(1) "Agency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. "State agency" includes every state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency. "Local agency" includes every county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district, or any office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other local public agency.

       (2) "Authorized committee" means the political committee authorized by a candidate, or by the public official against whom recall charges have been filed, to accept contributions or make expenditures on behalf of the candidate or public official.

       (3) "Ballot proposition" means any "measure" as defined by RCW 29.01.110, or any initiative, recall, or referendum proposition proposed to be submitted to the voters of the state or any municipal corporation, political subdivision, or other voting constituency from and after the time when the proposition has been initially filed with the appropriate election officer of that constituency prior to its circulation for signatures.

       (4) "Benefit" means a commercial, proprietary, financial, economic, or monetary advantage, or the avoidance of a commercial, proprietary, financial, economic, or monetary disadvantage.

       (5) "Bona fide political party" means:

       (a) ((An organization that has filed a valid certificate of nomination with the secretary of state under chapter 29.24 RCW;

       (b))) The governing body of the state organization of a major political party, as defined in RCW 29.01.090, that is the body authorized by the charter or bylaws of the party to exercise authority on behalf of the state party; ((or

       (c))) (b) The county central committee or legislative district committee of a major political party. There may be only one legislative district committee for each party in each legislative district; or

       (c) The governing body of the state organization of a minor political party, the name of which appears on a candidates's declaration of candidacy filed pursuant to RCW 29.15.010.

       (6) "Depository" means a bank designated by a candidate or political committee pursuant to RCW 42.17.050.

       (7) "Treasurer" and "deputy treasurer" mean the individuals appointed by a candidate or political committee, pursuant to RCW 42.17.050, to perform the duties specified in that section.

       (8) "Candidate" means any individual who seeks ((nomination)) qualification for election or election to public office. An individual seeks ((nomination)) qualification or election when he or she first:

       (a) Receives contributions or makes expenditures or reserves space or facilities with intent to promote his or her candidacy for office;

       (b) Announces publicly or files for office;

       (c) Purchases commercial advertising space or broadcast time to promote his or her candidacy; or

       (d) Gives his or her consent to another person to take on behalf of the individual any of the actions in (a) or (c) of this subsection.

       (9) "Caucus political committee" means a political committee organized and maintained by the members of a major political party in the state senate or state house of representatives.

       (10) "Commercial advertiser" means any person who sells the service of communicating messages or producing printed material for broadcast or distribution to the general public or segments of the general public whether through the use of newspapers, magazines, television and radio stations, billboard companies, direct mail advertising companies, printing companies, or otherwise.

       (11) "Commission" means the agency established under RCW 42.17.350.

       (12) "Compensation" unless the context requires a narrower meaning, includes payment in any form for real or personal property or services of any kind: PROVIDED, That for the purpose of compliance with RCW 42.17.241, the term "compensation" shall not include per diem allowances or other payments made by a governmental entity to reimburse a public official for expenses incurred while the official is engaged in the official business of the governmental entity.

       (13) "Continuing political committee" means a political committee that is an organization of continuing existence not established in anticipation of any particular election campaign.

       (14)(a) "Contribution" includes:

       (i) A loan, gift, deposit, subscription, forgiveness of indebtedness, donation, advance, pledge, payment, transfer of funds between political committees, or anything of value, including personal and professional services for less than full consideration;

       (ii) An expenditure made by a person in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a political committee, or their agents;

       (iii) The financing by a person of the dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of broadcast, written, graphic, or other form of political advertising prepared by a candidate, a political committee, or its authorized agent;

       (iv) Sums paid for tickets to fund-raising events such as dinners and parties, except for the actual cost of the consumables furnished at the event.

       (b) "Contribution" does not include:

       (i) Standard interest on money deposited in a political committee's account;

       (ii) Ordinary home hospitality;

       (iii) A contribution received by a candidate or political committee that is returned to the contributor within five business days of the date on which it is received by the candidate or political committee;

       (iv) A news item, feature, commentary, or editorial in a regularly scheduled news medium that is of primary interest to the general public, that is in a news medium controlled by a person whose business is that news medium, and that is not controlled by a candidate or a political committee;

       (v) An internal political communication primarily limited to the members of or contributors to a political party organization or political committee, or to the officers, management staff, or stockholders of a corporation or similar enterprise, or to the members of a labor organization or other membership organization;

       (vi) The rendering of personal services of the sort commonly performed by volunteer campaign workers, or incidental expenses personally incurred by volunteer campaign workers not in excess of fifty dollars personally paid for by the worker. "Volunteer services," for the purposes of this section, means services or labor for which the individual is not compensated by any person;

       (vii) Messages in the form of reader boards, banners, or yard or window signs displayed on a person's own property or property occupied by a person. However, a facility used for such political advertising for which a rental charge is normally made must be reported as an in-kind contribution and counts towards any applicable contribution limit of the person providing the facility;

       (viii) Legal or accounting services rendered to or on behalf of:

       (A) A political party or caucus political committee if the person paying for the services is the regular employer of the person rendering such services; or

       (B) A candidate or an authorized committee if the person paying for the services is the regular employer of the individual rendering the services and if the services are solely for the purpose of ensuring compliance with state election or public disclosure laws.

       (c) Contributions other than money or its equivalent are deemed to have a monetary value equivalent to the fair market value of the contribution. Services or property or rights furnished at less than their fair market value for the purpose of assisting any candidate or political committee are deemed a contribution. Such a contribution must be reported as an in-kind contribution at its fair market value and counts towards any applicable contribution limit of the provider.

       (15) "Elected official" means any person elected at a general or special election to any public office, and any person appointed to fill a vacancy in any such office.

       (16) "Election" includes any primary, general, or special election for public office and any election in which a ballot proposition is submitted to the voters: PROVIDED, That an election in which the qualifications for voting include other than those requirements set forth in Article VI, section 1 (Amendment 63) of the Constitution of the state of Washington shall not be considered an election for purposes of this chapter.

       (17) "Election campaign" means any campaign in support of or in opposition to a candidate for election to public office and any campaign in support of, or in opposition to, a ballot proposition.

       (18) "Election cycle" means the period beginning on the first day of December after the date of the last previous general election for the office that the candidate seeks and ending on November 30th after the next election for the office. In the case of a special election to fill a vacancy in an office, "election cycle" means the period beginning on the day the vacancy occurs and ending on November 30th after the special election.

       (19) "Expenditure" includes a payment, contribution, subscription, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, and includes a contract, promise, or agreement, whether or not legally enforceable, to make an expenditure. The term "expenditure" also includes a promise to pay, a payment, or a transfer of anything of value in exchange for goods, services, property, facilities, or anything of value for the purpose of assisting, benefiting, or honoring any public official or candidate, or assisting in furthering or opposing any election campaign. For the purposes of this chapter, agreements to make expenditures, contracts, and promises to pay may be reported as estimated obligations until actual payment is made. The term "expenditure" shall not include the partial or complete repayment by a candidate or political committee of the principal of a loan, the receipt of which loan has been properly reported.

       (20) "Final report" means the report described as a final report in RCW 42.17.080(2).

       (21) "General election" for purposes of the limitation under RCW 42.17.640 means the election that results in the election of a person to a state office. It does not include a primary.

       (22) "Gift," is as defined in RCW 42.52.010.

