of which candidate is more moderate.

gollark: Wow.
gollark: - Intel HD Graphics 620 (highly advanced)- Intel Core i5-7200U- cheap 120GB SSD- 8GB of RAM
gollark: Is "thonkpad" better or worse than osmarkslaptop™ 1104™?
gollark: ?urban apioform
gollark: Better than the osmarksßspointers™?

See also

References
  1. Joe Klein. "California’s New Jungle Primary System". Archived May 29, 2016, at the Wayback Machine Time. 15 May 2014. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
  2. "Here's How California's 'Jungle Primary' System Works". Retrieved 2018-06-23. The theory was that candidates would be forced to moderate their appeals to win a broader section of the electorate. ... leading to a November ballot between two candidates from the same party. That would happen if multiple candidates from the same party crowded the ballot, canceling each other out as they divided a finite group of voters
  3. Kousser, Thad. "California's jungle primary sets up polarized governor's race for November". The Conversation. Retrieved 2018-06-23. The idea was that by opening up primaries to all voters, regardless of party, a flood of new centrist voters would arrive. That would give moderate candidates a route to victory .. Candidates did not represent voters any better after the reforms, taking positions just as polarized as they did before the top two. We detected no shift toward the ideological middle.
  4. "The Primary: What Is It Good For?". The Center for Election Science. 2014-08-21. Retrieved 2018-06-23. This approach aims to soften how partisan the winners are. ... support for the middle is divided among three candidates (we call this vote splitting). Plurality's winners are largely determined not by the merit of the candidates, but rather by who else is running.
  5. "Democratic dread: Party tries to keep California's odd election rules from denying them House". Ventura County Star. Retrieved 2018-06-23. If too many candidates from one edge of the political spectrum enter the same race without a clear frontrunner, they risk splitting their side of the vote, canceling each other out, and handing the top two spots to the opposition party.
  6. Rakich, Nathaniel (2018-06-05). "California's Jungle Primary Might Screw Over Both Parties". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2018-06-23. The two Republicans might get 25 percent of the vote apiece, while the Democrats each receive 5 percent.
  7. Kousser, Thad; Phillips, Justin; Shor, Boris (2016). "Reform and Representation: A New Method Applied to Recent Electoral Changes*". Political Science Research and Methods. 6 (4): 809–827. doi:10.1017/psrm.2016.43. ISSN 2049-8470. SSRN 2260083. neither the Citizens Redistricting Commission nor the top-two primary immediately halted the continuing partisan polarization of California's elected lawmakers or their drift away from the average voter
  8. Hill, Seth J.; Kousser, Thad (2015-10-17). "Turning Out Unlikely Voters? A Field Experiment in the Top-Two Primary". Political Behavior. 38 (2): 413–432. doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9319-3. ISSN 0190-9320. Two groups that were predicted by advocates to increase their participation in response to this reform—those registered with third parties or no-party-preference registrants (independents) who were not guaranteed a vote in any party's primary before the move to the top-two—also show declines in turnout
  9. "The Unified Primary: A New Way to Conduct Nonpartisan Elections - IVN.us". IVN.us. 2014-01-03. Retrieved 2018-06-23.
  10. "Different Types of Primary Elections". Independent Voter Project. Retrieved 2018-06-23.
  11. "Nonpartisan Blanket Primaries". Nordic Model USA. Retrieved 2019-01-26.
  12. "History of Blanket Primary". Washington Secretary of State. Retrieved 2012-11-09.
  13. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2010-01-07. Retrieved 2008-03-21.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  14. "Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved December 10, 2014.
  15. "Baltimore City: Ranked Choice Voting and Open Primaries (HB26)". Legiscan. Retrieved 2019-01-26.
  16. "Maryland Ways and Means Committee Hearing #1, 2019". Maryland General Assembly. Retrieved 2019-01-26.
  17. "Ballotpedia".
  18. Washington Secretary of State. "Elections & Voting: Top 2 Primary". Retrieved 17 May 2018.
  19. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-11-03. Retrieved 2010-03-24.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  20. Washington Secretary of State Top-Two FAQ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-04-25. Retrieved 2011-07-02.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  21. It's Called The Salmon Yoga Party: Tri City Herald (June 20, 2008) "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-01-19. Retrieved 2011-11-22.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  22. Republican Dino Rossi can stay "GOP' on gubernatorial ballot: Seattle Times (Sept. 27, 2008) "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2014-03-24. Retrieved 2012-11-12.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  23. Primary election results for Washington state, 2010 Archived November 15, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  24. General election results for Washington state, 2010 Archived January 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  25. "Seattle Times Editorial: Washington's top-two primary gets voters the better choice". The Seattle Times.
