View source for Nonpartisan primary

{{Short description|Top-two primary election}}
{{Redirect-distinguish|Jungle primary|Louisiana primary}}
{{Electoral systems|expanded=Single-winner}}
A '''nonpartisan primary''', '''top-two primary''',<ref>{{Cite web |last=Francis |first=Mary |date=2020-12-28 |title=A Top-Four Primary Would Give Voters More Choices |url=https://www.sightline.org/2020/12/28/a-top-four-primary-would-give-voters-more-choices/ |access-date=2021-03-31 |website=Sightline Institute |language=en-US}}</ref> or '''jungle primary'''<ref>Joe Klein. [https://time.com/100556/the-jungle-primary/ "California’s New Jungle Primary System".]  ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]''. 15 May 2014. Retrieved 5 November 2014.</ref>  is a primary election in which all candidates for the same elected office run against each other at once, regardless of political party. This distinguishes them from partisan primaries, which are segregated by political party. This is the first round of a [[two-round system]]. As opposed to most two-round systems, the "first round" is a [[Primary election|primary]] held ''before'' Election Day, and the "second round" is not optional (most two-round systems skip the second round if the winner of the first one gets more than 50%). A two-round system where the first round is held on Election Day is known in the US as ''runoff voting'' or ''top-two runoff''.

Advocates claim two-round systems will elect more [[Political moderate|moderate]] candidates, as members of a minority party could vote for a more moderate candidate from the majority party,<ref name=":02">{{cite news |last1=Nagourney |first1=Adam |date=24 May 2018 |title=Here's How California's 'Jungle Primary' System Works |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/california-primary-election-rules-system.html |access-date=2018-06-23 |newspaper=The New York Times |quote=The theory was that candidates would be forced to moderate their appeals to win a broader section of the electorate. ... leading to a November ballot between two candidates from the same party. That would happen if multiple candidates from the same party crowded the ballot, canceling each other out as they divided a finite group of voters}}</ref><ref name=":22">{{cite news |last=Kousser |first=Thad |title=California's jungle primary sets up polarized governor's race for November |url=https://theconversation.com/californias-jungle-primary-sets-up-polarized-governors-race-for-november-97772 |access-date=2018-06-23 |work=The Conversation |quote=The idea was that by opening up primaries to all voters, regardless of party, a flood of new centrist voters would arrive. That would give moderate candidates a route to victory .. Candidates did not represent voters any better after the reforms, taking positions just as polarized as they did before the top two. We detected no shift toward the ideological middle.}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{cite news |date=2014-08-21 |title=The Primary: What Is It Good For? |url=https://electology.org/blog/primary-what-is-it-good-for |access-date=2018-06-23 |work=The Center for Election Science |quote=This approach aims to soften how partisan the winners are. ... support for the middle is divided among three candidates (we call this vote-splitting). Plurality's winners are largely determined not by the merit of the candidates, but rather by who else is running.}}</ref> with some [[Political science|political scientists]] expressing similar views. However, empirical research on the system have found no effect on candidate moderation<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kousser |first1=Thad |last2=Phillips |first2=Justin |last3=Shor |first3=Boris |date=2016 |title=Reform and Representation: A New Method Applied to Recent Electoral Changes* |journal=Political Science Research and Methods |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=809–827 |doi=10.1017/psrm.2016.43 |issn=2049-8470 |ssrn=2260083 |quote=neither the Citizens Redistricting Commission nor the top-two primary immediately halted the continuing partisan polarization of California's elected lawmakers or their drift away from the average voter |doi-access=free}}</ref> or turnout among independent voters.<ref name=":22" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hill |first1=Seth J. |last2=Kousser |first2=Thad |date=2015-10-17 |title=Turning Out Unlikely Voters? A Field Experiment in the Top-Two Primary |url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/86v1k0v3 |journal=Political Behavior |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=413–432 |doi=10.1007/s11109-015-9319-3 |issn=0190-9320 |s2cid=54541384 |quote=Two groups that were predicted by advocates to increase their participation in response to this reform—those registered with third parties or ''no-party-preference'' registrants (independents) who were not guaranteed a vote in any party's primary before the move to the top-two—also show declines in turnout}}</ref> A first round with only two winners is also susceptible to [[vote-splitting]]: the more candidates from the same party run in the primary, the more likely that party is to lose.<ref name=":02" /><ref>{{cite news |title=Democratic dread: Party tries to keep California's odd election rules from denying them House |url=https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/2018/05/19/californias-odd-primary-election-rules-worry-democrats-house-representatives/626273002/ |access-date=2018-06-23 |work=Ventura County Star |quote=If too many candidates from one edge of the political spectrum enter the same race without a clear frontrunner, they risk splitting their side of the vote, canceling each other out, and handing the top two spots to the opposition party.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Rakich |first=Nathaniel |date=2018-06-05 |title=California's Jungle Primary Might Screw Over Both Parties |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/californias-jungle-primary-might-screw-over-both-parties/ |access-date=2018-06-23 |work=FiveThirtyEight |language=en-US |quote=The two Republicans might get 25 percent of the vote apiece, while the Democrats each receive 5 percent.}}</ref>

The top-two system is used for all primaries in [[Washington (state)|Washington]] and [[California]] (except presidential primaries). [[Alaska]] has used a highly-similar top-four primary with a [[Instant-runoff voting|ranked-choice runoff]] since the [[2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election|2022 House special election]].