       (23) "Immediate family" includes the spouse, dependent children, and other dependent relatives, if living in the household. For the purposes of RCW 42.17.640 through 42.17.790, "immediate family" means an individual's spouse, and child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, stepparent, grandparent, brother, half brother, sister, or half sister of the individual and the spouse of any such person and a child, stepchild, grandchild, parent, stepparent, grandparent, brother, half brother, sister, or half sister of the individual's spouse and the spouse of any such person.

       (24) "Independent expenditure" means an expenditure that has each of the following elements:

       (a) It is made in support of or in opposition to a candidate for office by a person who is not (i) a candidate for that office, (ii) an authorized committee of that candidate for that office, (iii) a person who has received the candidate's encouragement or approval to make the expenditure, if the expenditure pays in whole or in part for political advertising supporting that candidate or promoting the defeat of any other candidate or candidates for that office, or (iv) a person with whom the candidate has collaborated for the purpose of making the expenditure, if the expenditure pays in whole or in part for political advertising supporting that candidate or promoting the defeat of any other candidate or candidates for that office;

       (b) The expenditure pays in whole or in part for political advertising that either specifically names the candidate supported or opposed, or clearly and beyond any doubt identifies the candidate without using the candidate's name; and

       (c) The expenditure, alone or in conjunction with another expenditure or other expenditures of the same person in support of or opposition to that candidate, has a value of five hundred dollars or more. A series of expenditures, each of which is under five hundred dollars, constitutes one independent expenditure if their cumulative value is five hundred dollars or more.

       (25)(a) "Intermediary" means an individual who transmits a contribution to a candidate or committee from another person unless the contribution is from the individual's employer, immediate family as defined for purposes of RCW 42.17.640 through 42.17.790, or an association to which the individual belongs.

       (b) A treasurer or a candidate is not an intermediary for purposes of the committee that the treasurer or candidate serves.

       (c) A professional fund-raiser is not an intermediary if the fund-raiser is compensated for fund-raising services at the usual and customary rate.

       (d) A volunteer hosting a fund-raising event at the individual's home is not an intermediary for purposes of that event.

       (26) "Legislation" means bills, resolutions, motions, amendments, nominations, and other matters pending or proposed in either house of the state legislature, and includes any other matter that may be the subject of action by either house or any committee of the legislature and all bills and resolutions that, having passed both houses, are pending approval by the governor.

       (27) "Lobby" and "lobbying" each mean attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by the legislature of the state of Washington, or the adoption or rejection of any rule, standard, rate, or other legislative enactment of any state agency under the state Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW. Neither "lobby" nor "lobbying" includes an association's or other organization's act of communicating with the members of that association or organization.

       (28) "Lobbyist" includes any person who lobbies either in his or her own or another's behalf.

       (29) "Lobbyist's employer" means the person or persons by whom a lobbyist is employed and all persons by whom he or she is compensated for acting as a lobbyist.

       (30) "Person" includes an individual, partnership, joint venture, public or private corporation, association, federal, state, or local governmental entity or agency however constituted, candidate, committee, political committee, political party, executive committee thereof, or any other organization or group of persons, however organized.

       (31) "Person in interest" means the person who is the subject of a record or any representative designated by that person, except that if that person is under a legal disability, the term "person in interest" means and includes the parent or duly appointed legal representative.

       (32) "Political advertising" includes any advertising displays, newspaper ads, billboards, signs, brochures, articles, tabloids, flyers, letters, radio or television presentations, or other means of mass communication, used for the purpose of appealing, directly or indirectly, for votes or for financial or other support in any election campaign.

       (33) "Political committee" means any person (except a candidate or an individual dealing with his or her own funds or property) having the expectation of receiving contributions or making expenditures in support of, or opposition to, any candidate or any ballot proposition.

       (34) "Primary" for purposes of the limitation under RCW 42.17.640 means the procedure for ((nominating a candidate to state office under chapter 29.18 or 29.21 RCW or any other primary for an election that uses, in large measure, the procedures established in chapter 29.18 or 29.21)) qualifying candidates to the general election ballot under Title 29 RCW.

       (35) "Public office" means any federal, state, county, city, town, school district, port district, special district, or other state political subdivision elective office.

       (36) "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.

       (37) "Recall campaign" means the period of time beginning on the date of the filing of recall charges under RCW 29.82.015 and ending thirty days after the recall election.

       (38) "State legislative office" means the office of a member of the state house of representatives or the office of a member of the state senate.

       (39) "State office" means state legislative office or the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, commissioner of public lands, insurance commissioner, superintendent of public instruction, state auditor, or state treasurer.

       (40) "State official" means a person who holds a state office.

       (41) "Surplus funds" mean, in the case of a political committee or candidate, the balance of contributions that remain in the possession or control of that committee or candidate subsequent to the election for which the contributions were received, and that are in excess of the amount necessary to pay remaining debts incurred by the committee or candidate prior to that election. In the case of a continuing political committee, "surplus funds" mean those contributions remaining in the possession or control of the committee that are in excess of the amount necessary to pay all remaining debts when it makes its final report under RCW 42.17.065.

       (42) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation, including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.

       As used in this chapter, the singular ((shall)) takes the plural and any gender, the other, as the context requires.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 50. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:

       (1) RCW 29.01.160 (September primary) and 1965 c 9 s 29.01.160;

       (2) RCW 29.15.200 (Lapse of election when no filing for single positions--Effect) and 1994 c 223 s 8 & 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 120 s 13;

       (3) RCW 29.18.150 (Vacancies on major party ticket caused by no filing--How filled) and 1990 c 59 s 102, 1977 ex.s. c 329 s 12, & 1965 c 9 s 29.18.150; and

       (4) RCW 29.30.095 (Partisan candidates qualified for general election) and 1990 c 59 s 96.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 51. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:

       (1) RCW 29.24.010 (Definitions--"Convention" and "election jurisdiction") and 1977 ex.s. c 329 s 1 & 1965 c 9 s 29.24.010;

       (2) RCW 29.24.020 (Nomination by convention or write-in--Date for convention--Multiple conventions by single party) and 2001 c 30 s 2, 1989 c 215 s 2, 1977 ex.s. c 329 s 2, & 1965 c 9 s 29.24.020;

       (3) RCW 29.24.025 (Notice of convention) and 1989 c 215 s 1;

       (4) RCW 29.24.030 (Requirements for validity of convention) and 1989 c 215 s 3, 1977 ex.s. c 329 s 3, & 1965 c 9 s 29.24.030;

       (5) RCW 29.24.035 (Nominating petition--Name--Registered voters) and 2001 c 64 s 1, 2001 c 30 s 3, & 1989 c 215 s 5;

       (6) RCW 29.24.040 (Certificate of nomination--Requisites) and 1989 c 215 s 4, 1977 ex.s. c 329 s 4, & 1965 c 9 s 29.24.040;

       (7) RCW 29.24.060 (Certificate of nomination--Checking signatures--Appeal of determination) and 1989 c 215 s 7, 1977 ex.s. c 329 s 6, & 1965 c 9 s 29.24.060;

       (8) RCW 29.24.070 (Declarations of candidacy required, exceptions--Payment of fees) and 1990 c 59 s 103, 1989 c 215 s 8, 1977 ex.s. c 329 s 7, & 1965 c 9 s 29.24.070; and

       (9) RCW 29.24.--- and 2001 c 30 s 4.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 52. RCW 29.24.055 is recodified as a section in chapter 29.19 RCW.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 53. (1) The code reviser shall recaption chapter 29.18 RCW as "Primaries and elections for partisan offices."

