On April 11, the Idaho Republican Party filed a lawsuit in federal court, to obtain a closed primary for itself. See this news story. The case is Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa, no. 08-cv-165.
In 2007, a group of Idaho Republican Party leaders had filed a similar lawsuit, but that lawsuit lost because it hadn’t been filed by the party itself.
The Idaho Republican Party is the third state unit of a major party to file such a lawsuit. The Virginia Republican Party already won its lawsuit, and we are awaiting a decision from the 5th circuit in the Mississippi Democratic Party case. Thanks to Steve Rankin for this news.
Here’s my take on this topic.
Political parties should be able to control their primary elections,if they want to pay for the primary themselves. Why should my tax dollars go to elect people with whom I disagree. As we have seen with the troubles in Florida and Michigan on the Democratic side, political parties would rather soak taxpayers in picking their nominees for the fall elections.
In 1995, a federal appeals court ruled that, when the state requires parties to hold primary elections, the state must pay for those primaries. Republican Party v. Faulkner County
Since, for minor parties, petitioning accomplishes the same thing as a Primary, i.e. gets the candidate a spot on the November ballot, can the argument then be made (via Republican Party v. Faulkner county, or similar case) that the states should pay for the petitioning?
Petitioning to get minor parties isn’t “nominating” the party’s candidates. The US Supreme Court already ruled in 2000 that it is unconstitutional to force a party to let outsiders help choose its nominees. Yet petitioning is asking lots of outsiders to do something.
So, logically, a petition to get a new party on the ballot is not a nominations process. Instead it is a process by which the party demonstrates that it has a modicum of support. That is why it is so idiotic for Pennsylvania (the state Tom McLaughlin lives in) to still print on the petitions for new parties that the signers are “nominating” the candidates listed on that petition. I hope a lawsuit against that Pennsylvania wording will be filed in the coming week. The lawsuit will also have more significant points, pertaining to charging candidates for the costs associated with removing them from the ballot, and the failure of many Pennsylvania counties to count any write-in votes.
The other possibility is that the Supreme Court will eventually rule that the States and Congress have no authority to regulate political parties NOR in any way to facilitate their activities.
See the 1989 Eu vs S.F. Dem. Comt. opinion —
TWO parts to party hack parties —
1. PUBLIC nominations of candidates
2. PRIVATE internal clubby stuff – party hack officers, platforms, clubby meetings and dinners, etc.
Sorry – party hack folks are PUBLIC ELECTORS when doing A-N-Y thing in the PUBLIC nomination process — nominating petitions, caucuses, primaries and conventions — TOTALLY subject to PUBLIC Constitutions and election L-A-W-S.
Sorry – NO exclusion of blacks [15th Amdt], women [19th Amdt], poor [24th Amdt], etc. is allowed in such 4 party hack machinations.
See the general sanction in 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — universal adult male suffrage.
Sorry females — you had to wait until 1920 and the 19th Amdt in many States.
Waiting for the WA State top 2 primary to wipe out party hacks in ALL parties — regardless of any elitist party hack PRIVATE group endorsements — surely to be used by independent Electors as a reason NOT to vote for a party hack candidate.