In Our View: Race for 3rd District reveals constitutional quirks

Published in Humor and Quirks on Monday, August 25th 2025 at 23:15 GMT by The Columbian
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Washington’s 3rd Congressional District Race Exposes a Patchwork of Constitutional Oddities

As the 2025 mid‑term elections loom, the race for Washington’s 3rd Congressional District is turning into more than a partisan showdown. A recent editorial in The Columbian—“In Our View: Race for 3rd District Reveals Constitutional Quirks”—argues that the campaign’s narrative is being shaped not only by policy differences but also by a surprisingly intricate web of state and federal constitutional provisions that few voters are aware of.

The Contest on the Surface

At the center of the race are three candidates who bring very different backgrounds to the table. Democrat Maria Alvarez, the incumbent, has served the district since 2019. A former teacher from Wenatchee, Alvarez’s platform centers on expanding broadband access and investing in clean‑energy infrastructure—issues that resonate in the district’s mix of rural and suburban communities.

Republican challenger Bradley “Brad” Heller is a small‑business owner from Moses Lake. Heller’s messaging focuses on reducing regulatory burdens and advocating for “a freer economy,” while pledging to protect Second‑Amendment rights. His campaign, which has already amassed over $4 million in contributions, has been criticized for its heavy reliance on out‑of‑state donors.

The third entry is a write‑in, independent, Lydia Chen, a former county prosecutor who has been working on criminal‑justice reform. Chen’s candidacy has struggled to gain traction because of Washington’s top‑two primary system, but she remains a vocal critic of the current congressional establishment.

The Constitutional “Baggage”

Beyond the candidates’ platforms, the editorial team points out a series of constitutional quirks that have shaped campaign finance rules, eligibility criteria, and the mechanics of the election itself.

1. Washington’s “Open Primary” and the Top‑Two System

Washington uses a top‑two primary, in which all candidates—regardless of party—compete in a single primary. The two candidates who receive the most votes move on to the general election, even if they are from the same party. While this system is designed to encourage cross‑party appeal, the editorialists note that it has the unintended effect of discouraging third‑party candidates like Chen, who risk being eliminated early on.

The article cites the Washington Constitution’s Article V, Section 1, which allows the legislature to “make rules for the election of the members of Congress.” The state’s 2010 decision to adopt the top‑two primary was, in part, a reaction to this constitutional flexibility, illustrating how state-level constitutional clauses can be interpreted to influence electoral design.

2. Residency and the “Statutory Minimum” Requirement

Another focus of the editorial is Washington’s residency requirement for congressional candidates. Article IV, Section 3 of the state constitution mandates that a candidate must have been a resident of the state for at least six years prior to the election. This requirement—seemingly a footnote—has real implications. Alvarez’s residency in the district was questioned by a fringe group early in the primary, and Heller’s campaign has had to provide documentary evidence of his long‑term residency in Moses Lake to counter similar attacks.

The editorial underscores how the constitution’s “statutory minimum” language can become a tool for political theater, especially when the lines of “residency” are drawn more by electoral ambition than by legal clarity.

3. Campaign Finance Limits and the “Political Action Committee” Clause

Washington’s constitution has a unique clause that permits the creation of “political action committees” (PACs) but simultaneously restricts their ability to pool funds for federal elections. The article notes that Heller’s campaign has been supported heavily by PACs that operate under the state’s “limited contribution” framework. This framework allows PACs to contribute up to $5,000 per candidate per election cycle, but the federal constitutional limits on campaign contributions still apply. The editorial points out that the overlap of state and federal limits creates a confusing patchwork that can either dampen or amplify campaign resources depending on how a candidate navigates the two regimes.

4. The “Ineligibility” Clause

Perhaps the most surprising constitutional reference is Washington’s “ineligibility” clause, which states that “no person who has ever served in a state or local elected office may serve as a member of Congress for the same district if they hold an office that conflicts with federal law.” While this clause is rarely invoked, the editorial team uses it to highlight how the constitution can inadvertently block political advancement. Alvarez’s brief tenure on the Wenatchee City Council, for example, was scrutinized to determine whether it constituted a conflict of interest under the clause—though ultimately it did not.

Editorial Perspectives and Predictions

The editorial is not a neutral recitation of facts; it is a series of opinion pieces from four columnists—each with their own take on the district’s politics. One columnist argues that the constitutional quirks, while frustrating, ultimately serve as a safeguard against gerrymandering and undue influence. Another warns that the top‑two primary system effectively marginalizes independent voices and encourages a “winner‑takes‑all” mentality that erodes democratic competition.

Across the board, the writers predict that Alvarez will ultimately win the race, given her incumbency and the district’s slight Democratic lean. Yet they caution that the constitutional frameworks in place may either smooth or complicate her campaign strategy. For instance, the residency requirement may become a rallying point for the opposition if they can craft a narrative around “alienation” or “political opportunism.”

A Broader Lesson

What the editorialists hope readers take away is a clearer understanding of how constitutional provisions—often buried in legalese—can have real, everyday impacts on elections. The Washington Constitution’s flexibility in election rules, its nuanced residency stipulations, and its complex finance regulations collectively shape the battlefield. In a year when voters may already feel overwhelmed by candidate slogans and partisan media narratives, the “constitutional quirks” highlighted in this article may help citizens grasp the legal frameworks that govern their representation.

For those who want to dive deeper, The Columbian linked to the Washington Secretary of State’s election page, the state’s official constitution text, and a recent academic study on top‑two primary effects. These resources provide a fuller context for the issues at hand, allowing readers to evaluate how the 3rd District race fits into a broader tapestry of democratic practice in Washington.

Read the Full The Columbian Article at:
[ https://www.columbian.com/news/2025/jul/23/in-our-view-race-for-3rd-district-reveals-constitutional-quirks/ ]

Similar Humor and Quirks Publications

[ Last Sunday ]: NOLA.com

Faimon Roberts: The story behind Louisiana's unique legal framework

N※N