       (2) The code reviser shall recaption RCW 29.30.085 as "Candidates qualified for general election."

       (3) The code reviser shall recaption RCW 29.18.200 as "Rights of voters in primary elections."

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 54. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect June 1, 2001.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 55. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected."

REMARKS BY SENATOR HARGROVE

       Senator Hargrove: “Thank you, Mr. President. This is a striking amendment and this is basically the alternative to the underlying bill that has been presented by Senators Snyder and Swecker. We would like to call it the People’s Choice alternative. Some people have called it two forward, others have called it the Louisiana or Cajun. However, it is not exactly like the Louisiana. It is kind of a hybrid. What it would do would be, it would leave our filing process in this state exactly the same as it is now. In other words, you vou can walk in and pay your fee and file and you get on the primary ballot. What it would say would be that the top two vote getters in any primary election would go on to the general election. In rare cases, that could be two Democrats or two Republicans. I think in most cases, it would be a Democrat and a Republican.

       “I guess what I should speak about a little bit is how we got here and what the alternative is. How we got here is that we have had a blanket primary in this state since, I think, 1935. It was passed by an Initiative by the People and I think that the vast majority of our citizens of our state, as I spoke around the building here, the vast majority of our legislators would just as soon leave it the way it is. In fact, we had a number of polls taken that suggest that our citizenry is still in that position. Well, California made that change. California is obviously the eight hundred pound gorilla. The parties went to court and sued and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned our blanket primary. The state of Washington--the Republican and the Democrat parties--still had the opportunity to leave our exiting blanket primary stand. They did not have to strike it down, because it was only overturned in California.

       “In fact, you may remember many of the discussions last summer when I think virtually every elected official, Democrat and Republican went in and said, ‘Please don’t change our blanket primary system--don’t do anything--let it stay as it is--everything will work just fine.’ Well, the parties sued anyway and our primary system is in jeopardy for the same reason that the California primary system is. So, that brings us to the point where we can come up with an alternative. The alternative, in the underlying bill, the Snyder/Swecker bill, would be to put three boxes at the top of the ballot. There is one that says that you check it if you want the Democrats, one if you unaffiliated and one if you are Republican. In our presidential primary, where we have essentially the same choices, over eighty percent of our citizenry checked ‘unaffiliated.’ The parties have already said they were not going to count the unaffiliated votes in these primary elections. They didn’t count them in the presidential primary--two presidential primaries that we had. To their credit, they have not tried to trick us, they have been very clear and they don’t intend on counting them in the future. Now, that doesn’t mean that can’t change. I mean it can change, of course it can change. Of course, there could be a move, there could be full pressure brought on the party to count the unaffiliated voters in the primary. I think that having the presidential primary twice and not counted, having every elected official ask the party, ‘Please do not overturn our blanket primary system,’ and they did anyway. Having them say, every time I have heard them talk about it, that they do not intend on counting those ballots now, is a pretty good track record that it is not likely that those unaffiliated ballots will be counted.

      “Certainly, if that measure passes, we are in a situation where it is totally up to the parties as to whether or not, they will count anybody that checks ‘unaffiliated.’ ‘Unaffiliated, ’ remember, was a an eighty percent check of the citizens of our state. We have a very independent state. In fact, I can’t even remember talking to somebody that hasn’t said, ‘You know I vote for the person, not for the party.’ You know, I think that is a universal thought in our state is that we have very few straight party line voters. So, what we would be doing in making the change in the underlying bill instead of the striking amendment, would be to give the party the opportunity not to count those unaffiliated voters, which I believe they won’t. That is my opinion, but I believe they won’t.

      “In the striking amendment, what we have, is the people’s choice--or the two forward. Basically, you file just as you have filed in the past and the top two vote getters move forward. I think if you look at virtually every election in the state, that would technically be Republic and Democrat, with a few exceptions. Even with a few of those exceptions, I think if you look at it and found it was a contested primary election on one side and maybe the other party was not running very hard in the primary and if they knew they had to get up to the top two, that might change some of those races, also.

      “Really, that is not the issue from my perspective, it is how each of us would turn out in all of this. There is certainly no way to predict at the polls how that is going to happen in any one of these races--who we are going to get as an opponent or how many are going to file and what is going to happen. I think the underlying issue for me to support this amendment is that everybody’s vote will count and certainly after this last fall and the presidential election where despite the outcome of what you thought of the outcome, the controversy over what votes will count and not count has certainly left an indelible imprint on the minds of the people in this nation and other states.

      “I cannot imagine, myself, voting for a bill that would allow votes to not be counted. That is the issue for me--that if we talk to people and read in the press, it seems like partisanship and politics are the dirty words--and bipartisanship and nonpartisanship and working together is what everybody is striving for in this country. If we go to a system where the party can exclude votes in the primary, then we are going to be setting up a situation which is more partisan, is more political, and I believe less likely to solve problems in the long run.

      “One last thing I would like to say in favor of the two-forward or the people’s choice--the striking amendment--which I have sponsored here is that it will not cost us any extra money. It is so similar to the system that we have that the county auditors have said they could do that with what they have. The underlying bill--the Snyder/Swecker bill--the fiscal note is fourteen point three million dollars. That is pretty expensive in order to come up with a system to not count votes. I would suggest that we all vote for the striking amendment and we allow the citizens votes of this state--this very populated, very independent state to continue to count in the primary, so the candidates can come forward that appeal to the great majority of the center, if you will, instead of some very extreme party people that would end up making our system mor political and more partisan and certainly, in my opinion, go to frustrate the will of the people in the election process. I urge your support for the striking amendment.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR KOHL-WELLES

       Senator Kohl-Welles: “Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the striking amendment. And I have to agree with Senator Hargrove that the people, as well as we legislators, would likely prefer to keep our primary system as it is, but we can’t do that. If we do not pass legislation that the Governor would sign, then it will be up to a federal court judge and there’s a very strong likelihood that the parties would prevail and that we would end up with registration by party, closed primary ballots and I don’t believe that that is what most of us would like.

      “Senator Hargrove said that he is in favor of everybody’s vote counting. But who is everybody? In the history of our state, primary elections have a much lower turnout that do elections in the general election in November. In fact, over the past decade or so, the average for primary election turnout is forty percent. For the general election, it is seventy-one percent. So who is everybody? If we have the primary election voters make the determination that two people, two candidates, advance and if they are of the same party, then what are our constituents going to feel when they go to vote in the general election and there are two Republicans only? Or there are two Democrats only? And that there will not be any minor party candidates on the general election ballot unless a minority party candidate is one of only two candidates on the primary election ballot. Minor party candidates can serve a purpose. They contribute to the debate. They contribute to a fuller discussion and deliberation of the issues. Now, when in history have we had two parties, excuse me, two candidates of the same party be the ones to advance? We haven’t. But what would happen, has happened in some critical races. In 1980, John Spellman would not have advanced to the general election for Governor. It would have been two Democrats who would have advanced. Yet, Spellman won for Governor.

       “I would imagine that there would have been Republicans across the state who would have been very unhappy if they had not had a choice in the general election to vote for a Republican. In 1996, if the top two vote getters had advanced for Governor, then the voters of Washington State would only have been able to select from Gary Locke and from Norm Rice. Again, how many Republicans in this state would have been pleased with their choices? Now, we do know that in Louisiana throughout the nineties, the state ranked at the bottom of voter turnout in most elections. And the thought is because there was so little choice and voters just did not turn out because they weren’t interested in voting as they would have if there had been a competitive race.

