On June 10, Pennsylvania Representative Eugene DePasquale (D-York) introduced HB 1672. It provides that parties that hold primaries (i.e., those parties with registration of 15% or more) must let independent voters vote in their primaries. If the bill were to be signed into law, the only Pennsylvania voters would who not be able to vote in major party primaries would be members of minor parties. Under the bill, independents could choose which party primary to vote in. The bill has 9 co-sponsors.
More reason for parties to use conventions, and not have the taxpayers subsidizing their partisan activities.
Richard,
If the requirements for ballot qualified status changes
in Pennsylvania which another bill being debated now in
Harrisburg would this bill include them or would their status as a minor party allow them to stop Independents
from voting in the party’s primary?
The Pennsylvania ballot access bill (SB 513 and HB 624) would let qualified minor parties nominate by convention. Nothing in the new bill, HB 1672, relates to convention nominations. So if both bills passed, minor parties could still limit voting in their conventions to members only. It would be up to the minor parties to decide on who could vote at their own conventions.
Members of a major party wouldn’t be able to vote in the other major party’s primary, would they?
The primaries should be run by the state/local government as it is now. The major parties should be billed for the cost – 50% each. If there is a ballot question, they should get a 10% reduction.
The bill doesn’t give Democratic voters any additional rights. Even if the bill passed, Democrats could not vote in the Republican primary. Ditto for Republican voters (they would still not be able to vote in the Democratic primary).
Richard:
I thought the US Supreme Court had already ruled that political parties (holding primary elections) could allow independents to vote in their primaries if they so desire. If this is so, why is legislation needed in Pennsylvania (or any other state) to permit that right? Does not the Court ruling overrule any need for legislation?
#7 is right. However, the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania, and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, don’t want independents voting in their primaries. So the author of the bill wants to force them. However, when the Arizona Libertarian Party went to federal court to stop the state from forcing the party to let independents vote in its primary, the party won the case. So even if the bill passes, if the Pennsylvania major parties really don’t like it, they can probably sue to overturn it. The bill has very little chance of passing anyway.
Subgroups of PUBLIC Electors have NO independent power to do whatever they want in PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices — regardless of the illogical MORON courts totally screwing up ballot access since 1968.
P.R. and A.V. NOW — NO STONE AGE party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
#7: Since many poll workers are not familiar with court rulings, many states enact laws stating that each party decides whether independents vote in its primaries. When Louisiana restored party primaries for Congress in 2008, e. g., the legislature passed such a law; the Democrats invited independents into their primaries, while the Republicans did not.
Arizona’s Democrats and Republicans are still meekly letting independents vote in their primaries. They’re evidently afraid that if they filed suit against the state law, they would be slammed by that great champion of “open primaries”– Sen. McCain (when independents are the only non-members voting in a party primary, that’s actually a semi-closed primary).
Nebraska mandates that independents vote in party primaries for Congress. To my knowledge, that’s the only other state that forces parties to let independents into their primaries (other than the open primary states, of course).
#1: When parties nominate by convention or caucus, grassroots citizens can only vote in the general election. Voters accustomed to party primaries would raise hell if primaries were eliminated.
Also, all the candidates for some offices sometimes run under one party’s label. If there was no party primary, grassroots citizens would miss out on voting for those offices.
Some states, of course, allow write-ins, but write-in candidates almost never get elected.
#5: In 1995, the 8th Circuit said that, when the state compels parties to nominate by primary, the parties cannot be forced to pay the costs of those primaries (Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County).