NEWS RELEASE

June 10, 2004

--------------------------------

For immediate release

GRANGE CHALLENGES GOVERNOR’S ACTIONS BEFORE SUPREME COURT

The Washington State Grange presented a vigorous oral argument today before the Washington State Supreme Court opposing the Governor’s section veto of the top-two primary from a bill passed by the Legislature this year.

The argument focused on the restrictive title of Engrossed Senate Bill 6453, which would have enacted a qualifying primary in which the top two candidates, regardless of party, would advance to the general election. However, a clause in the bill provided a backup system in the event of successful political party litigation. The Governor vetoed the qualifying primary out of the bill, leaving voters with a nominating system which requires them to select the ballot of only one party at the polls.

“The Governor changed the intent of the legislation, and he abused his veto power,” said Grange President Terry Hunt. “He removed the qualifying primary from a bill that was titled ‘An Act Relating to a Qualifying Primary.’ Our constitution says that he cannot do that.”

Grange Attorney Jim Johnson argued the case before the Court, stating that both the Legislature and Governor knew the difference between a the two primary systems, because the qualifying primary was specifically defined in the bill.

“The Legislature said and still says in the bill that ‘[t]he purpose of a primary held in this state is to qualify candidates to appear on the general election ballot. Primary elections do not function as a procedure to determine the nominees of political parties. Primary election voters are not choosing a party’s nominee,’” said Johnson. “That is in the definition of qualifying primary.”

Johnson concluded his argument by quoting the language of the Court, which had already established a precedent on this issue, in the 1997 Washington Legislature v. Lowry case.

“‘Our Constitution condones neither artful legislative drafting nor crafty gubernatorial vetoes,’” Johnson quoted from the Court’s decision in that case.

“We asked for an expedited review, and we are grateful that the Court has granted us this opportunity,” said Hunt. He indicated that, while he was optimistic about the outcome of the case, the people should still have the final say on this issue.

“The Court seemed very receptive to our arguments,” said Hunt. “But until there is a decision from the Court, we are going to move forward with the ‘People’s Choice’ initiative. I-872 allows the people of this state to make a strong statement as to what kind of primary they really want. We’re in this fight for the long term. We just need to make sure we get enough signatures by the end of June so that the people can be heard.”

I-872 would implement the qualifying primary system originally intended by the Legislature.

####

For more information, contact David Burr, Communications Director, (360) 943-9911.