Over the weekend, the California Progress Report carried this commentary in opposition to the California ballot measure for the “top-two open primary”, and the San Bernardino Sun carried this one.
Comments
More Commentary in Opposition to California “Top-Two Open Primary” Ballot Measure — 16 Comments
Richard, I love your passion but the Sun article was very weak.
This needs to be presented to the voting public as a pure grab for power by two larger voting blocks. Every Democratic nation in the world has all legal political parties and independent candidates on the general election ballot. Here we have two larger voting blocks trying to prevent voters from having a Democratic full range of choices in November.
People love the traditional story of the evil bad guys in black hats and the good guys in white hats. You and I love this election detail, but normal people’s eyes glaze over. We need to boil it down and attack it as the corrupt power grab that it is.
In 2004, the Democratic and Republican parties opposed Prop. 62, California’s “top two” initiative, as did the minor parties. I’m sure that the Democrats and the GOP will also oppose the June 2010 ballot measure.
The Republican and Democratic parties fought the 2008 “top two” initiative in Oregon. The same was true of the two major parties in Washington state in 2004.
Major as well as minor parties don’t like the “top two open primary” because (1) they want to be able to officially nominate candidates, and (2) they want to be empowered to have a candidate in the final, deciding election.
Gary, I need all the criticism you can give me, so that I can write better stuff. Also more people in California who oppose “top-two” should be writing their own letters to the Editor. These days, with computers, is is absurdly easy to write a letter to an editor; one doesn’t even need a postage stamp. Furthermore, newspapers frequently give priority to letter-writers who live in the area covered by the newspaper.
Richard, I come from a partisan activist Republican background. I re-registered as a Libertarian last January. But your web-site has opened an entire world of political corruption to me that I never knew existed.
I will be doing the letters to the editor etc. But I have been e-mailing local talk radio hosts around the state. These folks are right-wingers so I put it in words that they understand: “Top two will allow endless numbers of liberal Democrats to vote in GOP primaries for Liberal Republicans.” That has gotten the attention of several hosts.
Keep up the good work.
1) The supposed write-in ban is legally unenforceable. Mr. Winger should seek an interpretation of Elections Code section 8606 from the Secretary or State or the Attorney General. And the Top 2 system makes it easier for a write-in candidate to qualify for ballot placement on the general election ballot than existing law.
3) This is a misreading of the legislation. In fact, candidates from small parties such as the Constitution and Reform parties could run with quite modest signature requires and have their party preference appear on the ballot. Under existing California law, such candidates could only run as independents after getting enormous numbers of signatures 173,000 for statewide office and typically about 10,000 for Congress.
4) Louisiana has two independent members of the legislature who were elected as independents in 2007. California has had 9 independent congressional candidates in the last 900 or so races (since the early 1970s). Zero were elected.
2) Currently voters leave minor parties because there are never any primary races, and usually zero candidates seeking the party nomination and they are blocked from voting in significant Republican or Democratic primaries, whether for Governor, Senate, or President. Most minor parties have degenerated to empty exercises to gain 2% of the vote in some minor statewide office so that they can run again to try to get 2% later.
Since the blanket primary was eliminated, minor party candidates have increasingly disappeared from the election ballot. It appears that when minor party candidates could appeal to voters of all parties they were more successful. In 1998, P&F candidates for governor received over 25,000 votes in the blanket primary. In 2006 only 7,000 P&F members voted in the party-limited primary. Green candidates received 104,000 votes in 1998, while in 2006 only 42,000 Green voters voted in the primary. For the Libertarians the numbers are 73,000 and 22,000. For the Natural Law Party 31,000 and 3,000.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary with registration in a minor party no longer effectively serving to disenfranchise a voter, more voters may maintain their registration in these parties. Minor parties will be able to endorse independent and other party candidates, so that if they don’t have a candidate of their own, they may influence the election directly. These endorsements will be included on the sample ballot distributed to voters with the voters pamphlet. With half of Californians voting by mail, and the percentage increasing with every election cycle, many voters will have this sample ballot available as they complete their ballot.