  26. Official Washington Results 2010 "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-11-15. Retrieved 2011-11-24.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  27. Official Washington Results "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-01-11. Retrieved 2011-11-24.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  28. p. 12, Line 5 (Sep 17, 2010) PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO STATE OF WASHINGTON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -1CV05-0927 JCC "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2012-10-09.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  29. Seattle Times November 2, 2010 Time for a do-over in the 38th Legislative District's Senate primary "Time for a do-over in the 38th Legislative District's Senate primary". Archived from the original on 2011-01-10. Retrieved 2011-11-24.
  30. Seattle Times August 22, 2010 State Sen. Jean Berkey asks PDC to set aside election results "State Sen. Jean Berkey asks PDC to set aside election results". Archived from the original on 2010-10-08. Retrieved 2011-11-24.
  31. Primary election results for Washington state, 2010 Archived August 21, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  32. "Tri-City Herald: Didier, Rossi primary captures national attention".
  33. "Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) to retire". The Washington Post. February 13, 2014. Retrieved February 13, 2014.
  34. Joel Connelly (February 17, 2014). "Clint Didier, Tea Party ally, is running for Congress". Seattle PI. Retrieved February 19, 2014.
  35. "Yakima Herald Republic | Former State AG Director Newhouse Officially Joins 4th District Race". Archived from the original on 2014-02-21. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
  36. "August 5, 2014 Primary Results". Washington Secretary of State. Retrieved March 5, 2019.
  37. "November 4, 2014 Primary Results". Washington Secretary of State. Retrieved March 5, 2019.
  38. "June 8, 2010, Primary Election Statement of Vote" (PDF). California Secretary of State. 2010-07-16. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 22, 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-21.
  39. "Proposition 14 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst". California Statewide Direct Primary Election, Tuesday, June 8, 2010 Official Voter Information Guide. California Secretary of State. Archived from the original on November 3, 2010. Retrieved 2011-06-09.
  40. "California's Top-Two Primary: What Voters Should Know". California Secretary of State. 2012-05-02. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
  41. Primary election results for Washington state, 2016 Archived September 21, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
  42. General election results for Washington state, 2016 Archived November 18, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
  43. "Donovan, T., 2012. The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington? The California Journal of Politics & Policy, 4(1), pp.1-22". Archived from the original on 2015-03-04. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
  44. Donovan, Todd (2012). "Donovan, T., 2012. The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington? The California Journal of Politics & Policy, 4(1), pp.1-22". California Journal of Politics and Policy. 4: 1–22. doi:10.5070/P2959Z.
  45. NO. CV05-0927-JCC DECLARATION OF JEFFREY T. EVEN IN SUPPORT OF STATE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Sep. 17, 2010)
  46. "Washington State Democratic Party". Archived from the original on October 23, 2010.
  47. Top 2 Primary: FAQs for Candidates "Top 2 Primary: FAQs for Candidates - Elections & Voting - WA Secretary of State". Archived from the original on 2016-11-04. Retrieved 2012-03-20.
  48. The Elway press release to news organizations was reprinted in Mapes, Jeff (2008-08-14). "Washington's current governor's race". Mapes on Politics. The Oregonian. Retrieved 2008-08-20.
  49. Nagler, Jonathan (2015). "Nagler, J., 2015. Voter Behavior in California's Top Two Primary". California Journal of Politics and Policy. 7. doi:10.5070/P2cjpp7125524.
  50. Ahler, Douglas; Citrin, Jack; Lenz, Gabriel S. (2015). "Ahler, Douglas; Citrin, Jack; & Lenz, Gabriel S. (2015). Why Voters May Have Failed to Reward Proximate Candidates in the 2012 Top Two Primary". California Journal of Politics and Policy. 7. doi:10.5070/P2cjpp7125448.
  51. Kousser, Thad (2015). "Kousser, Thad. 2015. "The Top-Two, Take Two: Did Changing the Rules Change the Game in Statewide Contests?" California Journal of Politics and Policy 7 (1): 1–17". California Journal of Politics and Policy. 7. doi:10.5070/P2cjpp7125438.
  52. McGhee, E., Masket, S., Shor, B., Rogers, S. and McCarty, N., 2014. A primary cause of partisanship? Nomination systems and legislator ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), pp.337-351. doi: McGhee, Eric; Masket, Seth; Shor, Boris; Rogers, Steven; McCarty, Nolan (2014). "10.1111/ajps.12070". American Journal of Political Science. 58 (2): 337. doi:10.1111/ajps.12070.
  53. Highton, Benjamin; Huckfeldt, Robert; Hale, Isaac (2016). "Highton, B., Huckfeldt, R. and Hale, I., 2016. Some General Consequences of California's Top-Two Primary System". California Journal of Politics and Policy. 8 (2). doi:10.5070/P2cjpp8230564.

Notes

  1. ^ Senate Bill No. 18
  2. ^ Oregon Senate Bill Votes
  3. ^ SB18 - 2006 Regular Session (Act 560)
  4. ^ Myths vs. Facts: Proposition 62

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.