Seattle, WA/Washington, DC – It's up to the U-S Supreme Court to decide how Washington State will run its primary elections. This week, the court heard arguments challenging a primary system that Washington voters approved in 2004. It's known as a "top-two" system, meaning the top two candidates emerge from the primary to face each other in the general election –- even if they're from the same political party.

Becky Cox, president of the League of Women Voters of South King County, says voters may not realize the outcome of the case will affect future political campaigns and, especially, third-party candidates.

"The way the primary is proposed, we feel it would eliminate potential for any party, especially a minority party, to have a place on the ballot."

Political parties large and small have worked together to defeat the top-two primary, saying it's unconstitutional. Voters had approved it because it resembles the earlier, so-called "blanket primary" system that was used in the state. It had been very popular with voters, but also was struck down in court in another lawsuit by political parties.

Today, only one other state, Louisiana, uses the top-two primary system. Cox says this type of primary downplays party affiliation. The League of Women Voters believes that does voters a disservice, because people are familiar with the party system.

"We feel it's a more accurate way for people to identify the positions or the areas of interest and concern of a person, if they know what political party they belong to."

The case the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing is a legal challenge to Initiative 872, which was approved by Washington voters three years ago. The political parties' lawsuits have kept Washington using a third type of primary in the meantime. It is known as a "Montana-style" primary, in which voters must choose a party affiliation at the time they cast their ballots.

The Supreme Court may rule on the constitutionality of the top-two system as early as this fall.




get more stories like this via email

A new report showed turnover among California chief election officials reached 57% in 2022, a record high. It then declined this year to 40%.

Researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles partnered with the Bipartisan Policy Center to analyze the data from 18,000 jurisdictions nationwide.

Rachel Orey, senior associate director of the Elections Project for the Bipartisan Policy Center, said the jobs of election workers have become significantly harder in recent years.

"Today, election officials must manage everything from cybersecurity risks posed by foreign adversaries to people who are doubting the outcome of elections, to information technology, legal disputes, political pressures," Orey outlined.

The turnover rate is defined as the percentage of jurisdictions in a state where the chief local election official changed within the prior four years. It has been an issue in California for decades. The turnover rate stood at 41% back in 2004. But things got much worse after 2020, when election officials became targets of threats and harassment, often spurred by former President Donald Trump's evidence-free claims about a rigged election.

Orey noted she expects this year's presidential election to go smoothly, because dozens of states, including California, have done a lot to "beef up" the elections workforce.

"Sixty-five percent of local election officials have experience running a presidential election," Orey pointed out. "Where there are new officials, we find that they have an average of eight years of experience in an election office. So all in all, we see that election officials are well-prepared to administer the 2024 presidential election."

The report recommended better funding for elections offices, higher salaries and more training in order to attract and retain a highly skilled election workforce.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota's June 11 primary is inching closer and those running for legislative seats are trying to win over voters, including Native American candidates who are part of a movement energized by newly drawn political boundaries.

The organization North Dakota Native Vote said there are seven candidates with Indigenous roots seeking spots in the Legislature. Most are running in District 9, which was recently updated to reflect representation needs for two Native American tribes.

Natasha Gourd, a board member of North Dakota Native Vote, described them as a good mixture of candidates coming from both reservations in the area, with some running as Democrats and others as Republicans.

"We've seen an upturn in participation and just getting leadership development through Native candidates," Gourd observed.

The election wave comes after the state saw 10 Native candidates in legislative races two years ago. For her group, Gourd acknowledged the boost can be tricky because they cannot endorse everyone running. But she noted having greater assurances the areas will be represented by people from their community -- no matter if they have a different stance on certain issues -- is still a positive.

Gourd added trying to build on the momentum is also important for off-reservation districts.

"What they do at the state level, regardless of Native American people in North Dakota (being part of) federally recognized tribes, it does affect us," Gourd pointed out. "Most Natives in North Dakota do live off the reservation, so it does affect our populations."

Gourd stressed they need more Native voices at the state level speaking out about priorities within education, the housing crisis, energy issues and health care. She hopes the positive trends they're seeing inspire more civic participation among other racial and ethnic groups trying to get a seat at the policy table in North Dakota.

A new poll finds a near 20-year low in the number of voters who say they have a high interest in the 2024 election, with a majority saying they hold negative views of both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. A group of Arizona elections officials and experts recently gathered to discuss the growing discontent with the state's current electoral landscape.

Stephen Richer, Maricopa County Recorder, said that if politicians are what he calls "single-minded seekers of re-election," he contends the state should change the political incentive structure.

"And if those incentives will change, then maybe we will be talking about more things in the Arizona Voter's Agenda and less things that are currently right now incentivized by what I still believe to be a minority, but a very passionate, very loud, and a minority that is definitely committed to acting on those issues," he said.

Richer added it is important to remember that despite Independent and unaffiliated voters being able to participate in the July 30th statewide primary, they were excluded from the state's March Presidential Preference Election, and that has caught the eye of some in the state. The bipartisan group Make Elections Fair Arizona is pushing for open primaries, but proponents of closed primaries believe they're crucial to maintaining the integrity of party ideals.

Amanda Burke, executive vice president with the non-partisan, nonprofit organization Center for the Future of Arizona, said more than half of unaffiliated voters do not feel they have leaders or candidates running who speak to the issues and causes they care about. She contends that then translates to who decides to show up at the ballot box and vote, and encourages Arizonans to imagine a different primary system if they want different outcomes.

"Otherwise we are going to continue to have some more outcomes in terms of people who are incentivized to speak to a small percentage of their base on either side who are really not representative of the larger views," she explained.

The Grand Canyon State allows voter-initiated amendments to the state constitution, but the Arizona Require Partisan Primary Elections Amendment would add the state's current primary practice to the state constitution, prohibiting future changes without another constitutional amendment. Make Elections Fair Arizona is still collecting signatures to get its measure on the November ballot.


get more stories like this via email