Even if the parties no longer qualify, it will simply mean that they won’t have a presidential preference primary. In 2008, 4 of 6 California parties ignored the choice of the California voters. Candidates registered with the parties will continue to be able to run for statewide and congressional and legislative offices and have their party preference on the ballot.
#2 Top 2 was passed by the Washington Legislature in 2004. It was only after Gary Locke’s ill-advised veto that the infamous Pick-A-Party primary was instituted, and the Washingto Grange proposed I-872.
Christine Gregoire was Attorney General when the Washington’s blanket primary was challenged after Jones. She was at least equivocal with regard to Top 2. Secretary of State Sam Reed and former Senator Slade Gordon favored it.
ps What is scoop on Edwin Edwards being filmed giving Cleo Fields $20,000 which he stuffed in his pockets. Is is true that Fields said he would explain later?
Richard,
In the current system, there were 26 House races in California with third parties and independents on the ballot in November 2008. Under top two, there would have only been three. Cindy Sheehan was the only candidate who would have won by outpolling a major party candidate under top two. In the other races, the non-major party candidates would have advanced only by default- there would have been only two candidates on the primary ballot!
Let’s see…26 House races with a non-major party candidate on the November ballot in the current system vs. 3 under top two. The choice is clear.
Comment #3’s generalization that voters leave minor parties because there aren’t any contested primary races is not supported by the facts. The minor parties in the U.S. with the highest share of their state’s registration (not in any particular order) are the Alaskan Independence and Libertarian Parties of Alaska, the Independent American Party of Nevada, and the Independence Party of New York. None of those parties have contested primaries, and the Independent American Party of Nevada doesn’t have primaries at all; it nominates by convention.
Are the incumbent party hacks in the many one party safe seat gerrymander districts sweating bullets — i.e. in that they WILL face at least some sort of REAL opposition in the general election if top 2 is passed — even a member of the same party in the 60 plus percent one party areas — which is most of the gerrymander districts ???
P.R. and A.V.
NO primaries are needed.
#5: “Under the Top 2 Open Primary with registration in a minor party no longer effectively serving to disenfranchise a voter, more voters may maintain their registration in these parties.”
That’s a fantasy, since under the “top two,” all or most minor parties will eventually cease to exist.
You’re saying that those who register into minor parties are masochists, since they’re deliberately disenfranchising themselves??
#6: I thought Gov. Locke’s veto was wise. He said that he was concerned about the small parties.
Some 29 states have pick-a-party (or open) primaries. That’s a lot of infamy. Texas’s pick-a-party primary must not bother you much, Jim, since you’ve never contacted the first Texas legislator about changing it.
#4: There are no party primaries in the “top two”– unless a party (ies) opts to hold a primary at its own expense, which is highly unlikely. Even if a party held a primary or some other nominating event, there would be no legal way to stop other candidates from that party from running in the first round of the “top two.”
#3 Both the Alaskan Independence and Alaska Libertarian parties participate in the voluntary blanket primary, so even if there are no party candidates, votes may still cast votes for a candidate of another party. In 2006 there was a contested primary (within the blanket primary) for the Libertarian nomination for the US House, and for a 3-way contest for the AI nomination for governor.
The Alaskan Independence party has lost about 30% of its peak membership. The Alaska Libertarian party failed to get the 3% share of the vote in the 2008 US Senate race, and lost 9% of its membership in the March 2009 purge of the registration rolls (5.4% for all voters). It appears that it is has recently mounted a campaign to maintain its ballot status.
The Independent American Party of Nevada appears like the American Independent party in California to benefit from the party name, with both experiencing significant growth prior to the presidential election (apparently due to new voters checking a box on a form). In 2008, the IA candidate for president, Chuck Baldwin, received votes equal to about 1/8 of the party membership. Bob Barr’s support was equivalent to about 2/3 of the Libertarian registration. Cynthia McKinney about 1/2 of Green registration. All 4 non-major party candidates (Ralph Nader was the 4th) were beaten by None of These Candidates.
