On May 28, the 5th circuit reversed a U.S. District Court in the Mississippi Democratic Party’s lawsuit. Here is the decision. The U.S. District Court had ruled that Mississippi must give the Democratic Party an opportunity to close its primary to outsiders. The 5th circuit said that the case should be dismissed, because the Democratic Party has not passed any Bylaws on closing its primaries, and because it has not asked the U.S. Justice Department, Voting Rights Section, to preclear such bylaws. Mississippi is one of the states covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which means that neither the government, nor political parties, may change election rules without getting approval from the federal government.
The case is Mississippi State Democratic Party v Barbour, 07-60667. The decision erroneously cites a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Renne v Geary, to strengthen itself. The 5th circuit decision says, “MSDP’s situation more closely resembles that of the Democrat Party in Renne v Geary. The party challenged a California statute that prohibited political parties from endorsing candidates for nonpartisan office.” This sentence is factually erroneous. The Democratic Party was not a plaintiff in Renne v Geary, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court said the plaintiffs (various county central committee members of the San Francisco Democratic Party) didn’t have standing. In the current Mississippi case, the Democratic Party is a plaintiff. The 5th circuit opinion is by Judge Edith Jones, who shows her bias by referring to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party.” She is somewhat well-known for being a partisan Republican. Thanks to Steve Rankin for the news.
In ‘Renne v Geary’ the US Supreme Court did rule that the plaintiff’s 1st Amendment claims as ordinary voters to read party endorsements in the voters pamphlet was not ripe since there had been no current attempt to make such an endorsement by political parties. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs as party committee members did not have standing to bring a claim on behalf of their party. So it really is similar to the Mississippi case where the party really didn’t attempt to close their primary.
I think “Democrat party” (not “Democrat Party”) is used in the sense of “party of the Democrats” and to avoid confusion with the MSDP.
An interesting tidbit was that the MSDP had actually sought pre-clearance from USDOJ, but they had sent it back because it was not clear what the MSDP wanted, and the MSDP did not pursue the issue.
The 5th Circuit notes that the US Supreme Court in Tashjian had characterized Mississippi’s primary as a semi-closed primary since independent presumably can vote in the primary of their choice. Judge Pepper of course has called the system facially closed because of the Mississippi law that purports to restrict participation to those who intend to to support those nominated in the primary. It is certainly not an open primary.
It sounds like the 5th Circuit mostly agreed with Mississippi AG Jim Hood that the case was not justiciable, and also didn’t like that the case had turned into a five ring circus because of the issue of photo IDs.
Since 1840, the official name of that party has been the Democratic party.
In an open primary, a party’s ballot is available to any registered voter. The 1987 “challenge” law to which you referred, Jim R, has very rarely been used and only in a few isolated cases.
The Democrats brought their suit because Mississippi has a state-mandated open primary.
It’s strange that it took the 5th Circuit so long to conclude that the case was not ripe.
I’m convinced that, if given the chance, the US Supreme Court will invalidate the state-mandated open primary. The big question is whether such a case will ever reach the high court.
As the 5th Circuit prominently noted in their decision, the US Supreme Court in ‘Tashjian’ classified Mississippi as having a semi-closed primary. Judge Pepper called it facially closed because of the Mississippi law that restricts participation in the primaries to those that intend to support the nominees in the general election.
The Democratics brought suit because they had to associate with people that they didn’t like, and the State of Mississippi had failed to provide a classification system so that the Democratics could know who they didn’t like.
Judge Pepper then ruled that Mississippi voters would need a state-issued Picture ID to vote in the Democratics primary, so that the Democratics could identify those that they didn’t like.
The 5th Circuit had to contend with 5 separate parties (The Democratics, the MSGOP, the NAACP, Governor Barbour and the Secretary of State, and AG Hood) and issues that should have been argued before a trial court.
hello free citizen.do you still live in clinton?
I live in Jackson, mountain girl.
Where do you live?
oldsouthwestATaol.com
Tashjian was decided in 1986, and the law to which you refer was enacted in 1987.
The Democrats have a way of identifying Republicans– the only voters that they want to block from Dem primaries. Each voter’s choice of party on primary day is publicly recorded.
In his amended order of July 2007, Judge Pepper deleted “photo” and merely specified “voter ID.” He is, of course, mistaken in his notion that voter ID is necessary for a party to block certain voters from its primaries.
When the Supreme Court has used “identify” they meant it more in the sense of ‘determine’ and ‘designate’, rather than ‘check someone’s ID’. (ie the State identified persons under the age of 21 as being unsuitable for consumption of alchohol; vs. the bartender identified the patron as being under the age of 21, and did not serve him).
Judge Pepper and the MSDP seemed to have got the term mixed up. If each voter’s choice of party on primary day is publicly recorded, why did the MSDP claim that they were unable to communicate with their members regarding conclaves, pronouncements, etc.?
How does the MSDP intend to determine which voters share their beliefs?