==Candidate party preference and ballot disclaimer==
The nonpartisan (jungle) primary is different from the partisan [[blanket primary]]. They are similar in that voters can vote in the first round for a candidate from any political party. The partisan blanket primary was used in Washington for nearly 65 years<ref>{{cite web|title=History of Blanket Primary|url=http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/bp_history.aspx|publisher=Washington Secretary of State|access-date=2012-11-09}}</ref> and briefly in California. However, the blanket primary was ruled unconstitutional in 2000 by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in ''[[California Democratic Party v. Jones]]'', as it forced political parties to associate with candidates they did not endorse. The nonpartisan (jungle) primary disregards party preference in determining the candidates to advance to the [[general election]], and for that reason, it was ruled ''[[facial challenge|facially]]'' constitutional by the Supreme Court in the 2008 decision ''Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party''.<ref name="scotusblog.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/06-713.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2008-03-21 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100107040250/http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/06-713.pdf |archive-date=2010-01-07 }}</ref>

Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] concurred in the 2008 decision, stating: "If the ballot is designed in such a manner that no reasonable voter would believe that the candidates listed there are nominees or members of, or otherwise associated with, the parties the candidates claimed to 'prefer', the I–872 primary system would likely pass constitutional muster." Each candidate for partisan office can state a political party that they prefer. Ballots must feature disclaimers that a candidate's preference does not imply the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party or that the party approves of or associates with the candidate.

Subsequent ''[[as applied challenge]]s'' were rejected by lower courts. On October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from [[Washington Libertarian Party]] and [[Washington State Democratic Party]]. The [[Washington State Republican Party]] had earlier dropped out of the appeal process.

==United States==

Both Washington and California implement a two-winner nonpartisan primary by plurality vote.

The plan is used in [[Texas]] and other states in [[special elections]] but not primaries. A notable example involved former US Senator [[Phil Gramm]], who in 1983 (while a member of the House of Representatives), after [[party switching|switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party]], resigned his seat as a Democrat on January 5, ran as a Republican for his own vacancy in a special election held on February 12, and won rather handily.

There have also been efforts in [[Oregon]] to pass a similar law. However, the [[Oregon Senate]] rejected it in May 2007{{ref|2}}, and it failed in a November 2008 referendum as Measure 65. Oregon voters defeated it again in November 2014 as Measure 90, despite a $2.1 million donation from former New York City Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] and a $2.75 million donation from former [[Enron]] executive [[John D. Arnold]] to support it.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Open_Primary_Initiative,_Measure_90_%282014%29| title=Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014)| publisher=Ballotpedia| access-date=December 10, 2014}}</ref>

Maryland has explored a top-two primary, erroneously naming it an open primary, such as in 2019 House Bill 26.<ref name="mdhb26">{{cite web|title=Baltimore City: Ranked Choice Voting and Open Primaries (HB26)|url=https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB26/2019|publisher=Legiscan|access-date=2019-01-26}}</ref> Testimony was provided by several organizations, including [[FairVote]] and [[Common Cause]], and independent constituents, and included statements about [[Condorcet method|Condorcet]] systems, proportional representation and [[single transferable vote]], and concerns that a top-two rather than top-three or more primary would not supply adequate choice for voters.<ref name="mdga2019 ways and means 1">{{cite web|title=Maryland Ways and Means Committee Hearing #1, 2019|url=http://mgahouse.maryland.gov/mga/play/1491f9b9-7e2f-420c-bbd9-263aacfea03f/?catalog/03e481c7-8a42-4438-a7da-93ff74bdaa4c|publisher=Maryland General Assembly|access-date=2019-01-26}}</ref>

In Florida, an amendment to adopt the top-two primary was unsuccessful in 2020. 57% of votes were in favor but this failed to reach the threshold of 60% to pass.<ref>{{cite web|title=Florida Amendment 3, Top-Two Open Primaries for State Offices Initiative (2020)|url=https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_3,_Top-Two_Open_Primaries_for_State_Offices_Initiative_(2020)|access-date=2020-11-17|website=Ballotpedia}}</ref>