There are very few contested primaries in New York by any political party because of the difficulty of forcing a primary (essentially there has to be a challenge of the decision by the party nominees). In 2006, for Congress and the legislature, there were 9 Democratic, 7 Independence, 6 Republican, 4 Working Families, and 1 Conservative primary in multi-county districts (the SBOE does not maintain results for single-county districts). In the early 2000s, the Independence party sue for the right to invite Blank voters to vote in its statewide primary (presumably the case was based on Tashjian). In 2002, the Independence Party had a gubernatorial primary in which Golisano defeated Pataki.
#10 A voter when he registers may check a box next to a party name. If he votes at the primary, he may find a ballot where no candidates are running for Congress or either house of the legislature in his district. Or perhaps there is an interesting race for gubernatorial or senatorial nomination by one or both of the big parties. The minor party voter if he is lucky may be able to cast a vote for some unknown candidate. So some more conscious voters may change to independent or even one of the major parties. Other party members were probably not that interested in voting in the first place, and will have their registration removed after a couple of more election cycles.
Pick-A-Party refers to the Montana Primary which resulted in about 10% of Washington voters primary choices for governor being discarded in 2004.
#10: Actually, some 21 states have pick-a-party (or open) primaries, and Utah’s Democrats have open primaries. That’s still a great deal of infamy.
#11: In Alaska, the Democratic/minor party blanket primary is open to ANY voter. Independents are eligible to vote in the separate Republican primary. Hence Republicans and independents have their choice of either primary ballot. This helps explain why 50%-plus of Alaska voters are registered independents.
I assume the NY Independence Party won its suit to be able to invite independents into its primaries.
#12: You make it sound like voters who register with minor parties don’t have sense enough to know that they may be limiting their options on primary day. I believe that the big majority of such voters know full well what the consequences of joining a minor party will be. This is comparable to voters who register as independents in states where independents can only vote in the general election.
Yes, Washington state used a Montana-style “open primary, private choice” system in 2004. The problems that some voters had were likely related to Washington’s long history with the blanket primary, in which voters could cross party lines from office to office. That history is also why that state’s voters approved the “top two” in November 2004.
#13/10 A Pick-A-Party primary is where the choice of party is made in private. In 2004, 12.0% of voters who went to the polls in Washington did not successfully vote for governor. The comparable figure in 2008 was 0.9%. Throwing away 1 in 8 ballots is infamous.
#13/11 And minor party registrants in Alaska know that they will be able to vote in the primary for all offices, even if there are no candidates from their party (and even if they are). Or even if they are not aware at the time of their registration, they aren’t barred when an election is held.
I think so about the NY Independence Party. It was just a paragraph in an annual report about activities of the State Board of Elections. Since it was in federal court, I can’t imagine any other ruling.
In New York, parties maintain their ballot access by votes cast in the gubernatorial election. The Liberal and Green parties have lost their access after backing their own candidates rather than a major party candidate under fusion.
#13/12 Minor party voters may not be aware when they register of the limitations. Minor party and independent voters tend to be somewhat more casual voters, perhaps registered when they get a driver’s license or as part of an election-year registration drive, and check a box on a form.
It may only be when they become interested in voting in a high profile primary race that they find they are barred from voting. Gavin Newsom’s then-fiancee, a graduate of Stanford University, registered as an American Independent. Had this not been reported, and had he continued to seek the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, she could not have legally vote for him in the primary.
Other minor party registrants may be purged for inactivity. When purges of registration rolls occur, they disproportionately affect minor parties and independents, because of this tendency to be less politically involved. Alaska separates “independent” voters into non-partisan and undeclared categories. Non-partisan voters, who have actively declared their non-partisanship suffer less decline in registration than the undeclared voters who simply filled in the rest of the form.
Before the May 2008 (combined presidential and statewide) primary, the Green Party in Oregon suffered a significant loss in registration as voters switched in order to be able to vote in the Democratic presidential primary.
In States where independent voters are barred from voting in primaries, there tends to be less independent registrants. Look at the growth in independent registration since Arizona went to a semi-open primary.
BTW, in 1922, the Washington legislature passed a party registration laws. Voters forced a referendum and the law was rejected by a 26%-74% margin.