      “The Elway Poll conducted in March of this year asks a lot of questions. One question posed was would you favor a system in which the two top vote getters would advance even if they were of the same party? Fifty-seven percent indicated they would not favor that. I believe that we need to turn down this striking amendment. We need to give voters choice, but the general election is where that is most critical. The parties have indicated that they would indeed consider counting the unaffiliated voter’s ballots. If they were not to and that is known on the voter pamphlet; it’s known on the parties’ web site; it’s stated at the top of the ballot; and it’s in the campaign; then they would have to pay the price for that. I believe that system would change indeed. I urge you to defeat the striking amendment.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR SWECKER

      “Senator Swecker: “Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to speak reluctantly in opposition to this measure. In a perfect world, I’d like to stay with the blanket primary that we currently have and in the near perfect world, I’d probably would be voting for this amendment as it’s stated. The one outcome that I dread most should this amendment be adopted is that the parties have already indicated that they would be forced to go to a convention system to select their nominees. In a convention system, you simply have a small handful of delegates who determine who the parties’ nominees would be. So, the logic that every vote would count, I think, is a misnomer. In fact, even fewer votes would count than the underlying bill. It’s unfortunate that our blanket primary system wasn’t deemed to be constitutional.

      “You know, I’ve decided I can’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution I want to support and what parts I don’t want to support. I can’t say that I like the second amendment, but I don’t like the first amendment. So, what I think we need to do is come up with a system that observes the constitutional rights of the parties--the people in the parties to affiliate--and to put forward their candidate. The parties really have asked for all kinds of things in their suit before the court, but really this bill only gives them one of the four things that they asked for. But, one thing it gives them is some very limited amount of control over who gets to vote for their candidates. People can still register as Republicans or Democrats or Independents or anybody else. Everybody can get on the ballot. You can choose whether you want to vote for Republicans or Democrats, you don’t have to register. There’s no list published. It’s really a very small, minimal fix to the system that we have today.

      “I have a big concern that if we pass this amendment and then pass the bill, we’re just going to end up going back to court. We have three parties who’ve already said they are going to sue if this bill passes. They’re going to go right to court and try to control who actually gets on the ballot with their party name affiliated, and I’ve heard very good arguments that they will be successful in that. In fact, the Attorney General said that we have one of two things, but we can’t have both. The parties either have to be able to choose who gets on the ballot or they have to be able to choose who votes for them. Now, under this system, they aren’t controlling who gets on--who votes for them--so they definitely will have the chance to control who gets on it. Let’s stay out of court. Let’s vote ‘no’ on this amendment and pass the underlying bill and go home. Thank you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR GARDNER

      Senator Gardner: “Thank you, Mr. President. We actually have two election systems in the state of Washington. We have the even numbered year system and we have the odd numbered year system and it’s only the oddnumbered year system that has been judged unconstitutional and about which we debate today. The even-numbered system is exactly what the striker is all about. In municipal local elections which occur this year, all the candidates’ names will be on the ballot. Anybody who wants to file to run can run. They can say that they’re a Republican; they can say they’re a Democrat; they can say they’re a Libertarian; they can say anything they want to say. The primary election is held and the top two advance to the general election ballot. That is exactly what this striking amendment proposes. This isn’t a Louisiana primary. It isn’t a Cajun primary. This is a Washington State primary. All we’re saying is, we’re going to run our primary elections the same in both years.

      “Now, I understand that there are some questions about whether or not this is constitutional. The Attorney General, when she talked to me and it was in a large group, so I assume others heard it as well as I did, but it’s my understanding that she said she could defend it in court--that she felt that it was legal. So, I’m not concerned about that. It certainly would appear to be legal since we’ve had this kind of primary election for many years now for the locally elected officials, and no one has challenged it. I’m sorry that we have to rely on newspaper reports and polls and the way we judge our own e-mails and hotline calls and letters and people we talk to. I’m sorry we didn’t have the ability to have a public hearing on this issue.

      “Though we’re all trying to make up our minds about what the public wants and how the public feels or what the public supports, but I think that labeling it with another state’s name is a misleading title and we really just need to look at what we’ve been doing in the state of Washington every other year forever. That is that anybody who wants to run for election signs up to run. We have a primary election on which all names appear on the ballot. Anybody can vote for anybody. All the votes are counted and the top two voters--voter getters--move on to the general election. We haven’t been horrified by that process to date. It’s worked. It’s accepted and all we’re saying is that we’re going to extend it to every year.

      “Now, I understand. I understand as a legislator that this may not be popular with my party. I understand that they might even be concerned about my remarks. I understand it’s going to be more difficult for us to do fund raising. I understand it’s going to be more difficult for people who are used to not having a general election. But the focus is not on those of us who run. The focus is on the voters. Iit’s hard for me to stand up and do something that is going to anger some of my colleagues and certainly the people that I’ve worked with over the years, but I have no choice. I have no choice. What the people are saying to me, and I can only judge what the people say to me, is that they want two things. They want to vote for whomever they choose and they want their vote to count. Bottom line. That’s it. This isn’t a Cajun primary. This isn’t a Louisiana primary. This is a Washington primary and all we’re saying is give the people the right to do what they already do every other year--that they can vote for anyone that they choose and that their vote will count. Guaranteed that their vote will count. Not if somebody decides if their vote will count, but guaranteed that their vote will count. I have no choice but to support this striking amendment because this is the only method that delivers. Make our primaries every year the same. It’s worked for us for many, many years and it will work for us in the future. So, I do ask for your support for this striking amendment. Thank you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR CARLSON

      Senator Carlson: “Thank you, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Speaking in support of the striking amendment before us, I am going to refer to this as the Washington voter preference primary and I hope the press will pay attention to the language of this term. Please do not refer to it--to what it is not. It is not Louisiana. It is not Cajun. It is not some system that’s often identified as some corrupt form that possibly may be in some other state. It is the Washington voter preference primary, which is associated with what the citizens have chosen to have for the last sixty years with a great distinction and pride.

      “I’ve had the pleasure of teaching U.S. history and civics in government in this state in the high school for thirty years. As we discussed and talked for thirty years about the blanket primary and how we got the blanket primary and the fact that the citizens of this state could choose whomever they wanted to vote for on the ballot time and again, the huge, large percentage of students said, ‘Why wouldn’t you want to do this?’ This is what freedom is all about. This is what republican form of government gives us a choice to have and that’s what this striker proposes--to allow citizens their choice in making the opportunity of a primary election that will continue to be significant and important and trying to encourage people to vote for their choice.