=== Alaska ===
{{See also|Elections in Alaska}}
In the [[2020 Alaska elections]], voters approved [[2020 Alaska Measure 2|Measure 2]], which replaced party primaries with a single non-partisan primary, a [[top-four primary]]. The top 4 candidates advance to a general election that uses [[Instant-runoff voting|ranked-choice voting]]. It is used for all state and federal elections except for the president.<ref>{{cite web|title=Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)|url=https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ranked-Choice_Voting_and_Campaign_Finance_Laws_Initiative_(2020)|access-date=2020-11-17|website=Ballotpedia}}</ref>

===California===
{{See also|Elections in California}}
California's [[blanket primary]] system was ruled unconstitutional in ''[[California Democratic Party v. Jones]]'' in 2000. It forced political parties to associate with candidates they did not endorse. Then in 2004, [[California Proposition 62 (2004)|Proposition 62]], an [[Popular initiative|initiative]] to bring the nonpartisan jungle primary to California, failed with only 46% of the vote. However, [[California Proposition 14 (2010)|Proposition 14]], a nearly identical piece of legislation, passed on the June 2010 ballot with 53.7% of the vote.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf |title=June 8, 2010, Primary Election Statement of Vote |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |date=2010-07-16 |access-date=2010-08-21 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100722063405/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf |archive-date=July 22, 2010}}</ref>

Under Proposition 14, statewide and congressional candidates in California, regardless of party preference, participate in the jungle primary. However, a candidate must prefer the major party on the ballot that they are registered in. After the June primary election, the top two candidates advance to the November general election. That does not affect the presidential primary, local offices, or non-partisan offices such as judges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.<ref name="analysis">{{cite web|url=http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2010/primary/propositions/14/analysis.htm |title=Proposition 14 Analysis by the Legislative Analyst |work=California Statewide Direct Primary Election, Tuesday, June 8, 2010 Official Voter Information Guide |publisher=California Secretary of State |access-date=2011-06-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101103173546/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2010/primary/propositions/14/analysis.htm |archive-date=November 3, 2010}}</ref> The California Secretary of State now calls the system a "Top-Two Primary".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2012-news-releases-and-advisories/db12-053/ |title=California's Top-Two Primary: What Voters Should Know |publisher=California Secretary of State |date=2012-05-02 |access-date=2018-05-17}}</ref>

==== Federal elections ====
The 2012 general election was the first non-special election in California to use the jungle primary system established by [[California Proposition 14 (2010)|Proposition 14]]. As a result, eight congressional districts featured general elections with two candidates of the same party: the [[California's 15th congressional district|15th]], 30th, 35th, [[California's 40th congressional district|40th]], [[California's 43rd congressional district|43rd]], and 44th with two Democrats, and the 8th and [[California's 31st congressional district|31st]] with two Republicans.

In the 2014 general election, eight [[United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2014|congressional districts]] featured general elections with two candidates of the same party: the 17th, 19th, 34th, 35th, 40th, and 44th with two Democrats, and the 4th and 25th with two Republicans.

In the 2016 general election, the [[United States Senate election in California, 2016|U.S. Senate]] race featured two Democrats running against each other and seven [[United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016|congressional districts]] with two Democrats running against each other: the 17th, 29th, 32nd, 34th, 37th, 44th, and 46th. There were no races with two Republicans running against each other.

==== California 15th Congressional District, 2012 ====
The 15th district is based in the [[East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area)|East Bay]] and includes [[Hayward, California|Hayward]] and [[Livermore, California|Livermore]]. Democrat [[Pete Stark]], who represented the 13th district from 1993 to 2013 and its predecessors since 1973, lost reelection to fellow Democrat [[Eric Swalwell]] in the general election after Stark won the primary.

{{Election box open primary begin no change
| title = [[California's 15th congressional district]] election, 2012
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| party = Democratic Party (United States)
| candidate = [[Pete Stark]] ([[incumbent]])
| votes = 39,943
| percentage = 42.1
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| party = Democratic Party (United States)
| candidate = [[Eric Swalwell]]
| votes = 34,347
| percentage = 36.0
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| party = No party preference
| candidate = Christopher "Chris" J. Pareja
| votes = 20,618
| percentage = 21.7
}}
{{Election box total no change
| votes = 94,908
| percentage = 100.0
}}
{{Election box open primary general election no change}}
{{Election box winning candidate with party link no change
| party = Democratic Party (United States)
| candidate = [[Eric Swalwell]]
| votes = 120,388
| percentage = 52.1
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| party = Democratic Party (United States)
| candidate = [[Pete Stark]] ([[incumbent]])
| votes = 110,646
| percentage = 47.9
}}
{{Election box total no change
| votes = 231,034
| percentage = 100.0
}}
{{Election box hold with party link no change
| winner = Democratic Party (United States)
}}
{{Election box end}}

