Don’t fret too much about the new primary election ballot we’re getting this year, it probably will be the only time you’ll see it. The first court it winds up in will give it the boot as unconstitutional.

At least, that’s what my lawyer friend Jim Johnson of Olympia thinks. Jim represents the Washington State Grange, original founders of the beloved blanket primary and the ones taking to court Gov. Gary Locke’s veto in the 2004 replacement as a referendum and round up signatures for an initiative restoring what he took out as the new plan.

Let’s put the cards on the table over what we’re talking about here. The law the 2004 Legislature passed replacing the unconstitutional blanket primary Okayed a new system whereby you could still vote across party lines as we’ve been doing for 70 years, but the top two vote getters in each race advanced to Nov. 2, rather than the top vote getter in each political party. That was the Senate’s preference.

The House added to it an alternative system in case the top two system was thrown out by the courts, knowing it would be challenged by the parties if nobody else. Their alternative restricted voters to one party. County auditors may decide how to do this, either separate ballots for each party or one big ballot where no crossover would be allowed.

Gov. Locke didn’t like top two because there was the real possibility in a number of races that the top two vote getters would be both Democrats or both Republicans, with nobody from the other party listed at all in the general election. It also wiped out the chances of third party candidates advancing to the fall ballot in most cases since they were unlikely to be in the top two. He vetoed the top two Senate part and left the House alternative.

What he left, says lawyer Johnson, is probably unconstitutional. “Here’s how you will vote,” he told me. “You will go into a polling place, and there will be separate ballots for each party. But that means my clients in the Grange have to identify their party to the poll workers. We have a right of absolute secrecy of the ballot in our constitution. Many states have secrecy of the ballot but ours says absolute secrecy. If you have to identify yourself and party to the poll worker to get a ballot, that doesn’t protect your absolute secrecy.”

Second, said Johnson, “we have a right to vote in all elections, quote all elections unquote. Some of my clients will refuse to identify their party. In that case, they will be presented with a ballot allowing them to vote only for non-partisan candidates and issues, so that right has been violated.”

“Now, the one section bill originally adopted in the Senate was a qualifying primary, and that title was not changed in the House, where they adopted Section 2 on a party nominating primary. When Locke vetoed out the first section, the primary created in the bill is different from the subject in the title. which says qualifying primary. A party nominating primary is not a qualifying primary. If they follow precedent, the Supreme Court will throw the bill out.”

Something else, he said. “The first half of the bill which Gov. Locke vetoed had an emergency clause on it The second half did not. He said at his news conference that you cannot do a referendum on the second half under the constitution because it lacks an emergency clause, but of course you can. I will make the comment that either it reflects that he has not been a practicing lawyer for many years or he has poor lawyers advising him.”

The governor apparently has forgotten Ref. 53, said Johnson, “which made changes to the Labor and Industry system. One section had an emergency clause. Five did not. The building industry did a referendum on the five. Locke intervened and argued those were not subject to referendum, but the court said you can run a referendum. Either he didn’t read the case or he lost his capacity to read law as a lawyer when he became governor.”

(Adele Ferguson can be reached at P.O. Box 69, Hansville, WA., 98340.).