#14: I define “pick-a-party” as a system in which the voter picks a party on primary day; in other words, each primary is open to any voter. The difference is that some of these states have “public declaration,” while others have “private choice.”
Minor party registrants in Alaska are barred from voting in the Republican primary.
It’s my impression that it’s difficult, due to federal regulations, to carry out purges of voter rolls. A few years ago, a county election commissioner purged the roll in Madison County, Mississippi. There were names on the roll that had been there since as far back as 1965, and who had never voted. And yet, as I recall, all the names were restored to the roll.
Arizona’s Democrats and Republicans have semi-closed primaries, in which independents are eligible to vote. In 2007, a US district court ruled that AZ could not force the Libertarians to let independents into their primaries. The Democrats and Republicans could easily also win such a suit, but they’re apparently afraid of being slammed by Senator McCain.
In 1927, a bill for a “top two” was defeated in the Washington state House.
The overwhelming number of Google references to a “pick-a-party” primary are from Washington. I did find one from a new story about the lawsuit by the Idaho GOP. I have never heard Texas’s primary system referred to as “pick-a-party”.
States do regular purges of registration rolls.
For example Alaska Division Web Site includes:
3-3-09 Before List Purge
3-4-09 After List Purge
Percentage Change as result of purge:
Total: -5.4%
American Independence: -5.3%
Democratic: -5.1%
Libertarian: -9.3%
Republican: -5.3%
Non-Partisan: -3.8%
Undeclared: -6.1%
Green: -9.5%
Republican Moderate -14.4%
Veterans: 0.0%
Mississippi HB 763 (2000) removed 23-15-159 (which provided for purging of voters who had not voted in 1 of 4 previous elections). 23-15-160 provided that voters removed under 23-15-159 be reinstated on voter rolls.
The Arizona Green Party could also sue, but they probably want their party to grow. In 2006, turnout in the Libertarian primary was 24.5% of registered Libertarian voters; in 2008, it was 8.9% of registered Libertarian voters. For the Green Party in 2008,it was 35. If you look up Pyrrhic Victory, you will find a link to the decision in the Arizona case.
Richard, I love your passion but the Sun article was very weak.
This needs to be presented to the voting public as a pure grab for power by two larger voting blocks. Every Democratic nation in the world has all legal political parties and independent candidates on the general election ballot. Here we have two larger voting blocks trying to prevent voters from having a Democratic full range of choices in November.
People love the traditional story of the evil bad guys in black hats and the good guys in white hats. You and I love this election detail, but normal people’s eyes glaze over. We need to boil it down and attack it as the corrupt power grab that it is.
In 2004, the Democratic and Republican parties opposed Prop. 62, California’s “top two” initiative, as did the minor parties. I’m sure that the Democrats and the GOP will also oppose the June 2010 ballot measure.
The Republican and Democratic parties fought the 2008 “top two” initiative in Oregon. The same was true of the two major parties in Washington state in 2004.
Major as well as minor parties don’t like the “top two open primary” because (1) they want to be able to officially nominate candidates, and (2) they want to be empowered to have a candidate in the final, deciding election.
Gary, I need all the criticism you can give me, so that I can write better stuff. Also more people in California who oppose “top-two” should be writing their own letters to the Editor. These days, with computers, is is absurdly easy to write a letter to an editor; one doesn’t even need a postage stamp. Furthermore, newspapers frequently give priority to letter-writers who live in the area covered by the newspaper.
Richard, I come from a partisan activist Republican background. I re-registered as a Libertarian last January. But your web-site has opened an entire world of political corruption to me that I never knew existed.
I will be doing the letters to the editor etc. But I have been e-mailing local talk radio hosts around the state. These folks are right-wingers so I put it in words that they understand: “Top two will allow endless numbers of liberal Democrats to vote in GOP primaries for Liberal Republicans.” That has gotten the attention of several hosts.
Keep up the good work.
1) The supposed write-in ban is legally unenforceable. Mr. Winger should seek an interpretation of Elections Code section 8606 from the Secretary or State or the Attorney General. And the Top 2 system makes it easier for a write-in candidate to qualify for ballot placement on the general election ballot than existing law.
