Washington State Grange: 1 Republicans: 0

[Tman]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-713.pdf

I've been following this b/c my dad lives in washington and is heavy into the grange. He's sick of the caucus crap and really was pulling for this. Interesting point: He's a die hard republican.

Anyway, I don't know if any of you were following this, but I was not getting good vibes when I read the oral arguments last year and when I opened this decision and saw Thomas delivering the opinion, I thought the grange was fucked.

Well, do a gomer pyle ah-shucks, they reversed the lower court's opinion in favor of the grange.

For those of you not following the action, the voters of washington approved a new primary / general election where voters may vote for any person in the primary, and the top two vote counters (regardless of affiliation) are in the general. Also of note is that candidates can say they belong to whichever party they want on the ballot without endorsement from the major party.

Pretty fucking groundbreaking.

Viva la revolution!!

(edit to correct mistake)

[Sarkus]

Both parties opposed the plan. Both parties challenged the plan backed by the Grange. A democratic governor vetoed the grange plan which led to the need for an initiative.

Given how democratic WA state is this benefits them, but don't act like it was only the Republican's that were opposed to this outcome.

[Tman]

The brief is "Washington State Grange vs Washington State Republican Party et al"

I knew a lot of people disagreed with it, including both parties. I'll try & bash the democrats in another post to even it up.

I think this gives us independents hope!

[Aeon221]

Is this what ZZ Top was singing about?

I've always wondered, and I had to wiki what the heck a grange was to understand your post, so I figured I'd ask.

[Sarkus]

Your title was misleading, though. We have enough partisan bashing going on here that we don't need to make it sound like this came down on party lines.

Here's the Seattle Times article on the ruling:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004289949_webprimary18m.html

The whole course of events is funny. For 65 years Washington had a primary system that led to the top candidate from each of the two major party affiliations a place in the general election. But the party's didn't like that it was done with one ballot and wanted people limited to choosing either Democrat or Republican affilitation. So they screwed with this and this is what they got.

It's also interesting to see Clarence Thomas on one side of this issue with Scalia and Kennedy the only dissenters. Which goes to show there is no such thing as a "block" on the Supreme Court that always votes together.

[Sarkus]

Is this what ZZ Top was singing about?

I've always wondered, and I had to wiki what the heck a grange was to understand your post, so I figured I'd ask.

The ZZ Top song was "La Grange" and refers to the town in Texas by that name. The song is more specifically about a long-time whorehouse located there that was also the subject of the "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" theatrical musical and later movie (Burt and Dolly).

[Tman]

It's also interesting to see Clarence Thomas on one side of this issue with Scalia and Kennedy the only dissenters. Which goes to show there is no such thing as a "block" on the Supreme Court that always votes together.

I also liked Robert's response, basically saying Scalia had some points, but they weren't enough to overturn the court's decision.

Honestly, I thought this thing would not get overturned. I was really surprised the ballot didn't kill it. I thought that was a good point that people shouldn't just be able to affiliate themselves to a party w/out that party's consent. It was interesting reading the court's opinion that without a ballot in front of them to judge, they can't assume that voters wouldn't be confused.

It will be interesting to see what the ballot looks like this fall.

[Sarkus]

One thing I like about true conservative Supreme Court justices is that they should do things like this. People get worked up over issues like abortion and gun control, but a true conservative should be kicking a lot of things back to the states to decide. And that's essentially what happened here: the people expressed their will in an initiative and it's hardly the role of the justice system to back contrary views of a political party.

I think we'd be a lot better off if we stopped looking to Washington DC to solve all of our problems and instead looked to our state governments.

[Jason McCullough]

They didn't kick it back to the states to decide, though, technically. They just rejected the claim that it was facially unconstitutional.

[Sarkus]

They didn't kick it back to the states to decide, though, technically. They just rejected the claim that it was facially unconstitutional.

True, but the part of Thomas' decision that is quoted in the Seattle Times article makes it very clear he think's this is a state issue.