The California Republican Party holds a statewide meeting in Riverside County, September 25-27. The meeting will consider a change in the party rules, a change that has been rejected by the party repeatedly during the last decade. The proposed change would say that independent voters could no longer vote in the party’s non-presidential primaries for public office.
If the party votes for this exclusionary change, it might be required to seek the approval of the U.S. Justice Department. California is partially covered under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because Monterey, Kings, Merced and Yuba Counties are covered. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lopez v Monterey County, 525 US 266 1999) that a state that is partially covered by section five is, in effect, wholly covered. And the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Morse v Republican Party of Virginia, 517 US 186 (1994) that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act covers political party rules changes, when that rules change affects who can vote in a party nomination procedure. Recently, the 5th circuit depended on the Morse decision to say that the Texas Democratic Party must get approval from the Justice Department before changing its rules on presidential caucuses.
Republicans OUT of Riverside!!! 🙂 I tried but I think they are coming anyway.
They’ll be in Palm Springs, away from the unwashed masses.
Morse is in error, especially when placed up against the controlling precedent of Tashjian, which indicates that political parties can decide per the First Amendment–which overrides all sections of the statutory Voting Rights Act, BTW–who they want to vote in their primaries.
If they want to, they can make the change without any problems. If someone sues, the CA GOP merely cites Tashjian as overriding Morse and VRA and asks for summary judgment.
Morse is more recent than Tashjian. Furthermore, just a few weeks ago, the 5th circuit accepted that Morse is still good law, and told the Texas Democratic Party it can’t change the way it allocates delegates in presidential caucuses.
#2: “… Tashjian… indicates that political parties can decide per the First Amendment… who they want to vote in their primaries.”
Tashjian empowers parties to invite independents into their primaries. Parties may also invite members of opposing parties UNLESS the state prohibits it (Clingman v. Beaver [2005]).
Alabama’s Republicans allow people to vote in their runoff (or second) primaries who voted in the Democratic primary several weeks earlier, since state law does not forbid it.
The default setting under Election Code 13102 is for a closed primary. Presumably the State of California has received pre-clearance for the entire section and this would cover any subsequent decision by any party to open their primary.
Alternatively, the change in procedure occurred when the Democratic, Republican, and American Independent decided to open their primaries for the first time, and they should have sought pre-clearance at that time.
Or Alternatively, the Peace & Freedom and Libertarian parties should have sought pre-clearance for closing their primaries.
#4 Connecticut is not required to seek pre-clearance under Section 5 of the VRA, and presumably the State of Connecticut did not raise the issue of the VRA in defending its statutes.
Remember that Justice Stevens dissent in essence said that the issue of political association should not even be considered given the inconsistent voter qualification between legislative and congressional elections. A decision to open a primary could not occur if it would be in violation of, for example, the 14th or 15th Amendments.
“Connecticut is not required to seek pre-clearance…”
Did somebody say it is required to do so?
And what difference does it make what someone on the losing side of the ruling said?
Richard,
How on earth did those 4 Counties get stuck with this
situation in the first place? When are what were the rulings and plaintiffs?
Deemer (#8), the list of covered jurisdictions, including the four California counties, is based on historical patterns of racial differences in registration and/or voter turnout. I don’t remember the formula, but I do know that, by law, it is based on a specific point in time. I think that point of time is still sometime in the 1970s. Some have argued that the list is therefore very out of date and more recent statistics should be used. Others have argued that the effects of past discrimination are long lasting and using the older data is still appropriate.
Reply to Charles Deemer with question. On January
10, 2006, Chairperson Nancy of AIP wrote the Secretary of State and informed the SOS that the
State Central Committee met sometime between January 1, 2006 and January 10, 2006 and voted for
an open primary underv SB 28. That was total dis-
informatation, because there was no meeting of the
State Central Committee. Therefore, the 2006 primary was a total fraud on the members of the
American Independent Parrty.
With Nightingale now running around claiming
she is the AIP endorsed candidate for governor,
when the State Central Committee has make no such
endorsement, do you think it is a good idea to
close off the primary to persons who decline to
state a party affiliation from voting for Nightingale in next years primary?
It looks to me that the Constitution Party has violated its basic tenant of not endorsing in
intrastate elections, by backing Nightingale for
Governor of California in the American Independent Party’s primary. No wonder the State Central Committee of the American Independent
Party voted to affliate with the America’s Independent Party on June 27, 2008.
What do you think the State Central Committee should do about Nancy and the disinformation letter of January 10, 2006 to the California Secretary of State?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party; Chairman, Orange County Central
Committee, American Independent Party; & Executive
Committeeman, America’s Independent Party.