So we can just pick and choose which laws we want to enforce?

Yah, what #1 said- how does a statute become no-longer-applicable?

I have a guy what needs whacked. Can i petition the AG to rule the homicide laws no-longer-applicable? Maybe just for the weekend?

@1 It depends on who you are.

I'm not a lawyer, though I've played one on TV, but it looks like there's another statute that contradicts the one the Libertarian Party was citing. The judge did not just waive a law for no reason.
Besides, as funny as it would be to see Rmoney kicked off the ballot along with a lower GOP turnout, the resulting shitstorm might not be worth it.

"Judge Rejects Libertarian Lawsuit"

REEEEEEEEALY? Why, I am shocked. SHOCKED!

What fucking idiot thought anything was going to come of this in the first place?

@1 yes, provided you are Rich and White.

I would be curious if anyone thinks that this judge may have ruled differently if he were appointed for life instead of being elected, or what are anyone’s thoughts on an elected judiciary in general

Voters of Washington, backed by the federal judiciary, changed the voting environment to a Top 2 system, leaving a number of orphan statutes that no longer work. The Supreme Court has made that point. The Legislature is waiting for the final denouement of party "as-applied" challenge before doing a Top 2 cleanup bill that clears out Pick-a-Party statutes that no longer apply. Supremes will decide next month whether to accept review, but the state's administration of Top 2 closely followed the roadmap set forth in the original decision. Judge Coughenour and the 9th Circuit both have ruled this. In the Libertarians' case, the judge has ruled that the presidential year voting, not the mid-term, will be used as the test for major party status.

So basically, the two parties wrote a statute so as to ensure their continued duopoly, and when that came back to bite one of them on the ass, a judge decides that the law doesn't mean what it actually says?

I hope the Libertarians do appeal this one. Not to screw with the Republicans, but for two reasons:

1. I think it's an incredibly shitty precedent for an agency to get away with passing an administrative regulation that attempts to supersede a law.

2. There is a certain illicit satisfaction in seeing Libertarians argue for the rule of law, when most of their philosophy boils down to "I'll do what I want and the govt [sic] has no business telling me otherwise."

APPEAL! you got's to fuck with them, it's our duty!