The State of Washington created a new primary system following a United States Federal Court decision that held their 70 year blanket primary was unconstitutional. Under the new primary system, upheld by the United States Supreme Court today on a 7 - 2 vote, the top two vote gathering candidates, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election.  Candidates may individually choose which party they wish to be designated as on a ballot, without ever having to get the party's blessing. This means a candidate who does not represent the ideas, values, or goals of a party can hold themselves out as a candidate of that party. This primary system also makes it possible to squeeze a party out of the general election all together, allowing two candidates of the same party to be the only choices.

Justice Thomas said overturning Washington's new primary law would be overturning the will of the people. Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna said that political parties would not be harmed since they could publicize their message through other means(i.e. besides their candidates). The majority opinion states that there is no basis to believe the electorate will construe a candidate's "party-preference designation" as the Party's nominated candidate. I believe all of these points have merit when taken out of the context of this case, but miss the mark of what the Washington Primary system really means to voters and political parties.

If a party does not have say over who represents them, that party ceases to have a function. A party's main purpose is to help elect individuals who will implement that party's objectives. If a candidate only need identify with their party of choice without having to subscribe to the party's platform, the political party's purpose has been dissolved.

In one of the best dissenting opinions he has ever written  (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-713.ZD.html) Justice Scalia outlines how this primary system infringes on a political party's "right to associate with the persons whom they choose and to refrain from associating with persons whom they reject." A political party is, as Scalia points out, is an expressive organization that cannot be "compelled to associate with a person whose views the group does not accept" without undermining that organization's message. By allowing a candidate to chose their party preference without any ability on the part of the party to disclaim that candidate, this system will diminish a party's ability to build membership, impair their ability finance candidates of choice, and remove the option of voting for party preference.

The AP Article on this story is here.