===Washington (state)===
{{See also|Elections in Washington (state)}}
Along with [[California]] and [[Alaska]], [[Washington (state)|Washington]] had a [[blanket primary]] system that allowed every voter to choose a candidate of any party for each position. That kind of system was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in ''[[California Democratic Party v. Jones]]'' (2000) because it forced political parties to endorse candidates against their will.<ref name="scotusblog.com" />

The Washington State Legislature passed a new primary system in 2004, which would have created a top-two nonpartisan primary system. It provided an open primary as a backup, giving the Governor the option to choose. Although Secretary of State [[Sam Reed]] advocated the system, on April 1, 2004, the Governor used the line-item veto to activate the open primary instead. In response, Washington's [[Initiative 872]] was filed on January 8, 2004, by Terry Hunt from the Washington [[The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry|Grange]], which proposed to create a nonpartisan (jungle) primary in that state. The measure passed with 59.8% of the vote (1,632,225 yes votes and 1,095,190 no votes) in 2004.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Initiative_Measure_No._872_(2004) |title=Ballotpedia}}</ref> On March 18, 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled, in ''Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party'', that Washington's [[Initiative 872]] was constitutionally permissible. Unlike the earlier blanket primary, it officially disregards party affiliation while allowing candidates to state their party preference. However, the court wanted to wait for more evidence before addressing the chief items in the complaint and remanded the decision to the lower courts.<ref name="scotusblog.com" />

Washington state implemented this Top 2 primary, starting in the 2008 election,<ref name="Top2WA">{{cite web |url=https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/voters/Pages/top_2_primary.aspx |title=Elections & Voting: Top 2 Primary |author=Washington Secretary of State |access-date=17 May 2018}}</ref> which applies to federal, state, and local elections, but not to presidential elections.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/Top2Primary.aspx |title=Washington State Top 2 Primary |access-date=2010-03-24 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101103075444/http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/Top2Primary.aspx |archive-date=2010-11-03}}</ref> There is no voter party registration in Washington, and candidates are not restricted to stating an affiliation with an established major or minor party. The candidate has up to 16 characters to describe on the ballot the party that they prefer.<ref>Washington Secretary of State Top-Two FAQ {{cite web |url=http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/Pages/Top2PrimaryFAQ.aspx |title=Top 2 Primary FAQ |access-date=2011-07-02 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110425233538/http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/Pages/Top2PrimaryFAQ.aspx |archive-date=2011-04-25}}</ref> Some candidates state a preference for an established major party, such as the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, while others use the ballot to send a message, such as Prefers No New Taxes Party or Prefers Salmon Yoga<ref>It's Called The Salmon Yoga Party: Tri City Herald (June 20, 2008) {{cite web |url=http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2008/06/20/218194/its-called-the-salmon-yoga-party.html |title=It's called the "Salmon Yoga Party." Get it straight. - Chris Mulick's Olympia Dispatch &#124; Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news |access-date=2011-11-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119184841/http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2008/06/20/218194/its-called-the-salmon-yoga-party.html |archive-date=2012-01-19}}</ref> Party. Since this is a "preference" and not a declaration of party membership, candidates can assert party affiliation without the party's approval or use alternate terms for a given party. Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's [[Washington gubernatorial election, 2008#Controversy over Rossi's party preference|2008 stated preference]] was for the "GOP Party", although he is a prominent Republican.<ref>Republican Dino Rossi can stay "GOP' on gubernatorial ballot: Seattle Times (Sept. 27, 2008) {{cite web |url=http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2008208257_demsuit27m.html |title=Politics &#124; Republican Dino Rossi can stay "GOP' on gubernatorial ballot &#124; Seattle Times Newspaper |access-date=2012-11-12 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140324224611/http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2008208257_demsuit27m.html |archive-date=2014-03-24}}</ref>

==== Washington state legislature, 14th district, 2010 ====
{{see also|Washington state 2010 elections#District 14}}

First Ballot, August 17, 2010<ref>[http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=36&JurisdictionTypeID=5&JurisdictionID=63419&ViewMode=Results Primary election results for Washington state, 2010] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101115211018/http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=36&JurisdictionTypeID=5&JurisdictionID=63419&ViewMode=Results |date=November 15, 2010}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Candidate'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Party Preference'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Support'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Outcome'''
|-
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Norm Johnson
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Republican
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | 10,129 (44.26%)
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Runoff
|-
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Michele Strobel
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Republican
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | 8,053 (35.19%)
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Runoff
|-
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Scott Brumback
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Democratic
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | 4,702 (20.55%)
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Defeated
|}

Second Ballot November 2, 2010<ref name="vote.wa.gov">[http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=37&JurisdictionTypeID=5&JurisdictionID=63419&ViewMode=Results General election results for Washington state, 2010] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110111131247/http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=37&JurisdictionTypeID=5&JurisdictionID=63419&ViewMode=Results |date=January 11, 2011}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Candidate'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Party Preference'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Support'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Outcome'''
|-
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Norm Johnson
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Republican
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | 19,044 (52.5%)
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Elected
|-
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Michele Strobel
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Republican
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | 17,229 (47.5%)
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Defeated
|}

