Locke and party bosses are probably negotiating the prices for each others actions. A delay is not caused by Locke staring at the horizon and trying to decide what is the right thing to do. Delays are due to secret bargaining. If Locke vetoes the section, then what will the parties give him or his favorite candidates? What is in it for him? He is not running for reelection, so he has good leverage on the parties.
Our representatives in Olympia designed bill SB6453 such that Locke could negotiate with the parties over his partial veto. They designed the bill so that the 'Top 2' primary process does not have a chance. Give them credit for intelligence. And political savvy. Those who voted for the bill will claim they tried - and they will be lying.
Not one of them - not one of our 147 elected legislators - has had the courage or integrity to speak out and tell us that the bill is a purposeful fraud on the voters. You only need scroll through the bill (you may need to key in 6453) and scan the sections to see how it is set up. Part One is the 'Top 2' and is numbered 1 thru 57. Part Two is the 'Montana' primary and is numbered 101 thru 205. The governor is expected to veto Part One. Very neat.
If Locke does not veto, then the parties can sue. Read section 101. This section is an invitation to a lawsuit by the parties. Our legislators removed words from the original bill that would have defeated efforts by the parties to overthrow the 'Top 2' primary. Our representatives purposely worded the 'Top 2' primary bill to be defeated in the courts.
Here is the original section 16 that allowed a candidate to avoid using the label 'Democrat' or 'Republican'. I have bolded the important part.
If, as provided in RCW 29A.24.030(3), a court of competent jurisdiction holds that a political party has the right to control the use of its name in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of that subsection, then the following process applies:This section was purposely taken out because it would have prevented a lawsuit by the political parties from overturning the 'Top 2' primary process. The bill was reworded to allow easy legal challenge by the parties. In open session, our legislators spoke openly that they had taken out the "three words" description, thus making the bill subject to a lawsuit. If available, you can check the video tapes. I watched it on ch. 23.
For those offices defined in section 4 of this act, a place for the candidate to submit a description of up to three words that the candidate regards as best approximating his or her own political philosophy. The sole purpose of allowing a candidate to submit a three-word description is to provide to voters information about each candidate's political philosophy, which the voters may consider when casting their votes at a primary or general election. The secretary of state shall adopt rules as necessary for the implementation of this section.
Strange you have to read this here first. Your corporate news media have not told you. Your representatives will tell you they voted for the 'Top 2' system. Your representatives will stumble and slide sideways trying to avoid admitting they knew what they were doing. Those who voted for and against the bill knew they were all participating together in a fraud on the voters. Now you know. They are tinkering with the basics of democracy and trying to avoid accountability.