      “Now, I recognize that indeed the integrity of the system is part of the issues that are being discussed when the auditors recommend the choice on the part of the citizens. Our auditors are proud to have a voting system in this state where the citizens know that there is a responsible choice and option clearly identified and easily identified and we have not had problems that existed in some other states. The selection of the striking amendment provides a continuation of that system. In addition, I’d like to suggest to you that there is an answer to the dilemma of what folks crossing over the vote to vote for Spellman or vote for Locke in past history. Part of the reason they did that is because that they thought that they could vote for a weaker candidate, but the striking amendment we have before us suggests that you better not do that, because you’d better vote for the one that you care most about because your candidate may not get elected if you don’t.               “That’s the weakness of the blanket primary--that those folks who play political games could think that they could vote for the weaker candidate on the other side. The striking amendment says that won’t work anymore cause if you do that, you’re liable to have two from the same party. So therefore, keep your vote on the side that’s going to count and what is going to be very significant in your particular voting election. It is true that you might have folks in a convention system be selected as a party preference, but that does not prevent citizens from registering as a Republican, as a Democrat, as a Libertarian, whatever you like. You have the right to put your name with your party behind that on the ballot and you can vote as you choose, but if we don’t vote for a system that only allows one side, we have taken choice away from the citizens. One of the things that I’m proud about in this state is that we’ve encouraged choice. We’ve encouraged people to make that vote count and be significant for them.

      “The Governor, in an interview, that took place last week indicated that although he had some preferences, he would sign whatever of these two bills the Legislature chose to recommend. So, the fact that whether we choose the primary bill that’s before us or the striking amendment, the Governor has already indicated that he would vote for whatever was put before him.

      “As I’ve read the Elway polls, I see seventy-two to eighty percent of the citizens of this state indicating that they would like to be able to choose for themselves the candidate that they believe in. Sure there may be a preference to one party or the other, but the fact is that many times, because of friends that they’ve talked to, because of individuals that are important to them, they have decided that there is a candidate or a couple of candidates on the other side of their ballot that they think are the best candidates. Are we going to say to our citizens that they cannot vote for what they think is the best? I think we want to encourage the best people to represent us from the primary, as well as in the general election, and I urge your support for the passage of the striking amendment.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR FINKBEINER

      “Senator Finkbeiner: “Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Senate. I think we’re really faced here with a very stark and clear choice between two options. I think to some extent folks have touched on that, but I think to really understand and to really make a decision about which of these two options we wish to go for, we have to stop thinking about ourselves and stop thinking about the one hundred and fifty people here that are elected and start thinking about the six million people in Washington State and start thinking about the people that have the right to vote in a system of government like ours. The most sacred right is the right to vote. There’s an old saying that in a democracy is not the voting that matters, it’s the counting. It is especially applicative here. If we’re going to ask the citizens for the other side of that voting contrast which is do we want to right to take your money? We want to have the right to regulate your business, to regulate the property that you own. Even in the cases of the most heinous crimes, to have the right to decide here in the chamber whether or not we choose people to have people put to death for certain crimes. If we’re going to have that responsibility given to us by the people, I think we have to turn around and look at the rights that those people have--to vote and to have their vote counted.

      “Now, some people might say, ‘Well, you’re getting this confused with a nomination and election. You know, well, this really isn’t the election, really the general election is where it happens.’ You know, I really don’t think that’s the case. Number one, I think--let’s look at what we all call this. We call it the primary election. Have you ever heard anybody refer to it as the primary nominating system? I think not. Number two, I’d say this is the only way that you get to the general. If you control the primary, you control the general, because you don’t get to the general election ballot through any other route except through the primary election, and if we give up the right of some people to have their vote counted in that primary, we’re really giving up their right to select the person they wish to have representing them in that election.

      “Finally, you know, we can all talk about polls and we can all read polls and we can all read different things in the polls, but I think what the people have clearly said, and I think we all understand it, is we want what we’ve got. Okay. The parties took us to court. They don’t want what we’ve got. They want us to give them a bunch of power, but let’s look at between the two of these systems that we have before us today and which one more closely aligns itself with our current primary system. We passed out here for all of you to see a proposal for a sample ballot that you’d get under this underlying bill. You can read through here and unlike our current system, it’s got fine print all over the place. It says, ‘If you selected unaffiliated, then all votes will be tabulated.’ and I can’t even read this--the print’s so small--‘Because neither the Democratic party or Republican party has agreed to allow any affiliated voters to participate in the representative nomination process, votes cast for candidates of those parties will not help nominate the candidates for the general election. Votes cast for minor political parties--independent political candidates, as well as candidates for nonpartisan office and ballot measures aren’t affected by your party affiliation.’ That sounds like warranty language that you get when you go buy something at Sears. You know. That does not sound like clear information that lets you vote and lets you select the person who you want to represent you in that election.

       “Now, contrast that to the system that would be set up with the striker that we are proposing here. You would go into vote; your ballot would look exactly the same; you’d vote exactly the same. Everything would be the same as it has been for sixty-five years. You wouldn’t be confused by the fine print. You wouldn’t have to figure out what the heck was going on--when does my vote count--is it going to count if I vote for a minor party--does it count if I vote for a Democrat or a Republican--all this stuff. We clearly follow what the people have asked for, which is clarity and closest to our voting system. Really, at the end of this, I think we have to choose, who are we representing here? Are we representing the parties’ ability to choose who is going to represent the system--the people of this state? They can still nominate; they can do that now. They can hold conventions; they can do that now. They’ll probably do it no matter what we do, but the question is are we going to give them more control over our elections, or are we going to leave that control to the people? I think this is a great debate for the Senate to have and when it comes down to what we’re going to do, what the people--not the forty-nine of us in this chamber--but what the other six million people of this state would like us to do and I urge your support of this striker.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR CONSTANTINE

      “Senator Constantine: “Thank you, Mr. President. Well, of all the days I’ve spent in the Legislature so far, this one is, in many ways, the most refreshing. This is what I thought being in the Legislature would be like when I was in my eleventh grade social studies class. Here we are. We’re really discussing civics finally. I appreciate all the speeches on both sides. I think they’ve been very clear, very forthright and I think all in the best interests of the people. We all liked the primary election. It was good. It was fair and it got every person in this chamber elected to office and it’s unconstitutional and so we are faced with a pretty clear choice between two computing systems to replace it.

      “It’s stated that the Louisiana system preserves, as much as possible, the blanket primary that we are losing. I would suggest to you that while it may resemble it more in form, it departs in substance a great deal from our current primary system. It departs in substance because it is a fact that there will be few, if any, situations where a minor party candidate appears on the general election ballot. It departs in substance because there will be many districts where in the general election you have your choice between two Republicans or two Democrats. In fact, the first time I ran for the House of Representatives, Mr. President, the forty percent of the voters or thirty-five percent of the voters in my district who generally vote Republican would have been faced with a choice between two Democrats and they would have had to guess which one was the more Republican Democrat. That is not a fair situation for them and the same is true in a Republican-leaning district. It is not fair for my democratic friends in some of your districts to have to choose between two Republicans and guess which one is the more democratic.