In this race a three-way primary led to a two-way race between two members of the same party (Republicans) in the general election. With over 20% of the population voting for the Democrat and neither Republican winning close to a majority in the primary, both of the Republican candidates had to appeal to Democrats and other voters who did not support them in the first round. For example, incumbent Norm Johnson came out in favor of same-sex civil unions, moving to the left of challenger Michele Strobel, who opposed them.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012672963_edit20toptwo.html |title=Seattle Times Editorial: Washington's top-two primary gets voters the better choice |work=The Seattle Times}}</ref>

==== Washington state legislature, 38th district, State Senate, 2010 ====
First Ballot August 17, 2010<ref>Official Washington Results 2010 {{cite web |url=http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID%3D36%26JurisdictionTypeID%3D5%26JurisdictionID%3D63443%26ViewMode%3DResults |title=August 17, 2010 Primary - Legislative |access-date=2011-11-24 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101115211645/http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=36&JurisdictionTypeID=5&JurisdictionID=63443&ViewMode=Results |archive-date=2010-11-15}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Candidate'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Party Preference'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Support'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Outcome'''
|-
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | [[Nick Harper (politician)|Nick Harper]]
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Democratic
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | 7,193 (35.09%)
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Runoff
|-
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Rod Rieger
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Conservative
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | 6,713 (32.75%)
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Runoff
|-
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | [[Jean Berkey]]
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Democratic
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | 6,591 (32.16%)
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Defeated
|}

Second Ballot November 2, 2010<ref>Official Washington Results {{cite web |url=http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID%3D37%26JurisdictionTypeID%3D5%26JurisdictionID%3D63443%26ViewMode%3DResults |title=November 2, 2010 General - Legislative |access-date=2011-11-24 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110111125435/http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID=37&JurisdictionTypeID=5&JurisdictionID=63443&ViewMode=Results |archive-date=2011-01-11 }}</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Candidate'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Party Preference'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Support'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Outcome'''
|-
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Nick Harper
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Democratic
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | 22,089 (59.73%)
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Elected
|-
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Rod Rieger
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Conservative
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | 14,892 (40.27%)
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Defeated
|}

In this heavily Democratic district, Berkey was officially endorsed by the 38th District Democratic Party.<ref>p. 12, Line 5 (Sep 17, 2010) PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO STATE OF WASHINGTON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -1CV05-0927 JCC {{cite web |url=http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Democrats%20Opposition%20to%20States%20Motion%209-13-10.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2012-10-09 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304051451/http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/Democrats%20Opposition%20to%20States%20Motion%209-13-10.pdf |archive-date=2016-03-04}}</ref> However, Democratic challenger [[Nick Harper (politician)|Nick Harper]] bankrolled ads for the Republican candidate to "Squeeze the Middle" and prevent the moderate incumbent Berkey from running in the general election.<ref name="seattletimes.nwsource.com">''The Seattle Times'' November 2, 2010, "Time for a do-over in the 38th Legislative District's Senate primary" {{cite web |url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013328444_guest03vognild.html |title=Time for a do-over in the 38th Legislative District's Senate primary |access-date=2011-11-24 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110110051629/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013328444_guest03vognild.html |archive-date=2011-01-10}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceB">''The Seattle Times'' August 22, 2010, "State Sen. Jean Berkey asks PDC to set aside election results" {{cite web |url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2012744540_statesenjeanberkeyasks.html |title=State Sen. Jean Berkey asks PDC to set aside election results |access-date=2011-11-24 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101008060331/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2012744540_statesenjeanberkeyasks.html |archive-date=2010-10-08}}</ref> When Berkey placed third in the primary by a margin of 122 votes, the [[Moxie Media scandal]] ensued: the state's election watchdog committee unanimously voted to refer the case to the state Attorney General [[Rob McKenna]], who within hours "filed suit, alleging multiple campaign-finance violations".<ref name="seattletimes.nwsource.com" /> Despite the call of several former state senators to hold another election, the election results were upheld, and Berkey was prevented from running in the general election.<ref name="seattletimes.nwsource.com" /><ref name="ReferenceB" /> Harper easily won the subsequent uncompetitive runoff election.

