On October 12, a trial will begin in U.S. District Court in Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa, 08-cv-165. The issue is whether the party has a right to a primary process that excludes voters who are not in sympathy with the Republican Party.
The state recently presented an expert report by two political scientists. The synopsis is: (1) an original analysis of roll call voting data in the Idaho legislature suggests that political parties are extremely ideologically cohesive and quite strong. There is little overlap – if any – between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat in the legislature; (2) there is no evidence of a Trojan Horse candidate winning an election and serving as a Republican-in-name-only in the Idaho legislature; (3) the Idaho legislature is already extremely polarized; this could be exacerbated if the state moved to a closed primary system.”
It will be interesting to see if the Idaho Republican Party uses the data of political scientist Boris Shor to rebut the state’s conclusion from the state’s own evidence. Shor studied polarization in all 50 state legislatures, over the last 15 years. Although he did not draw many conclusions about his own data, another political scientist, Seth Masket, did review the Shor data. Masket concluded that there is virtually no correlation between openness of primary system and polarization. For example, the Shor data shows that Washington state has had the nation’s 2nd-most polarized legislature, and Washington has used either a blanket primary, or a top-two primary, for most of the last 15 years.
The state’s expert report does not explain why the Idaho legislature would become more polarized if the state had a closed Republican primary. If the answer is that different types of people would be chosen in the Republican primary if that primary were closed, that would contradict the state’s legal argument that the Republican Party is not injured by the open primary because the same people get nominated with either type of primary. UPDATE: this story describes the evidence presented so far by the Idaho Republican Party.
If any party wants to have a closed primary they should pay for it. If the stte uses taxpayer money to run a primary then it must be open.
The Idaho Republican Party wants to define who may participate in their primary, but they want to do it in a negative way (anyone who is not a Democrat).
Idaho uses a pick-a-party primary where a voter’s party selection is made in private on the ballot. This is why the Idaho GOP doesn’t know if Democrats are voting in their primary, and so everyone is relying on statistical evidence.
What Idaho should do is permit a party to provide a membership roll to the state election officials (electronic format determined by SOS). Then when a voter gets to the poll, if he is not on the roll, the option to select that party on the ballot is voided.
A voter could then in secret choose any party that permitted the voter to choose their primary.
Gee – Nominations for PUBLIC offices by PUBLIC Electors-Voters is PUBLIC business — TOTALLY controlled by PUBLIC laws.
ALL voters – or some voters in groups — with or without other groups and/or independents.
i.e. ALL of the evidence stuff is totally useless.
After the US Supreme Court had struck down the blanket primary in the California case, Washington state filed suit in US district court in an effort to keep its blanket primary. WA had two experts who testified that WA’s blanket primary was constitutional because it differed from CA’s blanket primary. The 9th circuit ruled that there was no material difference, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the state’s appeal.
#1: In 1995, the 8th circuit said that, when the state mandates that parties hold primaries, the parties cannot be required to pay for those primaries (Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County).
#2: The Idaho Republican Party’s expert witness, Professor Michael Munger of Duke University, has determined that 50%-plus of self-identified non-Republicans have voted in at least one Idaho Republican primary.
What’s the big deal about the parties knowing which voters nominate their candidates? Keeping primary voters’ identities secret is like having the delegates to a convention wear disguises (personally, I would go for either a Zorro or a Batman costume).
In every state where at least one party excludes some voters from its primaries, the state registers voters by party. Iowa has open primaries, and yet the state still has party registration.
#4 Washington had argued that their blanket primary was different from California’s because they Washington did not have party registration, and thus did not have “Republicans” crossing-over to vote in selected Democratic races; nor “Democrats” crossing-over to vote in selected Republican races. The 9th circuit ruled that voters thought of themselves as “Republicans” or “Democrats” even before they entered the voting booth, and thus the fact that the State did not actually maintain records of the political beliefs of voters, its blanket primary was not materially different from California where such records are maintained.
#5 Even if Idaho did have party registration, voters might register as “Republicans” even though they weren’t. The news article mentioned one candidate who had served on a city council for 16-years in order to give the appearance of civic mindedness before running as a “Republican”. So clearly the Beck-ites need to have some sort of inquisition to root out the non-orthodox.
#6: As to party registration vs. no party registration, the 9th circuit said, “These are distinctions without a difference. That the voters do not reveal their party preferences at a government registration desk does not mean that they do not have them.”
#7: The article also said that that former city councilman says that he’s been a Republican all along, though he’s more moderate than most Republicans.
In states that register voters by party: When a voter checks a party’s box on the registration form, he or she is considered a member of that party.
#7: You are now considered a member of a political party, since you affiliated with a party last March by voting in that party’s primary.
#8 So in a Pick-A-Party state like Idaho, Republicans would check the Republican box.
#9 He said he was moderate, and that his opponent was more reactionary than most Republicans (see chart on Page 5 of the first link above).
But how can Rod Beck be sure that a voter who checks the GOP box agrees with Rod Beck on every issue. Remember, Beck lost two primaries.
#10 And this has what practical implications?
#11: Please clarify your first sentence.
Ronald Reagan said that someone who disagrees with you 15% of the time is still your friend on 85% of the issues.
Beck says that he lost those primaries because of non-Republican crossover votes.
For someone who has so little use for political parties, you don’t seem to have any reluctance to participate in a party’s candidate-selection process. You must not be very proud of it, however, since you’ve never mentioned which party it was.
#4: I disagree with the 8th circuit. It should have said: when the state mandates that parties hold primaries, the parties hava a choice, if they want a closed primary they pay for it, open the primary to members and independents and the state pays for it. With the number of non-party registered voters growing, they need to be part of the process and this would provide that option.
#13: That would be a great way to black-mail the parties into letting independents vote in their primaries, wouldn’t it? The cost of a statewide primary would be especially prohibitive for a party.
Why should a voter who steadfastly refuses to register with a party be permitted to participate in that party’s candidate-selection process– unless the party invites him to do so? Do you think that parties should be forced to let non-members serve as delegates to their conventions?
I note that the June 9 post on your blog is nearly identical to the June 9 post on my blog– including the title.
What a strange coincidence!
Yes, I am for open state primaries and non-partisan municiple elctions as my blog entries state.
#15: If you’re going to use my content on your blog, you should at least credit me for it.
Having public lists of party hack voters in ANY type of election is asking for trouble — i.e. Civil WAR II.
This AIN’T some sort of golden age of nice political parties and their nice top leaders — who in reality are EVIL party hack NUTCASE left/right control freak extremists.
See the horrific Spanish Civil WAR 1936-1939 — the act before the EVIL big show — World WAR II in 1939-1945.
P.R. and App.V. — ONE election.
#12 The 9th Circuit ruled that Washington voters considered themselves to be Republicans (or Democrats). So surely, Idahoans would be the same (after all they are in the 9th Circuit). So if someone considered themselves to be a Republican, they would check the Republican box, and if they considered themselves to be a Democrat, they would check the Democratic box.
Remember that there were other races on the ballot when Beck lost, so perhaps Beck is paranoid that Democrats were crossing over to stop him.
I made a mistake in #11. Rod Beck lost in the Republican primary three times in 2002, 2004, and 2006. In 2008, Beck did not try a 4th time, but a different challenge defeated the incumbent who had beat Beck in 2004. Maybe Beck has some deficiencies as a candidate.
I’ve been holding off getting the chip implant.