      “Elections, Mr. President, should be about ideas. This system with two people moving forward based on their popularity in a primary election forces the candidates to avoid controversial stands and move as quickly towards the center and away from debate as possible. This is why people criticize our electoral system already. They say that we’re devoid of substance--that it’s all glossy brochures and image. This exacerbates that problem. What we want is for people to stand up and say what they believe in and draw a contrast so that at the general election the voters can go in and say, ‘You know, I’m against abortion and I’m in favor of more defense spending and whatever other labels you want to put on it, and I believe that this party represents those values even though I don’t know much about this person.’ Don’t be fooled, nobody in your district knows much about you unless you’ve been around for fifty years. This party represents the things I believe in more and therefore, I’m going to rely on that party label as being able to choose someone who agrees with my beliefs.’ The system represented by the amendment drags us away from that kind of choice. Lincoln once said, ‘For every problem, there’s a solution that is neat and simple and wrong.’ I believe the striking amendment represents just such a solution. I urge you to defeat it.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR SHIN

      “Senator Shin: “Thank you very much, Mr. President and members of the Senate. David Hume Spencer said, ‘When I say democracy is good that means I like democracy.’ I for one--I believe and I like American democracy which I stand for. In the last week and a half, I talked to many of you who came to talk to me about the concern about this legislation. Most of that discussion has been academic, personal conviction and emotional. Therefore, I decided to go to the best primary source. I read in U.S. Constitution from the beginning to the end and also the State Constitution and the amendments. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about one party or one individual shall control the election. It says, ‘In the government of a democracy the power derives from the consent of the people.’ To me that’s the key of the issue--how the power concerns the people. I looked at the two options. One is our primaries. First of all, we try to protect. Let- let me preface my remarks. I like the two-party system because we bring a balance. Balance and checking is what we need in democracy. I like the two-party system because it provides us two philosophical concepts in interpretation and gives us a decision to make and I like that.

      “To review what I like, democracy and the two-party system. In the Cajun primary system which we like to call people’s democracy, you could choose whomever you please. It’s a people’s choice, but at the end--final product--you may end up with two candidates from the same party. I prefer not to do that.

      “I think there’s a very shortcoming there. At the same time, I look at Senate Bill 6183, which says that the party chooses and nominates the candidates. The question is the party people. I’m proud to be what I am and I’m proud of the party members, but at the same time, when you talk about consent of the governed, it has to come from the people. Many of you do not believe in polls and I believe that the polls are oftentimes manufactured results and it depends on what you like and what you vote for. I represent my district. My people, when they have called me, many say that we vote for the people we like. They send me here. I’m here to do my job. What my people say in my district means a lot to me, because I’m here to represent them. Therefore, I’d like to have you support this striking amendment. Thank you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR ROACH

      Senator Roach: “Members of the Senate. First of all, I just wanted to mention something. The underlying bill, Senate Bill 6183, does have something that I like and that has to do with getting rid of the punch card voting. It was brought up earlier in our debate that it would be fourteen million dollars more for the implementation of the underlying bill. The auditors met this morning and reviewed material that was worked out last Friday night and I do not think that fiscal note would be the same after some of the changes that have been made. It’s also true that the amendment that was adopted earlier would require counties to leave the punch card voting aside, which is, if you remember when we came into this legislative session, something that was very important to us all after what happened in the state of Florida. So, I think that would be a good thing. I think the voters of this state would agree that we want to move away from punch card voting.

      “This has been one of the most invigorating, interesting and important issues that the state of Washington has faced this year and in decades, quite frankly. It is extremely important. For the members of the public that might be listening to this debate, truly out of the forty-nine people on this floor today, only about four wanted something other than our current blanket primary. For the last several months, we have been working very hard, first of all, to try to keep what we have; then realizing of course, we can’t. The reason we can’t is not because our current blanket primary system is unconstitutional. It has been misstated even on this floor today. It is not unconstitutional. What the U.S. Supreme Court said was the parties had the right to freely associate. If the parties do not go to court and demand that right, then we can still have a blanket primary. The fact is that they want the right for something that is not unconstitutional--will not be a part of our voting in the future. As we realize that, we move to find something that will satisfy what the U. S. Supreme Court says.

      “I took both of the current measures before us, the striking amendment which is a Washington primary system and the underlying bill, 6183, and put them side by side on a little grid, exactly what we have in front of us. After we worked on these bills for all this time, we found out that both of these bills only require one ballot, that was not the case last week. So we can’t say, ‘Well, one’s more expensive, one’s more complicated,’ because now both of them require just one ballot when a person goes into the polls, they ask for one ballot and they don’t have to declare in either case who it is or what party they’re going to be voting for. Secondly, both of these methods allow for privacy, which was a very important thing for the people. They don’t want parties or anyone knowing how they voted. If, in fact, we adopt either one, we would have privacy, because no list will be kept. Parties won’t have the list. They won’t be given out by auditors and it’s just a good thing that the people have privacy. Parties wouldn’t agree, they would like the names obviously.

      “Both of these particular methods will require or will result in having conventions and that nominees come out of conventions. That is political reality. Once you ring the bell, you can’t unring it. You know, the cat’s out of the bag, doggone it, you’re not going to catch this one. In the Washington primary system that we have now before us as a striking amendment, it will virtually require that the parties have a convention because it is there that there will be a nominating process, it’ll be an election when you go to the ballot. So you will have to have one. Now, while I believe that you will, as a matter of political fact, have one if the underlying bill, 6183, is adopted. You don’t have to have one. The parties can, if they want to, and I would think in smaller counties, particularly, maybe they would want to go ahead and include the public the way we have done in the past where we don’t have to get our nominees out of a convention.

      “But, as practical politics here, each one of us has run races, gone to conventions, been precinct committee officers, all we’ve done, the bottom line here, what we’re arguing about, we can talk about privacy. We can talk about the people having the ability to vote and everything else. The real issue here is power. The parties want power and the only place you can take that power is from the people. We stood together, virtually together, to keep a blanket primary which gave the people that power which was granted to them themselves as they went out and got it with an initiative seventy-five years ago. What we had in California was a situation of strong parties where they would walk the wing, party hats walking the wing saying--’You, Senator, vote yes. You, Senator, you vote no. Because if you don’t do what we say, you’re not going to get our endorsement in the next election.’ You think you want to run for Congress, Senator? Better be watching what the parties are doing in the wings. The people so disliked that, that they looked around the nation and found what we were doing here in Washington State. Washington State has not had that happen. Each one of us know that we stand and vote the conscience of our elected position based on what the people have sent us here to do. California’s system gets challenged and now we are on the verge of having the problems that California tried to escape. This is really, really a crossroads for us in Washington State. In 1992, when we passed Initiative 134, which was a campaign finance reform bill, remember we gave the parties specific abilities to bring in much more money than any other entity--and then turn around and give to candidates. So, two things, the ability to raise and give a lot of money and the ability to define candidates in conventions, give almost total power, not to the people, but to the party. That’s why they’re exerting their constitutional right to have free association. That’s why they decided not to allow the constitutional process of having a blanket primary.

      “But in my grid that I wrote out, I had to also consider political reality, because I think we all know when that little necessity comes around. We have a court that is waiting to make a decision and we’re not the only players in this. We have another House and we have a Governor and we have been, unfortunately, delayed in this process month after month, and hopefully, we can still get something done in time. We have got to send something to the other body that they will in turn send to the Governor, hopefully unamended. If we don’t do that, then the courts will decide and the people in the wings walking with their thumbs going up and down will be delighted. When I put it out on the grid, it was a tough decision because in many ways I could go with both--same outcome in a lot of these things. I will say to you that we must move forward. I do not think the other body will pass the striking amendment before us, so reluctantly, because I don’t have any real

complaints against either, but I believe we need to go with what’s going to pass or find ourselves collectively in a real mess. So, I would urge you to defeat the amendment.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR KLINE

      “Senator Kline: “Thank you, Mr. President and members. Mr. President, I hope we’re prepared to pay more than lip service to the notion that the major function of an election is not simply to allocate power, but to bring people to the polls, to activate the public intelligence, to have a controversy and have a way ultimately in November of resolving that controversy, that raises the level of public discourse and makes people proud to be Americans and Washingtonians. If we’re prepared to simply to pay more than lip service to that, I think we need to reject the striking amendment. Minor parties are an integral part of that greater higher level of public discourse than we are.

