Krist Novoselic Is Running For Office

Prefers Grange Party

I am running for public office in Wahkiakum county. On the ballot I will state that I Prefer Grange Party.

Voters might not be aware that the Grange is a non-partisan organization that DOES NOT offer candidates for public office. And the Grange may spend time and money to try and make this clear through media communications. However, under state law in Washington, the Grange cannot rebut my party preference on the public ballot – the only place a voter is guaranteed to see my claim.

So How Can This Be?

In May of 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed my right to run as a Grange candidate regardless of what anyone in this venerable organization thinks. I could have chosen other local groups like American Legion, Rotary or Lions Club but Grange suited me best. In fact, I’m also chairman of the Wahkiakum County Democratic Central Committee but people hold the Democratic and Republican parties in such low esteem, I thought I’d and prefer Grange on the ballot to best appeal to voters.

It could be worse – at least I’m not an interloper only out to usurp the good name of the Grange. I was elected Master of the Grays River Grange and am a committed member. I’m also doing this to beat anyone else with the same idea. However, if there were another Grange candidate in the race, it would be up to voters figure out who is their preferred Grange candidate – even though the Grange doesn’t run candidates.

As a strong believer in private association, I oppose the way The State has implemented I-872 – the Grange sponsored Top Two Primary. My problem is not really with a top two runoff election. My issue is with the way candidates can appropriate the name of a private group. 

I-872 opens a can of worms with our First Amendment right of free association. There are complex legal arguments regarding private association and the right to use a group’s name. But I am only exercising my rights under the law and have no obligation to explain complicated legal issues to anyone.

It’s unfortunate that my candidacy might lead some voters to believe that preferring Grange on the ballot is an actual endorsement by the group. Any confusion is not my affair as it is my right as a candidate to prefer Grange party – even if it is at the expense of the good faith of voters and also the members of the organization I choose to name on a ballot.

I’m not the only one who sees the problems with I-872. It’s back on the ground floor of the federal court system – only to face more appeals, more rulings, more motions and more legal wrangling all the way back to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I would like to see I-872 settled. Perhaps the Grange itself could remedy the ongoing lawsuit and offer a solution? Let’s keep the August Primary with the Top Two vote getters advancing to the November general. What’s different is that private groups - like the Grange - or any political party, could keep control over their name. Candidates could also choose to run independent of any association.

With this settlement, voters will still Pick The Person And Not The Party in the primary. By passing I-872 voters only didn’t want to pick a party - there was hardly discussion regarding complex association rights as applied to constitutional law.

If you seek details about the constitutional complexities of I-872, ask its proponents to explain how their parsing of words doesn't really make me a Grange candidate on the public ballot? 

Comments

[Susan Cruver]

Excellent! I am a little d democrat and former chair of the 26th Legislative District Democrats who is considering a move to Wahkiakum County. My family was involved in the Grange Movement in the late 1800's in Eastern WA. I'm pleased to know there is at least one activist with similar politics.

[richard winger]

I applaud Krist's candidacy and his interesting strategy for revealing one flaw in I-872. But I must say, top-two has other bad consequences. Ever since Washington became a state in 1889, there had always been minor party or independent candidates on the ballot in all November elections for Congress or statewide state office, or both. But that all stopped in November 2008. Under "top-two", all minor party and independent candidates were off the November ballot for all congressional and all statewide state offices. So they couldn't campaign after the primary was over. Their voices were muffled, and voters who wanted to vote for them in November could not do so.

[Kwnji Matsumoto]

The reason for the demise of the open primary system can be laid at the feet of Paul Berhent former head of Washington's Democratic Party who thought the people were to stupid to make the right choice.

[Krist Novoselic]

Thanks to all for commenting.

Richard Winger,

I know we’re in agreement with recognizing the obvious associational problems with I-872.

With any kind of realistic settlement proposal, we need to stick closely to the intentions of voters when they passed I-872 in 2004. There was hardly any talk of the significant associational problems created by the initiative during the campaign so I feel my settlement suggestion is appropriate. And there still is a lack of awareness – but that’s changing with my candidacy.

I am aware of the issues with top-two runoffs and I’ve read both your and Steven Hill's analysis of the 2008 election in Washington State.

This “prefers party” concept makes it easy for candidates to latch onto the Republican or Democratic party label. It sends a simple message that gives voters what they’re used to. That could be a reason why these parties dominated the ballot.

But let’s remember – it’s only “prefers party”. I know you and others have issues with the settlement proposal I’m suggesting. But keep in mind, it would force candidates who lack an actual association with a party to find another imprimatur or choose to run independent.

This settlement will actually create opportunities for third party and independent candidates.

For example, in 2008 the Wahkiakum Democrat’s officially nominated candidates to fill two seats on the County Commission.

In one race, there were only two candidates. In both the August and November elections, the official nominee lost to the incumbent Independent.

In the other race, the official nominee failed to make it into the November Top Two. The candidates that advanced were "prefers" Republican and "prefers" Democratic. The “prefers" Democratic Party” candidate ultimately won.

If we had the version of the Top Two I’m proposing in that election, the candidate who ultimately won would have done so as an independent. I’m sure of this because it was an open seat vacated by a twice elected independent.

A similar analogy could be made regarding Seattle’s 36th District race last year. The Democratic nominee (Burbank) lost because voters chose the prefers Democratic Party candidate (Carlyle). Judging by the lopsided results, voters in the 36th District could have very likely elected Carlyle if he were an independent candidate.

Third parties need to run candidates that speak to mainstream voters and they’ll get elected under my proposal. And at least they’ll have their associational rights intact.

[Terry Knudsen]

This is a very interesting situation, filled with unforeseen consequences. Years ago, the Eastern Washington Democrats had no one to run for state senator, and someone suggested that I could run for the position. Eventually, someone in the higher-up section of the state Democratic Party had a different person in mind, and I was ok with that, as running for office will take up more time than anyone really has. However, the Democratic Party higher-up did tell me that even if the Demos didn't support my candidacy, I had the right to run as a Democrat.
The beneficial aspect of this seems to be that if someone thinks their "party" has been overtaken, then one can still keep the party name and ideals going.
The down side is exactly what Krist explained.
A group of people could have their name taken by someone with whom they do not agree, someone who is "piggy-backing" on the group's hard work.
Like all aspects of a free society, this one needs a lot of citizen attention and discussion. All the noisy discussion is the beautiful cacaphony of freedom of speech. Thanks, Krist, for helping to share knowledge about this issue.

[Elizabeth Crump]

I hope this isn't innapropriate of me to post on this site as I'm not a Grange member, but I came across this site after looking up the results of Krist Novoselic running for Country Clerk in Washington. I had read about the story over the summer and found the issue at hand to be quite the conundrum. I was curious as to how things played out, but I couldn't find any information other than the original information about Mr. Novoselic stating that he was running for office. I'd really appreciate it if someone could let me know what happened with all of this.

[Bruce Karney]

According to this article, http://tdn.com/business/local/article_629aaa93-fd6c-5d8e-9db3-bd5b43bfa287.html
Krist withdrew his name after making his point. A sensible thing to do, I believe.