3) This is a misreading of the legislation. In fact, candidates from small parties such as the Constitution and Reform parties could run with quite modest signature requires and have their party preference appear on the ballot. Under existing California law, such candidates could only run as independents after getting enormous numbers of signatures 173,000 for statewide office and typically about 10,000 for Congress.
4) Louisiana has two independent members of the legislature who were elected as independents in 2007. California has had 9 independent congressional candidates in the last 900 or so races (since the early 1970s). Zero were elected.
2) Currently voters leave minor parties because there are never any primary races, and usually zero candidates seeking the party nomination and they are blocked from voting in significant Republican or Democratic primaries, whether for Governor, Senate, or President. Most minor parties have degenerated to empty exercises to gain 2% of the vote in some minor statewide office so that they can run again to try to get 2% later.
Since the blanket primary was eliminated, minor party candidates have increasingly disappeared from the election ballot. It appears that when minor party candidates could appeal to voters of all parties they were more successful. In 1998, P&F candidates for governor received over 25,000 votes in the blanket primary. In 2006 only 7,000 P&F members voted in the party-limited primary. Green candidates received 104,000 votes in 1998, while in 2006 only 42,000 Green voters voted in the primary. For the Libertarians the numbers are 73,000 and 22,000. For the Natural Law Party 31,000 and 3,000.
Under the Top 2 Open Primary with registration in a minor party no longer effectively serving to disenfranchise a voter, more voters may maintain their registration in these parties. Minor parties will be able to endorse independent and other party candidates, so that if they don’t have a candidate of their own, they may influence the election directly. These endorsements will be included on the sample ballot distributed to voters with the voters pamphlet. With half of Californians voting by mail, and the percentage increasing with every election cycle, many voters will have this sample ballot available as they complete their ballot.
Even if the parties no longer qualify, it will simply mean that they won’t have a presidential preference primary. In 2008, 4 of 6 California parties ignored the choice of the California voters. Candidates registered with the parties will continue to be able to run for statewide and congressional and legislative offices and have their party preference on the ballot.
#2 Top 2 was passed by the Washington Legislature in 2004. It was only after Gary Locke’s ill-advised veto that the infamous Pick-A-Party primary was instituted, and the Washingto Grange proposed I-872.
Christine Gregoire was Attorney General when the Washington’s blanket primary was challenged after Jones. She was at least equivocal with regard to Top 2. Secretary of State Sam Reed and former Senator Slade Gordon favored it.
http://www.blanketprimary.org/photos/primary-cartoon.gif
ps What is scoop on Edwin Edwards being filmed giving Cleo Fields $20,000 which he stuffed in his pockets. Is is true that Fields said he would explain later?
Richard,
In the current system, there were 26 House races in California with third parties and independents on the ballot in November 2008. Under top two, there would have only been three. Cindy Sheehan was the only candidate who would have won by outpolling a major party candidate under top two. In the other races, the non-major party candidates would have advanced only by default- there would have been only two candidates on the primary ballot!
Let’s see…26 House races with a non-major party candidate on the November ballot in the current system vs. 3 under top two. The choice is clear.
Comment #3’s generalization that voters leave minor parties because there aren’t any contested primary races is not supported by the facts. The minor parties in the U.S. with the highest share of their state’s registration (not in any particular order) are the Alaskan Independence and Libertarian Parties of Alaska, the Independent American Party of Nevada, and the Independence Party of New York. None of those parties have contested primaries, and the Independent American Party of Nevada doesn’t have primaries at all; it nominates by convention.
Are the incumbent party hacks in the many one party safe seat gerrymander districts sweating bullets — i.e. in that they WILL face at least some sort of REAL opposition in the general election if top 2 is passed — even a member of the same party in the 60 plus percent one party areas — which is most of the gerrymander districts ???
P.R. and A.V.
NO primaries are needed.
#5: “Under the Top 2 Open Primary with registration in a minor party no longer effectively serving to disenfranchise a voter, more voters may maintain their registration in these parties.”