==== Washington state US Senate race, 2010 ====
First Ballot, August 17, 2010 (only top three vote-getters listed)<ref>[http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?RaceTypeCode=O&JurisdictionTypeID=1&ElectionID=36&ViewMode=Results Primary election results for Washington state, 2010] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100821041354/http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?RaceTypeCode=O&JurisdictionTypeID=1&ElectionID=36&ViewMode=Results |date=August 21, 2010}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Candidate'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Party Preference'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Support'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Outcome'''
|-
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Patty Murray
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Democratic
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | 670,284 (46.22%)
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Runoff
|-
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Dino Rossi
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Republican
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | 483,305 (33.33%)
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Runoff
|-
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Clint Didier
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Republican
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | 185,034 (12.76%)
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Defeated
|}

Second Ballot November 2, 2010<ref name="vote.wa.gov" />

{| class="wikitable"
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Candidate'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Party Preference'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Support'''
| bgcolor="#cccccc" | '''Outcome'''
|-
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Patty Murray
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Democratic
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | 1,314,930 (52.36%)
| bgcolor="#DDEEFF" | Elected
|-
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Dino Rossi
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Republican
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | 1,196,164 (47.64%)
| bgcolor="#FFE8E8" | Defeated
|}

In this race, the three leading candidates' competition resulted in a more moderate and popular Republican facing off against the incumbent Democrat, with a relatively close general election. [[Clint Didier]] and [[Dino Rossi]] were the two main Republicans vying to run against the incumbent Democratic Senator [[Patty Murray]]. Rossi had much greater name recognition, had narrowly lost two races for governor, and was favored by the party establishment. Didier, a former tight end for the [[National Football League]]'s [[Washington Redskins]], had never run for elected office and was endorsed by Tea Party favorites [[Ron Paul]] and [[Sarah Palin]]. Didier might have been able to win the GOP nomination from Rossi in a closed primary that rewards candidates for appealing to the hardline of their base, but the more moderate Rossi was easily able to defeat Didier in the Top Two primary. While one might expect more Democrats in the Top Two primary to vote tactically for Didier, the Republican candidate who was doing much worse in polls against Murray, most Democrats seemed content voting for Murray. If any tactical voting occurred, it seemed to be on the Republican side, with the vast majority of the Republican voters choosing Rossi, perceived as a more electable candidate. In this case, the Top Two primary resulted in a more moderate Republican candidate running against the Democratic incumbent, and likely a much more competitive race than if the [[Tea Party Movement|Tea Party]] candidate had run against Murray.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/06/27/1071546/didier-rossi-primary-captures.html |title=Tri-City Herald: Didier, Rossi primary captures national attention}}</ref>

==== Washington 4th Congressional District, 2014 ====
The 4th district is a large and predominantly rural district in [[Central Washington]] that encompasses numerous counties and is dominated by the [[Tri-Cities, Washington|Tri-Cities]] and [[Yakima, Washington|Yakima]] areas. Republican [[Doc Hastings]], who represented the 4th district since 1995, retired.<ref name="toretire">{{cite news |title=Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) to retire |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/13/rep-doc-hastings-r-wash-to-retire/ |access-date=February 13, 2014 |date=February 13, 2014}}</ref> The two winners of the top two primary were the Tea Party candidate [[Clint Didier]] (endorsed by [[Ron Paul]]) and [[Dan Newhouse]], the former Director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture under [[Christine Gregoire]] and [[Jay Inslee]] and former State Representative.<ref name="tpally">{{cite web |title=Clint Didier, Tea Party ally, is running for Congress |publisher=[[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]] |url=http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/02/17/clint-didier-tea-party-ally-is-running-for-congress/ |author=Joel Connelly |access-date=February 19, 2014 |date=February 17, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.yakimaherald.com/community/lowervalley/sunnysidecontent/1944182-8/newhouse-declares-for-hastings-seat-in-congress |title=Yakima Herald Republic {{!}} Former State AG Director Newhouse Officially Joins 4th District Race |access-date=2018-05-17 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140221202416/http://www.yakimaherald.com/community/lowervalley/sunnysidecontent/1944182-8/newhouse-declares-for-hastings-seat-in-congress |archive-date=2014-02-21 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In a close general election, Newhouse prevailed.

{{Election box begin no change
| title = Top two primary results<ref name=primaryresults>{{cite web |url=http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20140805/Federal-All.html |title=August 5, 2014 Primary Results |access-date=March 5, 2019 |publisher=Washington Secretary of State}}</ref>
}}
{{Election box winning candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Clint Didier
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 33,965
| percentage = 31.81
}}
{{Election box winning candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Dan Newhouse
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 27,326
| percentage = 25.59
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Estakio Beltran
| party = Democratic Party (United States)
| votes = 13,062
| percentage = 12.23
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Janéa Holmquist Newbry
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 11,061
| percentage = 10.36
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = George Cicotte
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 6,863
| percentage = 6.43
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Tony Sandoval
| party = Democratic Party (United States)
| votes = 6,744
| percentage = 6.32
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Richard Wright
| party = Independent (politician)
| votes = 3,270
| percentage = 3.06
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Gavin Seim
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 2,107
| percentage = 1.97
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Josh Ramirez
| party = Independent (politician)
| votes = 1,496
| percentage = 1.40
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Glen R. Stockwell
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 547
| percentage = 0.51
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Gordon Allen Pross
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 178
| percentage = 0.17
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Kevin Midbust
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 161
| percentage = 0.15
}}
{{Election box total no change
| votes = 106,780
| percentage = 100.0
}}
{{Election box end}}

