5 ms·

I feel like most of these changes would require a constitutional amendment.

jack9 9y ago
Why? Federal holiday? Nope. Top-two primaries? Nope. The us constitution doesnt address political parties, currently. Redistricting rules? Nope. Take a look at Article 1, Section 4 of the us constitution and/or https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedu...
- cjensen 9y ago
  Not sure, but under the US Constitution, I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves. So this bill is unenforceable. Both parties like to pass symbolic gestures like this on occasion even though they know it cannot be law. The only restrictions on the states is that they may not do obviously unconstitutional stuff when drawing districts like attempting to disenfranchise a race. Corrections welcome.
  - jack9 9y ago
    > I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves Please participate in the discussion by checking on the relevant sources you're citing. From the US Constitution: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but /the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations/, except as to the Places of chusing Senators The bill is legal by this provision.
    - cjensen 9y ago
      I did check the sources. The line you quote is the wrong line. The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. Further, "how districting is performed" is pretty vague in the original Constitution which I believe means it is left to the states to decide. The 14th Amendment implies that the states must use districts -- before then they could have used a statewide system.
      - jack9 9y ago
        > The line you quote is the wrong line I'm very sure it is not. Article 1, Section 4. > The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. That's not how the law is read (X "topic" is governed by Y statute solely). One section does not provide the guidelines for apportionment, alone. Preceding sections generally override following sections when in doubt, unless explicitly overridden in following sections. Reapportionment has nothing to do with elections, but the result of the elections as it pertains to the composition of Congress in relation to population. There is nothing in regard to this to require a change to the constitution, as an amendment.
baron816 9y ago
We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution. People act like the Constitution we have came down from the heavens in a beam of light. But it was written by a bunch of guys who had never lived in a real democracy before. In fact it was written at a time when there pretty much hadn't been ANY democracies in the whole world for two thousand years. We've had two hundred years of experience and hundreds of iterations of the concept since then, so we have a much better idea of what will work and what won't. It bothers me so much the passion for the Constitution people have. Yet, there is almost universal distain for Congress and the entire political establishment. Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution. Electing different people isn't going to change anything. Ending Gerrymandering (if possible while using districts) would help, but it doesn't go far enough. You would still have a two party system. You would still be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils every time you go to the polls. And a large chunk of the country would always feel that they don't have someone in government representing them. If we want people engaged in government, and to have a government engaged in them, then we need proportional representation in one form or another. Anything else is just a bandaid.
- zeckalpha 9y ago
  The entire constitution could be rewritten through amendment.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    Or we could just have another Constitution. It wouldn't be our second. It would be our third.
- thatswrong0 9y ago
  > We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution. Uh you can achieve that via amendments. And just who is going to write this new Constitution? > Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution. And all of the Supreme Court precedents that have bent the hell out of the document such that it's hardly the same document that it was 200 years ago. States could, if they wanted to, implement proportional representation themselves without having to amend the Constitution. It obviously wouldn't mean that the entirety of Congress is proportional, but it'd be a start.
ccleve 9y ago
Why was this downvoted? Yes, it's likely you would need at least one amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose open primaries on the political parties. See California Democratic Party vs. Jones: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401 This decision has been affirmed more than once, and it makes sense.
- donarb 9y ago
  Although in 2008 the SC upheld Washington state's modified primary system, called the top-two primary. In the top-two primary the two candidates who receive the most votes go head to head in the general election. Candidates no longer are listed on the ballot by party, the candidate states what their party preference is, regardless whether the candidate is the official party candidate or not. The parties are still free to choose a candidate and place them on the ballot, but the ballot does not state that the candidate is the one chosen by the party. The candidate or party can advertise that in campaign literature if they want. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-state-top-two-primary/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules...
- maxerickson 9y ago
  It's not so bad, states can just tell the parties to go eat dirt and have the same requirements for anyone to get on the ballot. In such a system private groups would still be free to endorse a particular candidate. Won't happen, but the problem isn't that primaries are closed, it's that they impact the names that end up on the ballot.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- anarazel 9y ago
  I think you're right that this probably couldn't be done without an amendment, but I don't see how California Democratic Party vs. Jones actually is a strong argument for that. That seems to largely have been a first amendment case, if I understand the opinion correctly. The basic argument being that blanked primary systems forced parties to associate with candidates, which'd in turn be forced speech ("freedom of association"). Isn't the issue more around Article 1 enumerated powers?

