Blanket Primary Initiative approved
1935

Background:

The Blanket Primary, won by initiative in 1935, was part of a larger movement known as “direct democracy” supported by Granges, labor groups and others in the early decades of the twentieth century. These progressive or “populist” groups followed a two-pronged approach to reforming government. One, they sought measures to seize control of the nomination of candidates from political “party bosses” as part of their campaign to “return the machinery of government to the people.” This measure was at the heart of their struggle against the corporate power of the railroads, lumber barons and other groups they saw as dominating state government. The Washington State Grange was especially active in this campaign.

Second, they tried to find means to by-pass the Legislature. They campaigned for a constitutional amendment for the initiative, referendum and recall measure that became effective in 1912. In the next few years, the Grange, with the help and support of other organizations, compiled a lengthy list of reforms using the initiative powers they had gained. They worked to push through their program of legislation to bring about reforms they saw as central to a democratic society.

Grange Master Kegley responded to Governor Hay on his lukewarm response to the initiative and referendum amendment by declaring: “It is a mistake to suppose that the people do not know what they want. They do know what they want—it is the elimination of the party boss and legislation for special privilege interests. The hatred of the political grafter and the legislator who betrays the people is intense, and the people are united in their determination to secure full control over all their public servants.” (Crawford, p.160)

Throughout the progressive era, reformers alternated between the two approaches. They doggedly pursued their reform agenda using whichever tools came to hand. The powers that opposed them sought to limit their activities or thwart their campaigns. When one avenue of reform seemed ineffectual, the progressives turned to their other approach. The campaign for the blanket primary should be viewed in the context of this struggle to control and shape the government of the state—the nomination of candidates to influence the make-up of the Legislature or the passing of direct legislation when legislators failed to support the reform agenda.

Reform through initiatives:

The Washington State Grange campaigned vigorously for the “Seven Sisters” group of initiatives introduced in 1914. The struggle and final outcome of that campaign discouraged reformers from using initiatives as a tool to reform Washington State government and society. The forces arrayed against the reformers were formidable and well-financed according to Grange historians. The Grange and other groups continued to employ the initiative but also turned to scrutiny of the electoral system as an avenue for change after this experience of failure.

Reforming the Electoral Process:

The first steps in the movement to address the nomination of candidates by ordinary voters rather than party officials occurred in 1907. Grange historian Harriet Ann Crawford describes the measure:

“The new method of nominating candidates for office permitted any eligible voter to file a declaration of candidacy upon fulfillment of general requirements; this practice, it was supposed, would do away with the party boss and the control of nominations by a clique.” (Crawford, p. 164)

Crawford notes that hopes of reform using this method were dashed because the Grange was officially nonpartisan in its organization and, without being able to endorse candidates, was powerless to support one candidate over another once nominated. One writer to a Grange publication declared, “Remember that under a direct primary we secured the most corrupt legislature that ever cursed the state.” (Crawford, p. 166)

Although this measure was not the answer reformers were striving for, it represented a beginning of the process. Voters, however, still needed to declare a party and received only the ballot for that party.

Blanket Primary Initiative of 1935:

The Legislature and direct democracy advocates continued to tweak this law until 1934 when the State Grange, State Federation of Labor and others joined together to propose an initiative to the Legislature that would allow “all properly registered voters to vote for their choice at any primary election for any candidate for each office, regardless of political affiliation and without a declaration of political faith or adherence on the part of the voter.” Reformers were convinced that complete voter choice, irrespective of party affiliation, would help transform the membership of the Legislature and bring in representatives less beholden to the parties and closer to the people. This measure became known as the blanket primary.

Charles Hodde, Grange lobbyist for this measure, remembers the campaign for the blanket primary in his interviews with the Legislative Oral History Project:

“I’d like to mention some other Grange initiatives that I got involved with…The Grange didn’t like the election process here. At the time that I first started voting in this state, when you went in to vote in the primary, you said, “I’m a Democrat or I’m a Republican,” or you didn’t get a ticket to vote on. Then, when you voted, you could only vote for Democrats or you could only vote for Republicans. Nobody else got on the ticket. Minor parties could have a convention and nominate, but it never showed up in the primary. The primary, we felt, was where the decisions were largely made. If you can’t participate in a primary on a broad basis, how do you really have the right to two candidates selected for the final?

So the Grange—and I helped—drafted that one (initiative). I’d gotten far enough along then to help start writing these things. We filed an initiative to the Legislature for a blanket primary, just exactly like we have today, in which you can vote for the person of your choice. The political designation follows the name, but it can be either Democrat or Republican and the Democrat and the Republican with the highest vote total appears on the general election ballot. An initiative to the Legislature, and this was the first time that this had been done... no, I’m not sure, either... but anyhow, in an initiative to the Legislature, the Legislature first has an opportunity to pass it. If they pass it, it never does go to a vote of the people, unless there is a referendum on it. They have the first opportunity. So the Grange decided to take a chance on this.

