The Republican Parties in two states, Idaho and South Carolina, are currently litigating whether they are constitutionally entitled to some procedure that will prevent adherents of other political parties from voting in Republican primaries. In Idaho, all the briefs are submitted, and Judge B. Lynn Winmill could rule at any time. That case is Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa, in U.S. District Court, 08-cv-165.
In South Carolina, the Greenville County Republican Party’s lawsuit is not as far along. Discovery was completed last month and the briefs will have been submitted by January 31, 2011. That case is Greenville County Republican Party Executive Committee v State of South Carolina, 6:10-cv-1407. The case is in front of Judge J. Michelle Childs.
Neither Idaho nor South Carolina has ever had registration by party, so under current law, any voter on primary day is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never settled whether political parties in open primary states are entitled to some procedure that prevents loyalists of other political parties from voting in their primaries. However, when the Oklahoma Libertarian Party tried to win the oppposite kind of ruling, it lost in the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, the Libertarian Party wanted to create an open primary for itself. It desired that any registered voter ought to be free to ask for a Libertarian Party primary ballot. Oklahoma is a state that has registration by party. The party won in the 10th circuit, but in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and said it wouldn’t be fair to the major parties if the Libertarian Party could do that. That ruling, Clingman v Beaver, has caused confusion, because until that ruling, the law seemed to be that parties were free to decide for themselves who can vote in their primaries.
The 2008 WA top 2 case in SCOTUS should settle the above mess.
PUBLIC nominations of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices is by PUBLIC electors [NOT private folks in some club]
— all PUBLIC Electors (as in the top 2 States) or some PUBLIC Electors (as in the other States — with or without party registration / restrictions and with or without independents) — i.e. multiple types of possible PUBLIC primaries.
Such nominations are PUBLIC business — TOTALLY subject to PUBLIC L-A-W-S.
See the now ancient Texas White Primary cases in SCOTUS circa 1928-1932 — following by other SCOTUS primary cases.
NO mention in the U.S.A. Constitution that X percent of ALL Electors-Voters in any State [i.e. a FACTION] have a magic constitutional *right* to nominate any body for any office — with or without a party label.
The choosing of PRIVATE officers by the members of PRIVATE groups [i.e. the internal clubby stuff of political parties] is another totally separate matter — see the 1989 Eu case in SCOTUS.
As usual – this stuff AIN’T atomic physics from outer space and this AIN’T 1928 — racist primaries, etc.
Going back to 1928 is like calling for the over-ruling of Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954.
P.R. and App.V. — NO primaries are needed. — one more thing to be sent to the political history junkyard – along with divine right of kings, etc.
“Neither Idaho nor South Carolina has ever had registration by party, so under current law, any voter on primary day is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.”
This is very important to note because since both states don’t have registration by party, then why do they have “open primaries?” Shouldn’t they just start registration by party to stop this confusion? Or maybe the Supreme Court should decide on this?
#2 Why should the government maintain records of your political affiliation? In Idaho, voters are given the primary ballots of all parties, and pick which one they want to vote in secret.
Having the party hacks in ANY State have a list of partisan registrations is like having Stalin and Hitler have friends and enemies lists — asking for MAJOR trouble — sooner rather than later.
See the partisan ROT of the Roman Republic 120 BC – 27 BC.
Do party hack MORONS want EVIL history to repeat ???
Any lists of the supporters on both sides in the horrific Thirty Years WAR in the early 1600s between the Catholic and Protestant monarchs/oligarchs in Europe ???
Libertarian voter is right. Why don’t they just start party registration?
Demo Rep, all that party registration is for is to vote in primaries and to keep track of the growth/shrinking of political parties.
In the SC case it’s ironic that a county chapter has taken this to court rather than bringing their own state legislators to the table and force the issue via the House and Senate with a Governor’s signature. Both houses of the legislature are firmly in Republican hands as is the Governor’s mansion.
This is the TEA Party and traditional ultra orthodox Bob Jones University crowd pursuing via the court what they can’t wring from their own elected officials. This doesn’t bother me, but I think it’s interesting.
Would the outcome of the court case be subject to DOJ review under the Voting Rights Act?
The South Carolina Green Party only allows those who have been dues paying members for at least 30 before the convention may vote at the state nominating convention. Some of our candidates, who had not paid dues in that time frame, were not able to vote for themselves. This doesn’t give us “control”, but it does keep a group of people looking to do nothing but disrupt the outcome from doing so at the last moment.
#6 NOT being registered in a party hack group may be deemed to mean one has some independent brain cells and thus such one is an Enemy of the State.
See the movie with Gene Hackman.
When will ALL brains be scanned by statists to show the love/hate level for statism ???