Something that seems to be largely overlooked in the discussion of consequences (intended and otherwise) of the decision handed down by the Supremes:

There is as I understand it nothing in either the decision or the rules just issued by the SOS that prevents or precludes parties nominating MORE than one candidate for a particular partisan office. If 4 example in one Leg District a party nominates 2 candidates and they end up being the ''Top 2'' in that race, then both nominated candidates from that one party would advance to the general.

So parties really have 3 options for this ''Top 2'' primary round:

1. Do not nominate ANYBODY; and let whoever files per the SOS rules indicate their party preference as they see fit. Except perhaps in a few special cases, IMO parties should formally nominate candidates; i.e.: Do NOT sit on the sidelines.

2. Nomiate ONE candidate in the field; if the local party feels that one person stands out as the preferred party nominee.

3. Nominate TWO candidates (or could even be more, although I would think 2 would likely be a logical limit in most cases; given the ''Top 2'' rules) for a particular office, if the local party feels that both candidates are members in good standing; i.e.: Let the voters decide; either in the primary, or in the general; if both nominees make it that far.

Methow is right, there is nothing that says the parties have to pick anyone. Pelz and Esser have reached an agreement to each only put forth one candidate, that way there will be a Democrat and a Republican in the general election. The VOTERs should get to make that choice. There is no reason there couldn't be two democrats or two republicans, except the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" between the parties. There are a few seats in the state where there would only be one party represented.

In an attempt to gain more control over the process, the parties shot themselves in the foot.

I predict there will be more news in this area ''shortly''. . . .