Kentucky now has closed primaries. Kentucky has registration by party, and only registered members of parties may vote in those primaries. On February 2, the Senate State and Local Government Committee passed SB 41, by Senator Jimmy Higdon (R-Lebanon). It says that independent voters, and also members of unqualified parties, may vote in partisan primaries. The bill would take effect in 2012. Voters who were entirely unregistered as of December 31 of the year before the primary, but who registered as independents in the year of the primary, could not take advantage of the bill’s provisions.
Senator Higdon introduced the same bill in 2010. It passed the State Senate on February 2, 2010, by a vote of 25-12, but then the bill went to the House, which didn’t even hold a hearing on it. Thanks to The Hankster for this news. The Political Science definition for the type of primary system set up by HB 41 is “semi-closed”. By contrast, an “open primary” lets any voter, on primary day, choose any party’s primary ballot. Generally open primary states don’t have registration by party.
P.R. and App.V.
NO primaries are needed or wanted.
I believe that the Kentucky bill is unconstitutional, as it would force parties to let independents vote in their primaries.
Nebraska mandates that independents may vote in party primaries for Congress. No lawsuit has ever been filed against that law.
Arizona mandates that independents and registrants of unqualified parties may vote in party primaries. The Libertarians won an exemption from the law (AZ Libertarian Party v. Brewer), and the Republicans are considering bringing suit.
The US Supreme Court uses your definitions– the political science definitions– for semi-closed and open primaries.
Again – the nomination of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices by PUBLIC electors is PUBLIC business — totally subject to PUBLIC laws
i.e. all Electors – nonpartisan primaries and top 2 primaries
party hack factions of all Electors with or without other parties and/or independents — a possible zillion combinations.
— screwed up by the party hack SCOTUS morons in the CA blanket party case.
Arizona Libertarian Party members won an exemption from the Arizona Open Primary law in federal district court because they pay for their own primary election. As soon as Republicans and Democrats start to pay for their own primary elections, it would seem fair to me that they be allowed to close their primary elections. As long as independent voters are taxed to pay for party primaries, they should be allowed to vote in them. In any event, independent voters will not be anything but slaves to two party corruption until they begin to register as candidates for political office. The thing to remember about independent voters is that they were created by the writing of the Constitution of the United States. There were no organized political parties in the United States until the election of 1800. Political parties, as George Washington said, are “self-created societies”, and the people are foolish if they support political parties. The remedy for the present situation is independent candidates in the general election. Now that independents outnumber the largest of the two major parties, they should be trying to take as many votes away from them as possible until they outnumber both major parties and Americans who do not belong to “self-created societies” can be elected.
So if I want to vote as an independent I can only select one or the other major parties candidates that were preselected for me. But there are candidates from each party and some from minor parties, independents, and write-ins I could vote for. I am in a box not of my choosing.
To create a system to answer all the Supreme Court issues, I would create a system with these features:
1. All Candidates selected by their parties paid for system, ballot accepted new minor party candidates, independents, and write-ins are on one ballot.
2. There is two boxes. One optionally indicates the Candidates registered party. The other optionally indicates all endorsements.
3. The Top Two go on to the General Election.
A possible additional element could be IRV. This would allow the first selection of a favorite son or daughter, vanity candidate, etc. I also do not like the different 40% or 50%+1 systems. Top Two should mean Top Two.
#5 In the overwhelming majority of Top Two elections, the finalists are one Democrat and one Republican, or two Democrats, or two Republicans. I think the duopoly has failed our country. Two failed parties should not be the only choices on the ballot.
#4: In 1995, the 8th circuit ruled 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). Left to their own devices, the parties would be unlikely to nominate by primary, due to the expense. That would mean that far fewer people would be choosing the parties’ candidates.
When a party nominates by a method other than the primary, and all the candidates for a particular office are in that party, grassroots voters miss out on voting directly for that office.
Thus states will continue to mandate that parties hold primaries for partisan offices, and states will continue to pay for those primaries.
Parties in Virginia have several nominating options other than the primary, and yet that state has a long history of paying for party primaries.
#2 Nebraska’s law is based on the Nebraska’s attorney general’s interpretation of Tashjian that voters who are qualified to vote in legislative elections, including primaries, are qualified to vote in congressional elections, including primaries.
Since Nebraska permits all voters to vote in legislative primaries, they must let all voters vote in their congressional primaries.
The Nebraska AG admitted that it was only a guess what Justice Marshall was trying to say in Tashjian and that the Supreme Court might interpret the situation differently.
The Nebraska legislature later codified the AG’s opinion.
Who knows what ANY party hack opinion in SCOTUS means – especially since the packing of the court with robot party hacks starting with Prez Lincoln during the Civil War ???
How many private groups manage to survive using snail mail ballots to choose their officers ???
#8: Tashjian, of course, was a 5-4 ruling. John Paul Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, with Antonin Scalia concurring. Scalia also wrote his own separate dissent.
Ironically, Joe Lieberman was the state AG. It was his duty to defend the law that prohibited parties from inviting independents to vote in their primaries. Today, of course, he’s an independent US senator.
Lawsuits against the Nebraska and Arizona laws would be most interesting.
#5: Why should the voters be limited to just two choices in the final, deciding election– both of whom may be from the same party?
If you’re going to promote such a system, why not push for a “top three” or a “top four” instead of a “top two”? And why not allow write-ins in the final, deciding election?
# 11 Perhaps having a majority of the votes winner in each gerrymander district gives the illusion that the system is some sort of fictional democracy (regardless of the nonvotes in each such district – esp. if there are 2Ds or 2Rs on the ballots).
REAL Democracy NOW via P.R. and App.V.
#12: The big majority of US jurisdictions do not require a majority (50%-plus) for a candidate to be elected to office. Apparently, they do not consider the voice of the majority to be the VOICE OF GOD.
It is not true that the Arizona Libertarian primary (for office other than president) is paid for by the party. The taxpayers pay for the August primary for all political parties.