Nonpartisan primary

However, empirical research on the system have found no effect on candidate moderation[6] or turnout among independent voters.

The nonpartisan (jungle) primary disregards party preference in determining the candidates to advance to the general election, and for that reason, it was ruled facially constitutional by the Supreme Court in the 2008 decision Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party.

[11] 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."

A notable example involved former US Senator Phil Gramm, who in 1983 (while a member of the House of Representatives), after 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.

[13] Testimony was provided by several organizations, including FairVote and Common Cause, and independent constituents, and included statements about 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.

Then in 2004, Proposition 62, an initiative to bring the nonpartisan jungle primary to California, failed with only 46% of the vote.

[17] Under Proposition 14, statewide and congressional candidates in California, regardless of party preference, participate in the jungle primary.

As a result, eight congressional districts featured general elections with two candidates of the same party: the 15th, 30th, 35th, 40th, 43rd, and 44th with two Democrats, and the 8th and 31st with two Republicans.

Along with California and Alaska, Washington had a blanket primary system that allowed every voter to choose a candidate of any party for each position.

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.

Gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's 2008 stated preference was for the "GOP Party", although he is a prominent Republican.

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.

[31] However, Democratic challenger Nick Harper bankrolled ads for the Republican candidate to "Squeeze the Middle" and prevent the moderate incumbent Berkey from running in the general election.

[32][33] 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".

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.

[36] 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.

For example, in Washington's 2016 primary for state treasurer, Democrats won a majority of the vote but failed to move on to the general election:[41] 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?

His academic paper states, "The partisan structure of Washington's legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system."

[45] This would ensure that one official party candidate will be in the primary, theoretically reducing the risk of intra-party vote-splits.