That’s a fantasy, since under the “top two,” all or most minor parties will eventually cease to exist.
You’re saying that those who register into minor parties are masochists, since they’re deliberately disenfranchising themselves??
#6: I thought Gov. Locke’s veto was wise. He said that he was concerned about the small parties.
Some 29 states have pick-a-party (or open) primaries. That’s a lot of infamy. Texas’s pick-a-party primary must not bother you much, Jim, since you’ve never contacted the first Texas legislator about changing it.
#4: There are no party primaries in the “top two”– unless a party (ies) opts to hold a primary at its own expense, which is highly unlikely. Even if a party held a primary or some other nominating event, there would be no legal way to stop other candidates from that party from running in the first round of the “top two.”
#3 Both the Alaskan Independence and Alaska Libertarian parties participate in the voluntary blanket primary, so even if there are no party candidates, votes may still cast votes for a candidate of another party. In 2006 there was a contested primary (within the blanket primary) for the Libertarian nomination for the US House, and for a 3-way contest for the AI nomination for governor.
The Alaskan Independence party has lost about 30% of its peak membership. The Alaska Libertarian party failed to get the 3% share of the vote in the 2008 US Senate race, and lost 9% of its membership in the March 2009 purge of the registration rolls (5.4% for all voters). It appears that it is has recently mounted a campaign to maintain its ballot status.
The Independent American Party of Nevada appears like the American Independent party in California to benefit from the party name, with both experiencing significant growth prior to the presidential election (apparently due to new voters checking a box on a form). In 2008, the IA candidate for president, Chuck Baldwin, received votes equal to about 1/8 of the party membership. Bob Barr’s support was equivalent to about 2/3 of the Libertarian registration. Cynthia McKinney about 1/2 of Green registration. All 4 non-major party candidates (Ralph Nader was the 4th) were beaten by None of These Candidates.
There are very few contested primaries in New York by any political party because of the difficulty of forcing a primary (essentially there has to be a challenge of the decision by the party nominees). In 2006, for Congress and the legislature, there were 9 Democratic, 7 Independence, 6 Republican, 4 Working Families, and 1 Conservative primary in multi-county districts (the SBOE does not maintain results for single-county districts). In the early 2000s, the Independence party sue for the right to invite Blank voters to vote in its statewide primary (presumably the case was based on Tashjian). In 2002, the Independence Party had a gubernatorial primary in which Golisano defeated Pataki.
#10 A voter when he registers may check a box next to a party name. If he votes at the primary, he may find a ballot where no candidates are running for Congress or either house of the legislature in his district. Or perhaps there is an interesting race for gubernatorial or senatorial nomination by one or both of the big parties. The minor party voter if he is lucky may be able to cast a vote for some unknown candidate. So some more conscious voters may change to independent or even one of the major parties. Other party members were probably not that interested in voting in the first place, and will have their registration removed after a couple of more election cycles.
Pick-A-Party refers to the Montana Primary which resulted in about 10% of Washington voters primary choices for governor being discarded in 2004.
#10: Actually, some 21 states have pick-a-party (or open) primaries, and Utah’s Democrats have open primaries. That’s still a great deal of infamy.
#11: In Alaska, the Democratic/minor party blanket primary is open to ANY voter. Independents are eligible to vote in the separate Republican primary. Hence Republicans and independents have their choice of either primary ballot. This helps explain why 50%-plus of Alaska voters are registered independents.
I assume the NY Independence Party won its suit to be able to invite independents into its primaries.
#12: You make it sound like voters who register with minor parties don’t have sense enough to know that they may be limiting their options on primary day. I believe that the big majority of such voters know full well what the consequences of joining a minor party will be. This is comparable to voters who register as independents in states where independents can only vote in the general election.
Yes, Washington state used a Montana-style “open primary, private choice” system in 2004. The problems that some voters had were likely related to Washington’s long history with the blanket primary, in which voters could cross party lines from office to office. That history is also why that state’s voters approved the “top two” in November 2004.