{{Election box begin no change
|title =General Election - November 4, 2014 <ref name=Results>{{cite web |url=https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20141104/Congressional-District-4-US-Representative.html |title=November 4, 2014 Primary Results |access-date=March 5, 2019 |publisher=Washington Secretary of State}}</ref>
}}
{{Election box winning candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Dan Newhouse
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 77,772
| percentage = 50.81
}}
{{Election box candidate with party link no change
| candidate = Clint Didier
| party = Republican Party (United States)
| votes = 75,307
| percentage = 49.19
}}
{{Election box total no change
| votes = 153,079
| percentage = 100.0
}}
{{Election box hold with party link no change
  | winner = Republican Party (United States)
}}
{{Election box end}}

==Analysis==
Though the intention is to allow multiple candidates from the majority party to advance to the second round, critics note that this can also happen to a minority party when that party runs fewer candidates than another and thus faces less [[vote-splitting]]. Under the nonpartisan blanket primary, a party with two candidates and only 41% popular support would beat a party with three candidates and 59% popular support if voters split their votes evenly among candidates for their own party. For example, in [[2016 Washington elections#State Treasurer|Washington's 2016 primary for state treasurer]], Democrats won a majority of the vote but failed to move on to the general election:<ref>[http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20160802/State-Treasurer.html Primary election results for Washington state, 2016] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160921010222/http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20160802/State-Treasurer.html|date=September 21, 2016}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
| bgcolor=#cccccc | '''Candidate'''
| bgcolor=#cccccc | '''Party Preference'''
| bgcolor=#cccccc | '''Support'''
| bgcolor=#cccccc | '''Outcome'''
|-
|bgcolor=#FFE8E8| Duane Davidson
|bgcolor=#FFE8E8| Republican
|bgcolor=#FFE8E8| 322,374 (25.09%)
|bgcolor=#FFE8E8| Runoff
|-
|bgcolor=#FFE8E8| Michael Waite
|bgcolor=#FFE8E8| Republican
|bgcolor=#FFE8E8| 299,766 (23.33%)
|bgcolor=#FFE8E8| Runoff
|-
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| Marko Liias
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| Democratic
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| 261,633 (20.36%)
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| Defeated
|-
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| John Paul Comerford
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| Democratic
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| 230,904 (17.97%)
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| Defeated
|-
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| Alec Fisken
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| Democratic
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| 170,117 (13.24%)
|bgcolor=#DDEEFF| Defeated
|}

Political science professor Todd Donovan published an article in 2012 for the ''California Journal of Politics & Policy'' called "The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?"<ref>{{cite web|title=Donovan, T., 2012. The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington? The California Journal of Politics & Policy, 4(1), pp.1-22.|url=https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cjpp.2012.4.issue-1/1944-4370.1196/1944-4370.1196.xml|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150304075442/http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cjpp.2012.4.issue-1/1944-4370.1196/1944-4370.1196.xml|archive-date=2015-03-04|access-date=23 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Donovan|first=Todd|year=2012|title=The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?|journal=California Journal of Politics and Policy|volume=4|issue=1|pages=1–22|doi=10.5070/P2959Z|doi-access=free}}</ref> Donovan was the only [[expert witness]] in favor of the top-two idea,<ref>NO. CV05-0927-JCC DECLARATION OF JEFFREY T. EVEN IN SUPPORT OF STATE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Sep. 17, 2010)</ref> for the ''as applied'' court challenge of Top-Two. His academic paper states, "The partisan structure of Washington's legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system." Donovan concluded, "The aggregate of all this did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary."

In Washington, major parties originally used an alternate process of party endorsement for partisan legislative and county administrative positions.<ref>{{cite web|title=Washington State Democratic Party|url=http://www.wa-democrats.org/content/nominating-conventions|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101023064824/http://www.wa-democrats.org/content/nominating-conventions|archive-date=October 23, 2010}}</ref> This would ensure that one official party candidate will be in the primary, theoretically reducing the risk of intra-party vote-splits. However, the law does not allow nominations or endorsements by interest groups, political action committees, political parties, labor unions, editorial boards, or other private organizations to be printed on the ballot.<ref>Top 2 Primary: FAQs for Candidates {{cite web|title=Top 2 Primary: FAQs for Candidates - Elections & Voting - WA Secretary of State|url=http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/faqcandidates.aspx|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161104091005/https://www.sos.wa.gov//elections/faqcandidates.aspx|archive-date=2016-11-04|access-date=2012-03-20}}</ref>