Why? Federal holiday? Nope. Top-two primaries? Nope. The us constitution doesnt address political parties, currently. Redistricting rules? Nope. Take a look at Article 1, Section 4 of the us constitution and/or https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedures https://ballotpedia.org/State-by-state_redistricting_procedu...

cjensen 9y ago
Not sure, but under the US Constitution, I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves. So this bill is unenforceable. Both parties like to pass symbolic gestures like this on occasion even though they know it cannot be law. The only restrictions on the states is that they may not do obviously unconstitutional stuff when drawing districts like attempting to disenfranchise a race. Corrections welcome.
- jack9 9y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that the states get to decide this particular matter for themselves Please participate in the discussion by checking on the relevant sources you're citing. From the US Constitution: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but /the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations/, except as to the Places of chusing Senators The bill is legal by this provision.
  - cjensen 9y ago
    I did check the sources. The line you quote is the wrong line. The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. Further, "how districting is performed" is pretty vague in the original Constitution which I believe means it is left to the states to decide. The 14th Amendment implies that the states must use districts -- before then they could have used a statewide system.
    - jack9 9y ago
      > The line you quote is the wrong line I'm very sure it is not. Article 1, Section 4. > The topic of "how apportionment is performed" is a different line. That's not how the law is read (X "topic" is governed by Y statute solely). One section does not provide the guidelines for apportionment, alone. Preceding sections generally override following sections when in doubt, unless explicitly overridden in following sections. Reapportionment has nothing to do with elections, but the result of the elections as it pertains to the composition of Congress in relation to population. There is nothing in regard to this to require a change to the constitution, as an amendment.

baron816 9y ago

We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution. People act like the Constitution we have came down from the heavens in a beam of light. But it was written by a bunch of guys who had never lived in a real democracy before. In fact it was written at a time when there pretty much hadn't been ANY democracies in the whole world for two thousand years. We've had two hundred years of experience and hundreds of iterations of the concept since then, so we have a much better idea of what will work and what won't. It bothers me so much the passion for the Constitution people have. Yet, there is almost universal distain for Congress and the entire political establishment. Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution. Electing different people isn't going to change anything. Ending Gerrymandering (if possible while using districts) would help, but it doesn't go far enough. You would still have a two party system. You would still be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils every time you go to the polls. And a large chunk of the country would always feel that they don't have someone in government representing them. If we want people engaged in government, and to have a government engaged in them, then we need proportional representation in one form or another. Anything else is just a bandaid.

zeckalpha 9y ago
The entire constitution could be rewritten through amendment.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Or we could just have another Constitution. It wouldn't be our second. It would be our third.
thatswrong0 9y ago
> We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution. Uh you can achieve that via amendments. And just who is going to write this new Constitution? > Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution. And all of the Supreme Court precedents that have bent the hell out of the document such that it's hardly the same document that it was 200 years ago. States could, if they wanted to, implement proportional representation themselves without having to amend the Constitution. It obviously wouldn't mean that the entirety of Congress is proportional, but it'd be a start.

ccleve 9y ago

Why was this downvoted? Yes, it's likely you would need at least one amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose open primaries on the political parties. See California Democratic Party vs. Jones: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401 This decision has been affirmed more than once, and it makes sense.

donarb 9y ago
Although in 2008 the SC upheld Washington state's modified primary system, called the top-two primary. In the top-two primary the two candidates who receive the most votes go head to head in the general election. Candidates no longer are listed on the ballot by party, the candidate states what their party preference is, regardless whether the candidate is the official party candidate or not. The parties are still free to choose a candidate and place them on the ballot, but the ballot does not state that the candidate is the one chosen by the party. The candidate or party can advertise that in campaign literature if they want. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-state-top-two-primary/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules...
maxerickson 9y ago
It's not so bad, states can just tell the parties to go eat dirt and have the same requirements for anyone to get on the ballot. In such a system private groups would still be free to endorse a particular candidate. Won't happen, but the problem isn't that primaries are closed, it's that they impact the names that end up on the ballot.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
anarazel 9y ago
I think you're right that this probably couldn't be done without an amendment, but I don't see how California Democratic Party vs. Jones actually is a strong argument for that. That seems to largely have been a first amendment case, if I understand the opinion correctly. The basic argument being that blanked primary systems forced parties to associate with candidates, which'd in turn be forced speech ("freedom of association"). Isn't the issue more around Article 1 enumerated powers?