      “Between the two of us, Republicans and Democrats, we can sometimes be Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It’s not just people at the political fringes to whom that appears to be true. Quite a few people--responsible members of our communities--who consider themselves Libertarians, perhaps in your district, Greens in mine, who feel that we Democrats and Republicans are somehow so intertwined and so interdependent, we’ve become indistinguishable from one another. Those small parties lose out in this Louisiana-style primary. Neither of the Greens nor the Libertarians are ever going to find themselves in a general election in November in this state under the system set out in the striking amendment. It’s less likely than I would prefer to be true even under the underlying bill. I’m not going to tell you that the underlying bill increases that, but it certainly does not freeze out our friends from the left and right the way the striking amendment does. I urge you reject this. Let’s raise the level of discourse. Let’s prevent ourselves from becoming even more Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Let’s vote no. Thank you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR HALE

      “Senator Hale: “Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen. You know we’ve had a very healthy debate here today and there are a lot of elements and a lot of complexities to this issue, but the bottom line is very simple. The bottom line is what the people are talking to us about and it is the freedom to vote for whomever we choose. I strongly support the striking amendment, because the underlying bill does not do it. It does not allow you to vote. Oh, you can vote for whomever you choose, but you know your vote won’t count if you vote for someone other than the stated party.

      “You know, this is the time when politicians are not held in very high regard. We’re seen as pursuing our own ends, our own self interest and making ourselves look good rather than looking out for the people. I can think of no greater way to raise public outrage than to have over half of the electorate pass the vote for an individual candidate fully knowing, or maybe not realizing, that their vote simply won’t count. The parties have been very clear about their intention to disregard votes cast for people other than their own party. It’s very basic. The decision is very simple. It’s the right to vote for whomever you choose. I urge your support for the striking amendment.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR HORN

      Senator Horn: “Thank you very much, Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. The people who are supporting the striking amendment would have you believe that we should vote for to maintain our choices to keep the system most like what we have today, the blanket primary, which many people want to do. Do not be mislead, because that system that would give you choices in the primary would be at what price? It would rob you of your choices in the general. And which is the election that really counts? The primary election or the general election that elects you to the office. How many districts would you have where you would have two Republicans or two Democrats running for the office? So, as people would have you believe that preserving the choices is the primary, is the key thing, is it worth the price of robbing you of your choices in the general.

      “If you look at the course of action that would follow through, as you would have two people--two Republicans running in the general or two Democrats--it would lead to confusion of the people and lead to the position with the real Republican or the real Democrat please stand up. That, in turn, would lead the parties from taking a position and say, ‘We must elect our delegate in a caucus situation so we can identify which is the real Republican or which is the real Democrat.’ Once that happens, you now have not only lost your choices in the general, but you have also lost your choices in the primary. So, this ideal that you vote for the striking amendment, because it preserves your choices is bringing you down a path that robs you of that very thing.

      “Now, the underlying bill which is 6183 is a bill that gives you the choices. You can go to the polls, vote as a Republican, vote as a Democrat or vote as a non-identified individual. It still gives the choices of people to register for the party as much as they do today and it ensures that the greatest number of people, not a caucus, would be selecting the candidate that advances to the general. Then it ensures that when you go to that general, that you would have those choices of voting for a Republican or a Democrat. I believe in the two-party system, because I think that’s what has made America great. It means that it’s okay to talk about the opposing viewpoint. It’s okay to be the loyal minority, so the people can hear the argument for and a credible argument against. I think that’s a very important thing that has made America great and made our state of Washington great.

      “So, I think that, true, it’s very, very concerning to have a system that allows the parties to get so strong that they dictate who votes for what. It’s also very concerning about having a situation that have parties so weak that they are nonfunctional. I think the underlying bill, 6183, brings that balance to that situation. I think the striking amendment is far from keeping your choices, robs you of your choices and as the Elway poll showed, that when they look at it, fifty-seven percent of the people opposed a situation that would have you voting for two Democrats or two Republicans in the general election. Why do we want to pattern a system after the Louisiana primary? Is that the great system that has a great turnout--that great system that gave us David Duke running as a Republican? No, I don’t think that’s a system that we want to pattern our great state of Washington after. I would recommend that you vote against the striking amendment.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR JACOBSEN

      Senator Jacobsen: “Thank you, Mr. President. I’m going to ask you to vote down the amendment and first, of course, I can say because of constitutional reasons. Everybody has the right of freedom of association and I think to show the irony of the situation and the frustrations of a party--the Libertarian Party--they want to elect a candidate that shares their philosophy and espouses at the polls. On that system, they might not be on the polls, they might not make it past. But two, and more importantly, after we get done picking, they might not have a true Libertarian, but somebody that reflects the views of the Democrats or the Republicans.

      “The only other thing I want to relate to you, and I like to read history, and I have a handout on your desk here. It’s from Battle Cry of Freedom. It’s by James M. McPherson. I read this many, many years ago, but I set this book aside and this chapter because I have never looked at it this way before. It’s roughly one chapter looking at the elections in the middle of the Civil War and both the North and the South had to go to elections. McPherson observes here that the South prided themselves on the fact that they didn’t have parties--didn’t have parties. He wrote, ‘Now, looking back with hindsight, most historians now recognize the absence of party was actually a source of weakness. In the North, the two-party system disciplined and channeled political activities. The Republican party became the means for mobilizing war resources, raising taxes, creating a new financial system, initiating emancipation and enacting conscription. Democrats opposed most of these measures, the existence of this well defined opposition caused the Republicans to close ranks when the chips were down. Because measures were supported or opposed by parties, voters could identify those responsible for them and register their approval or disapproval at the polls by voting the party ticket. Both parties, of course, used their well-oiled machinery to rally voters to their side. In the Confederacy by contrast, the Davis administration had no such means to mobilize support. No parties meant no institutional discipline over Congress and their governors. Opposition to the Davis administration, became personal or factional and therefore difficult to deal with.’ Then he closes with one last point here. I’m not going to read the rest of it, but in the South, opposition candidates ran on individual rather than a party basis, and the government could not muster political artillery to shoot at all these scattered targets.

      “I think here a lot of times our voters experience this frustration over and over again. I’ve had people comment to me all the time. Your party sure does pick bad candidates and I have to point out to them that we didn’t pick our candidates. The voters picked the candidates and sometimes I agree with the gentlemen from Mercer Island, we need a clear choice. There’s a majority and a minority role in this thing and we should be proud of the role we play in either position. This is going to give our voters a chance in the general election to pick the direction they want to go and I urge everybody to reject this amendment and vote for the underlying bill. Thank you.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR PRENTICE

      Senator Prentice: “Thank you, Mr. President. As one of the people whose name was on the lawsuit, I feel an obligation simply to explain for a moment why we chose to do what we did and I think I also need to ask, as we are referring to the parties, I think we need to ask ourselves who are we talking about? The parties are just made up of people who have chosen to be active on behalf of a political party. It has never been our option simply to get the party leaders to change their minds. I can tell you that was not possible. What we were reacting to was the very clear seven to two decision of the United States Supreme Court, and they simply said the parties have the right to decide who runs as their candidate.