The indication of party ''preference'' as opposed to party ''affiliation'' opens the door for candidates to misrepresent their leanings or otherwise confuse voters. In 2008, a Washington gubernatorial candidate indicated party preference as "G.O.P." instead of Republican. A public poll found that 25% of the public did not know that the two terms mean the same thing.<ref name="mapeselway">The Elway press release to news organizations was reprinted in {{cite web|last=Mapes|first=Jeff|date=2008-08-14|title=Washington's current governor's race|url=http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/08/washingtons_current_governors.html|access-date=2008-08-20|work=Mapes on Politics|publisher=The Oregonian}}</ref>

Further research on California's 2012 jungle primaries suggests that a jungle primary does not tend to lead to large amounts of crossover votes.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Nagler|first=Jonathan|year=2015|title=Voter Behavior in California's Top Two Primary|journal=California Journal of Politics and Policy|volume=7|doi=10.5070/P2cjpp7125524|doi-access=free}}</ref> Most voters who crossed over did so for strategic reasons. Furthermore, there is evidence that having the top two candidates from the same party could lead to a drop in voter participation in the second round. With regards to reducing political polarization, this does not seem to hold true. Due to lack of crossover votes, an extreme candidate from the majority party can still win over a moderate from either party.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ahler|first1=Douglas|last2=Citrin|first2=Jack|last3=Lenz|first3=Gabriel S.|year=2015|title=Why Voters May Have Failed to Reward Proximate Candidates in the 2012 Top Two Primary|journal=California Journal of Politics and Policy|volume=7|doi=10.5070/P2cjpp7125448|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kousser|first=Thad|year=2015|title=The Top-Two, Take Two: Did Changing the Rules Change the Game in Statewide Contests?|journal=California Journal of Politics and Policy|volume=7|issue=1|doi=10.5070/P2cjpp7125438|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>McGhee, E., Masket, S., Shor, B., Rogers, S. and McCarty, N., 2014. A primary cause of partisanship? Nomination systems and legislator ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), pp.337-351. doi: {{cite journal|last1=McGhee|first1=Eric|last2=Masket|first2=Seth|last3=Shor|first3=Boris|last4=Rogers|first4=Steven|last5=McCarty|first5=Nolan|year=2014|title=A primary cause of partisanship? Nomination systems and legislator ideology|journal=American Journal of Political Science|volume=58|issue=2|pages=337|doi=10.1111/ajps.12070|doi-access=}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Highton|first1=Benjamin|last2=Huckfeldt|first2=Robert|last3=Hale|first3=Isaac|year=2016|title=Some General Consequences of California's Top-Two Primary System|journal=California Journal of Politics and Policy|volume=8|issue=2|doi=10.5070/P2cjpp8230564|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Instant-runoff voting]]
* [[Two-round system]]
* [[Two-party-preferred vote]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

===Notes===
{{smalldiv|1=
# {{note|1}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20110723083938/http://legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=405820 Senate Bill No. 18]
# {{note|2}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20070821121301/http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/pubs/senmh.html#pgfId-323031 Oregon Senate Bill Votes]
# {{note|3}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20110723084015/http://legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid=06RS&billtype=SB&billno=18 SB18 - 2006 Regular Session (Act 560)]
# {{note|4}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20110718141201/http://www.yeson60.com/myths_vs__facts__proposition_62.html Myths vs. Facts: Proposition 62]
}}

==External links==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140207043720/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/land-of-thousand-liebermans.html Land of a Thousand Liebermans] analysis by [[Nate Silver]] of ''[[FiveThirtyEight.com]]''
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150329203844/http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/will-californias-top-two-primary-work/ Will California's 'Top Two' Primary Work?] ''[[The New York Times]]'' provides six views on new California primary
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20100924022320/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012672963_edit20toptwo.html Washington's top-two primary gets voters the better choice] ''[[The Seattle Times]]'' editorial praising Top Two primary in Washington state 2010 elections
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120823064526/http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/mailbag/top-two-primary-worth-considering/article_615362ce-1f63-5292-98d1-a549b7a76049.html Top Two primary worth considering] advocating Top Two primary for Arizona
* [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-feb-20-oe-hill20-story.html Pros and cons of a top-two primary] The ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' presents two views on the Top Two primary
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110826193743/http://www.stoptoptwo.org/ Stop Top Two] Free and Equal Elections Foundation, a coalition of independent and minority party activists opposing the Top Two primary
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150906172512/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-713.ZS.html ''Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party''] upholding [[top-two primary]]

{{U.S. political divisions electoral reform|state=expanded}}

[[Category:California elections]]
[[Category:Washington (state) elections]]
[[Category:Primary elections]]
[[Category:Elections in the United States]]
[[Category:Single-winner electoral systems]]