The Supreme Court decision from yesterday to uphold I-872 does not merely pertain to theoretical party rights. It also has a direct effect on the actions of party power brokers and candidates relative to what they do and say, and how they allocate their resources between the primary and the general elections. This will be especially true in the heavily partisan areas of the state that stand to promote two candidates from the same party.

Adam Wilson in The Olympian points to two such instances from 2000 and 2004 where such a case would have happened, and state GOP Chair Luke Esser acknowledged that in his official statement about the decision, "the Top Two Primary denies the voters a real choice because it would eliminate all but one party from Washington's general election ballot in some parts of the state."

Potentially one such district for 2008 is the 7th in Washington's far northeast corner, where a House race to replace outgoing Rep. Bob Sump is already filling up with Republican candidates.  When Stevens County GOP Chairwoman Perky Osborne reacted to the decision to overturn I-872, the 7th LD resident and former Grange member said, "That should make the Washington voter very happy. I know they felt disenfranchised when they had to declare party affiliation, although I don't know why."

Yet as a party official, Osborne gravitated toward the impact these new ballots can have on the influence of a party who, as the decision states, will not have a de facto nominee by way of the Top Two Primary.

"It does bother me. I think that I have a knowledge of the candidates that is important to be stated and I'm not happy that I'm not able to give my opinion on those things," said Osborne. Nevertheless, she asserted that she hopes "to speak out during general cycle" in spite of party ethics based on the unusual circumstances of the nominating process.

Such ethics, where party officials remain neutral as long as multiple members of the same party are still competing, might have to be rewritten come the fall. It could be then that a party ultimately decides who they declare their nominee should be, even if both general election candidates affiliate themselves with that party.

The partisan district swing holds meaning not just for the party officials, but also for the candidates themselves. Reuven Carlyle is running for the House in Seattle's strongly Democratic 36th District to fill an open seat left by retiring Rep. Helen Sommers.

"It is obviously a tectonic shift with big implications for everybody, and especially in a race like mine," Carlyle admitted. "I had the luxury of knowing that my race was going to be over August 19, and now it's clear there is a big structural shift given the November reality."

Carlyle was referring to the fact that his safe Democratic district meant that whoever won in the August primary could essentially begin hiring the transition team. Not so anymore.

"In my particular situation," he said, "it would have been much easier to have the existing systems. I think there are real implication on this for candidates from the financial point of view, effectively duplicating votes and turnout. I can win 50% of the vote in the primary, but I still have to invest the resources to ensure victory in November. This is now a marathon, not a sprint. That is the reality."

The 36th LD Democrat went on about the tangible effect of this decision on candidates. "For candidates who do not have the financial wherewithal to run good campaign, this is a very tough blow. More than ever you need both grassroots and financial strength to run a successful campaign."

But again, there is something to be said for the will of the people. "I also will say in the interest of the people," Carlyle concluded, "there's also good old fashion democracy at work."