The reason we did it, in planning for it—and again I take some credit for this—I think it was the only time we ever got all the signatures on an initiative, virtually all of them, in one day. The way we did it, we had Grangers and other people that were supportive…labor unions helped us some in the cities…On the primary election day in 1934, early in September I believe it was, we tried to have somebody…two people—we wanted them in pairs—at every polling place with strict instructions: “Never talk to anybody before they go in to booth. That is against the law. When they come out, you can talk to them.” When they come out, we had them schooled. I’m a great believer that you have to school your signature gatherers if you want to be successful. “Ask these questions, don’t ask any other questions: Did you have to tell them that you were a Democrat or Republican to vote?” “Why, I sure did.” “Would you like to have an election where you didn’t have to do that, you vote for anybody you want?” “I sure would, let me sign.” We just collected I don’t remember, over 100,000 signatures in one day, which was more that were required.

It was initiated to the Legislature in that matter. The papers had freely predicted that it would have to go to a vote of the people, that you’d never get the politicians in office, that got elected under the old system, to go for a new system. I was lobbying for the Grange when it came up in the Legislature and we didn’t have a great deal of difficulty in the House, but it really got stalled in the Senate. It actually passed the House rather easily, something like eighty percent of them voted for it, eighty out of ninety-nine or something of that type; however in the Senate it was extremely close. There was some confusion, which is sort of interesting I think, because nobody had ever had a vote taken on an initiative to the Legislature before. The Grange power bill [Initiative Number One] they just ignored it and it went to the people at the next election, but in this one there was the question of whether it had to be turned into a bill form in order to be voted on, or whether it really would be presented, not as bill number so-and-so, but as an initiative to the Legislature. The Senate actually kicked this around quite a bit. They finally agreed on a way to do it and, of course, it’s been used since that, but it was handled as an initiative without a bill number, was my recollection of it. It got into the Senate and it was extremely close, the tally there.

I recall a senator from Walla Walla name Brunton, very conservative gentleman; I talked to him repeatedly about the desirability of this. That it wouldn’t wreck the parties. That they’d have to come up with good candidates and that it would be a benefit to them, really, to have good candidates file, that they could get their Democrat friends as well as their Republican friends to support them. His closing comment, he said, “Charlie, I’m not going to vote for this, but I want tot tell you one thing, if I ever get charged with murder, I want you for my lawyer.” I thought that was kind of a nice compliment.

Senator Brunton—he did not vote for it on final passage, he told me he wouldn’t—but he was sufficiently interested to help keep it from getting killed. When thee was an effort to postpone it indefinitely, when it looked like it might get killed, he voted with the supporters, so we had a close situation there. We did finally get it through. We got a favorable vote in the Senate.

Then the Spokesman Review had a little front page ditty by their Olympia correspondent after it had passed the Legislature in which was headed, “Charlie Hodde, King of Lobbyists. He did it!” Now that was quite a show for a little kid off the farm who’d only been around a couple years. To have that…and he pointed out that I had been able to lobby through the Legislature—particularly single-handed—this thing they had all agreed earlier, could not possibly pass a Legislature.

There had been numerous efforts to mount campaigns against it in the past fifty years. None of which have gotten off the ground. People like it. They like it that way. There may be a theoretical or idealistic factor that the party ought to pick its own candidates, but the people think they ought to pick them and it stood.”

Resources for Further Study

Articles:

Bone, Hugh A. and Herman D. Lujan, “Direct Democracy in Washington,” Government and Politics in the Evergreen State, editors David C. Nice, John C. Pierce and Charles H. Sheldon, Washington State University Press, Pullman, 1992

Johnson, Claudius O., “The Washington Blanket Primary,” The Pacific Northwest Quarterly, Vol. 33, January, 1942

Long, Carolyn N. Long, “Direct Democracy in Washington,” Washington State Government and Politics, editors Cornell W. Clayton, Lance T. LeLoup and Nicholas P. Lovrich, Washinton State University Press, Pullman, 2004

Overlie, Mike, “An Analysis of Washington’s Blanket Primary,” Paper for Senator Kent Pullen, March 23, 1979 [Government Document, Washington State Library]

Books:

Avery, Mary. History and Government of the State of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1961

Crawford, Harriet Ann. The Washington State Grange. Binfords and Mort, Publishers, Portland, 1940

Ogden, Daniel and Hugh Bone. Washington Politics. New York University Press, New York, 1960

Oral Histories:

Charles Hodde: Mr. Speaker of the House, Legislative Oral History Project, Washington State Archives, Office of the Secretary of State,1985, 1986