#13/10 A Pick-A-Party primary is where the choice of party is made in private. In 2004, 12.0% of voters who went to the polls in Washington did not successfully vote for governor. The comparable figure in 2008 was 0.9%. Throwing away 1 in 8 ballots is infamous.
#13/11 And minor party registrants in Alaska know that they will be able to vote in the primary for all offices, even if there are no candidates from their party (and even if they are). Or even if they are not aware at the time of their registration, they aren’t barred when an election is held.
I think so about the NY Independence Party. It was just a paragraph in an annual report about activities of the State Board of Elections. Since it was in federal court, I can’t imagine any other ruling.
In New York, parties maintain their ballot access by votes cast in the gubernatorial election. The Liberal and Green parties have lost their access after backing their own candidates rather than a major party candidate under fusion.
#13/12 Minor party voters may not be aware when they register of the limitations. Minor party and independent voters tend to be somewhat more casual voters, perhaps registered when they get a driver’s license or as part of an election-year registration drive, and check a box on a form.
It may only be when they become interested in voting in a high profile primary race that they find they are barred from voting. Gavin Newsom’s then-fiancee, a graduate of Stanford University, registered as an American Independent. Had this not been reported, and had he continued to seek the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, she could not have legally vote for him in the primary.
Other minor party registrants may be purged for inactivity. When purges of registration rolls occur, they disproportionately affect minor parties and independents, because of this tendency to be less politically involved. Alaska separates “independent” voters into non-partisan and undeclared categories. Non-partisan voters, who have actively declared their non-partisanship suffer less decline in registration than the undeclared voters who simply filled in the rest of the form.
Before the May 2008 (combined presidential and statewide) primary, the Green Party in Oregon suffered a significant loss in registration as voters switched in order to be able to vote in the Democratic presidential primary.
In States where independent voters are barred from voting in primaries, there tends to be less independent registrants. Look at the growth in independent registration since Arizona went to a semi-open primary.
BTW, in 1922, the Washington legislature passed a party registration laws. Voters forced a referendum and the law was rejected by a 26%-74% margin.
#14: I define “pick-a-party” as a system in which the voter picks a party on primary day; in other words, each primary is open to any voter. The difference is that some of these states have “public declaration,” while others have “private choice.”
Minor party registrants in Alaska are barred from voting in the Republican primary.
It’s my impression that it’s difficult, due to federal regulations, to carry out purges of voter rolls. A few years ago, a county election commissioner purged the roll in Madison County, Mississippi. There were names on the roll that had been there since as far back as 1965, and who had never voted. And yet, as I recall, all the names were restored to the roll.
Arizona’s Democrats and Republicans have semi-closed primaries, in which independents are eligible to vote. In 2007, a US district court ruled that AZ could not force the Libertarians to let independents into their primaries. The Democrats and Republicans could easily also win such a suit, but they’re apparently afraid of being slammed by Senator McCain.
In 1927, a bill for a “top two” was defeated in the Washington state House.
The overwhelming number of Google references to a “pick-a-party” primary are from Washington. I did find one from a new story about the lawsuit by the Idaho GOP. I have never heard Texas’s primary system referred to as “pick-a-party”.
States do regular purges of registration rolls.
For example Alaska Division Web Site includes:
3-3-09 Before List Purge
3-4-09 After List Purge
Percentage Change as result of purge:
Total: -5.4%
American Independence: -5.3%
Democratic: -5.1%
Libertarian: -9.3%
Republican: -5.3%
Non-Partisan: -3.8%
Undeclared: -6.1%
Green: -9.5%
Republican Moderate -14.4%
Veterans: 0.0%
Mississippi HB 763 (2000) removed 23-15-159 (which provided for purging of voters who had not voted in 1 of 4 previous elections). 23-15-160 provided that voters removed under 23-15-159 be reinstated on voter rolls.
The Arizona Green Party could also sue, but they probably want their party to grow. In 2006, turnout in the Libertarian primary was 24.5% of registered Libertarian voters; in 2008, it was 8.9% of registered Libertarian voters. For the Green Party in 2008,it was 35. If you look up Pyrrhic Victory, you will find a link to the decision in the Arizona case.