      “Some of the arguments that were made and as we’re hearing that that did not apply to the state of Washington, our Secretary of State at that time filed an amicus brief and someone was sent from this state, Gary McIntosh, who made the argument that the current system results in our having more centrist candidates. ‘Well it’s pretty clear,’ the Supreme Court said, ‘ It’s not the business of the government to decide which philosophies are going to be represented.’ We keep hearing that this is an unpopular move. Well, I guess if I were to base it on that, I remember in the sixties, when the United States Supreme Court struck down segregation laws. If you’d had polls, if you’d had elections, the result would have been the people didn’t want to change. Many of us who were adults at that time remember that it was a very difficult change, but a change nevertheless.

      “I’m wondering is it really so that having this current system puts us in a better position to solve problems than another that’s been proposed. I guess I’d have to ask today as we’re in special session, ‘Are we really doing so well in solving those problems?’ Change might aggravate you. Everyone of us--there isn’t a single one of us sitting here who didn’t immediately think what it will mean in my race? We all thought that. I also remember in my last election and the election before that in ‘96, there was a Democrat in the primary who was recruited by some local Republicans, not our friends here, who sent out a mailing calling himself a Reagan Democrat, sending it out to Republicans. Now, I’ve maintained that that’s a dishonest system that we’ve had, but people tell me, ‘Oh well, it didn’t hurt you.’ That isn’t really the point. The point is that it was a dishonest move for someone to pretend he was a Democrat when he really wasn’t. Luckily, for me, maybe not for you, but people rejected that by a seven to two decision. It wasn’t even close. The Supreme Court came down on the side that the parties have the right to decide who runs as their candidate. I would say, ‘Okay, the jig is up.’ It’s time to make the decisions. Please reject the amendment.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR HOCHSTATTER

      Senator Hochstatter: “Thank you, Mr. President. I feel like the woman who was taking a medication that only had side effects. This is perfect legislation because nobody’s going to get what they want. I support this particular piece of legislation. If we deny or if it turns out that there are two people of the same party on the ballot, that is not a mess of our making, is it? The voters did that. Yeah, we give them the opportunity to do that. But they did it, but we didn’t cause it. I would like--I don’t see why we have to break this in the first place. I’d like to see the courts break it. We mentioned about constitutionality. I don’t think the courts ever observed constitutionality. How can a judge come in here and change our law? The threat is, ‘Well, if you don’t do something, the federal judge will come in here and give you a system that you don’t want.’

      “The Constitution--our State Constitution says there will be no law except that it is a bill. Is a judge going to run against Senator Kline and Senator Sheahan and then come down here and do our job? Boy, that really gets under my hide. I think that if the court and the parties would appear on the ballot, they’d both lose. Four good reasons to support this and then I’m done. First of all, privacy of the ballots. Secondly, the broadest, broadest possible choice. Thirdly, no votes thrown out and fourthly, $14 million is going to have to be wrung out of the hide of the counties. Don’t do that. This amendment, if you support this amendment, that will not happen. Lastly, and I’m pained to say it, tinkering with the system will not keep us free. The people don’t really care if they don’t turn out. If they don’t care about the direction of their country, it’s over anyway. Thank you for listening to me.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR HARGROVE

      Senator Hargrove: “Thank you, Mr. President. Hopefully to close now. This has been a great debate and frankly, I think it’s been very civil on all sides. I wanted to just clear up a couple of things that I’ve heard. There was some mention made about if you want to stay out of court, you know, vote for the underlying bill. We’re already in court, so there’s no staying out of court. The AG has given me a memo here saying that this striking amendment, in their opinion, would be constitutional, so that should take care of that.

      “The other thing that I’d like to say is the Governor, in a press conference, said he would sign whatever got to his desk. So, it’s not like the Governor’s holding a veto pen over the striking amendment. Our Secretary of State and many of our auditors support the striking amendment because of its clarity and because of the simplicity and because of the lack of cost--fourteen million dollars--to try to change our system over. I don’t think we can predict what the House is going to do. In my private conversations with some of the powers to be over there, they have said, ‘Send us the bill and we’ll work on it. It’s not dead on arrival in any form. It’s not alive in any form,’ so I don’t think we can base our votes on that.

      “I guess the bottom line here, again, is do you want people’s votes to count or do you want to have a ballot out there where somebody can check an unaffiliated box and their votes all count? They will be counted, but they won’t count. That’s the bottom line for me. Certainly, rural Democrats and urban Democrats and rural Republicans and urban Republicans--I mean--we all fit under those tents somehow and yet we’re quite different, you know. Some of my closest friends over here on this side are some of the most liberal--I’m looking at Senator Fairley--and some of the most conservative on this side, you know, like Senator Hochstatter and Stevens. I think we have a fine mix and fine debate and fine controversy and fine-- not all getting upset at each other as it is. I think that the striking amendment will preserve that and I would urge your support.”

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the adoption of the striking amendment by Senators Hargrove and Finkbeiner to Senate Bill No. 6183.

      Senator Hargrove demanded a roll call and the demand was sustained.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the adoption of the striking amendment by Senators Hargrove and Finkbeiner to Senate Bill No. 6183.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the striking amendment was adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 27; Nays, 22; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

     Voting yea: Senators Benton, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Patterson, Rasmussen, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Shin, Stevens, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 27.

     Voting nay: Senators Brown, Constantine, Eide, Franklin, Fraser, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McDonald, Prentice, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheldon, B., Snyder, Spanel, Swecker and Thibaudeau - 22.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Hargrove, the following title amendment was adopted:

       On line 1 of the title, after "primaries;" strike the remainder of the title and insert "amending RCW 29.30.085, 29.01.090, 29.01.130, 29.04.180, 29.04.190, 29.13.070, 29.15.010, 29.15.025, 29.15.040, 29.15.050, 29.15.060, 29.15.070, 29.15.080, 29.15.150, 29.15.160, 29.15.170, 29.15.190, 29.15.210, 29.15.220, 29.18.010, 29.18.160, 29.27.020, 29.27.050, 29.27.080, 29.27.090, 29.30.005, 29.30.020, 29.30.101, 29.42.010, 29.42.020, 29.42.050, 29.62.010, 29.62.180, 29.64.010, 29.64.015, 29.64.030, 29.64.040, 29.64.060, 29.68.080, 29.68.130, 29.71.020, 29.81.220, 29.85.100, and 42.17.020; amending 2001 c ... (SB 5275) s 17; adding a new section to chapter 29.07 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 29.18 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 29.01 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 29.15 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 29.19 RCW; recodifying RCW 29.24.055; repealing RCW 29.01.160, 29.15.200, 29.18.150, 29.30.095, 29.24.010, 29.24.020, 29.24.025, 29.24.030, 29.24.035, 29.24.040, 29.24.060, 29.24.070, and 29.24.---; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency."

      On motion of Senator Hargrove, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6183 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 30; Nays, 19; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

     Voting yea: Senators Benton, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Johnson, Kastama, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Patterson, Rasmussen, Roach, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Shin, Stevens, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 30.

     Voting nay: Senators Brown, Constantine, Eide, Franklin, Fraser, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McDonald, Prentice, Regala, Rossi, Sheldon, B., Snyder, Spanel, Swecker and Thibaudeau - 19.

      ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 6183, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

MOTION

      At 3:02 p.m., on motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate adjourned until 12:00 noon, Tuesday, May 15, 2001.

BRAD OWEN, President of the Senate

TONY M. COOK, Secretary of the Senate