The following is presented as part of The Columbian’s Opinion content, which offers a point of view in order to provoke thought and debate of civic issues. Opinions represent the viewpoint of the author. Unsigned editorials represent the consensus opinion of The Columbian’s editorial board, which operates independently of the news department.
Some Washington voters might be wondering why, if they just marked and mailed a ballot a month ago, another ballot recently arrived in their mailbox.
The answer is simple, and a bit complicated. Last month’s ballot was mainly a chance to have a say about local taxes. This month’s ballot is a chance to have a say about the nation’s highest office.
Just how much of a say is hard to nail down with any certainty, but probably not huge. It’s the latest iteration of Washington’s decadeslong experiment to improve its place in the presidential nomination process from frequently irrelevant to big-time player.
In 1988, voters forced the Legislature to approve a presidential primary although the Democratic and Republican parties wanted to keep the precinct caucuses system. Primary supporters argued primaries are easier to understand and generate greater participation. Plus, a well-timed primary – or so the theory went – would draw campaign money and the attention of presidential candidates to Washington and its particular issues.
It rarely has worked out that way.
Party leaders – who often viewed the precinct caucuses as a way to excite their most loyal members, recruit new ones and exert some control over the outcome – initially resisted. Because Washington voters don’t register as Democrats, Republicans or independents, party officials said there was no way to be sure that their members were picking their party’s nominee rather than members of the other party creating some mischief by voting for a candidate more likely to lose in November.
After the Legislature enacted the presidential primary initiative, party officials sometimes ignored the results completely and continued to allocate delegates based on caucus results. Other times they split the delegates between the caucus results and the primary results.
To be assured the primary results measured true party support, party officials required voters to signify that they considered themselves a member, at least at the time they marked the ballot. But some voters objected, noting that it was taxpayers, not the parties, paying for the election, so the state sometimes added an “undeclared” option to its presidential primary, and counted those votes separately.
This year, the presidential primary has no option for voters who don’t want to declare a party. The ballot return envelope requires the voter to check a box declaring a “preference” for either the Democratic or Republican party.
Washington’s presidential primary ballots don’t always have an option for uncommitted delegates, but this year state Democratic Party officials decided to include one on its side of the ballot. The GOP side has no such option.
That strategy is one way to signal dissatisfaction with the voters’ current choices, but is likely to face the same problem committed delegates have in the caucus system.
First, the Democratic rules say the votes for any candidate, even “uncommitted,” must be at least 15 percent of the total. But even if they reach the threshold, uncommitted delegates would need to go to the convention in which the leading Democratic candidate – whose name will likely rhyme with “widen” – does not already have a majority of the delegates from all the various primaries and caucuses.
Uncommitted delegates are a strategy left over from the days of smoke-filled rooms and party bosses controlling the conventions. Pundits who apparently long for those “good old days” will work hard to construct a scenario that could lead this year to what’s known as an “open” convention – one in which no candidate has the delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot.
What they probably won’t say is that such a convention hasn’t happened since 1952, back when Elvis was still in high school, the United States was fighting a war in Korea and Marilyn Monroe was just starting to date Joe DiMaggio.
And if you can remember those things happening in 1952, you’re about as old as the likely Democratic and Republican nominees.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
