Recently the Virginia Republican Party decided to hold a 2010 primary to choose its nominee for the U.S. House, 5th district. The 5th district seat was won by Democrats in 2008 in a very narrow race. The November 2008 vote was: Democrat Tom Perriello 158,810 votes, Republican Virgil Good 158,083 votes.
Now the Republican Party’s decision to use a primary instead of a convention is getting criticism from people who say it will cost the taxpayers $260,000. Virginia has no U.S. Senate race in 2010, and no state offices up in 2010, so there can only be primaries in 2010 for U.S. House, and partisan county office. If the Republicans had chosen a convention instead of a primary for the U.S. House in this district, elections officials inside the 5th district would mostly not need to hold any primary. See this story.
Virginia could save much more money if it would move its state elections to even-numbered years. Because federal elections are in even years, Virginia holds elections every year, for either federal office or state office. Other states that hold some or all statewide state elections in odd years are New Jersey, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.
Question: Are independents invited to vote in GOP primaries in VA??? — no public dollars for any party primary that does not invite non-enrolled voter participation.
Virginia doesn’t have registration by party. There is no such thing as a registered independent, in that state.
If Virginia would switch to Top 2 it would hold a primary as a matter of course, or since its even year elections are limited to mostly congressional elections it could simply hold an election in November, with a runoff as needed. A presidential runoff would also draw attention to the state.
natural born citizen party- at least any registered voter can vote in the Republican primary in Virginia. In Pennsylvania if you are not registered as a Republican or Democrat you cannot vote in the primary although you get to pay for it!
Holding inclusive democratic elections is not a cheap endeavor. I have no objection to them using the primary system if they believe, as I assume they do, that a primary would get them either their best candidate, or their most electable candidate. Occasionally we get a candidate who is both.
P.R. and nonpartisan A.V. — NO caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
Ballot access via EQUAL nominating petitions for all candidates for the same office in the same area.
In 1995, the 8th Circuit said that, when the state requires a party to hold a primary, the party cannot be forced to pay for that primary. Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County If a party were required to pay for a primary, it would be very unlikely to hold one.
Virginia provides its parties with several nominating options besides the primary. It should also be noted that Virginia incumbents get to pick the method by which they run for renomination. Several years ago, in a suit brought by a local unit of the Virginia Republican Party, the 4th Circuit said that, when an incumbent forces the party to hold a primary, the party– not the state– decides who may vote in that primary. The court reasoned that, if (1) the party wanted a closed process, and (2) the party was free to choose, it could hold a nominating event other than a primary. Miller v. Cunningham
I’m not clear on whether the Virginia Republicans have subsequently excluded any voters from their primaries. I know the GOP was planning to require voters to sign a loyalty pledge for its 2008 presidential primary, but there was such a negative reaction that the party dropped this plan.
To pick its candidate for a special election for a state Senate seat, the Republicans recently held a “firehouse primary,” in which everyone votes at a single location. The party required these voters to sign a loyalty pledge.
“Other states that hold some or all statewide state elections in odd years are New Jersey, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania.”
Mississippi elects its state and county officials at the same time (next in 2011). In a number of our counties, the county races are decided in one party’s primary; thus anyone who votes in the other party’s primary misses out on choosing the county officials. This is usually when there is a great cry for a Louisiana-style “top two,” popularly called the “open primary.”
I personally favor Mississippi changing to nonpartisan county elections, which would give voters greater choice.
If we began holding our state and county elections at the same time as mid-term congressional elections, there would be an even greater clamor for the “open primary.”
It’s a good thing Virginia doesn’t have runoff (or second) primaries, as some states do. They would then be looking at a considerably greater expense for the Republican primary in the 5th US House district (there are seven GOP candidates thus far, so it’s not likely that the winner will get 50%-plus).
It will be interesting to see whether the 5th district Republicans block any non-Republicans from voting in that primary. One of the article’s commenters– a backer of the incumbent Democrat– says that he and his friends intend to vote in the GOP primary for the “worst possible choice.”
The article also says that at least two third-party candidates will be on the November ballot, but it doesn’t say which parties they are from.
I just remembered that those Virginia Republicans cannot block any voters from their 5th US House district primary, since they freely chose to hold a primary.
In California, the American Independent Party, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party allow independents to vote in their primary elections (other than for County Central Committee). If the “top-two†somehow manages to pass this coming year, I think that AIP-CA might become a party that other minor parties might try to take over. I have been thinking that this could happen to the Republican Party also. As the GOP continues to lose voter registrants in California, it will become more vulnerable to outside groups. If a minor party could take over the party machinery of AIP-CA or the Golden State’s GOP, it would no longer have ballot access problems.
What is to stop the party hacks in control of a regime passing a law saying that ONLY the party hacks of such party get on the general election ballots ???
— with an alleged write-in option and/or perhaps a majority of the voters requirement to be elected ???
See the old DEAD U.S.S.R. communist regime — ONLY party hack approved commie candidates on the ballots — to give the EVIL appearance that the commie regimes were *democratic*.
Attn folks — the U.S.A. is an EVIL and VICIOUS party hack oligarchy (since day 1 on 4 July 1776) — tending nonstop towards being an even more EVIL and VICIOUS ONE party hack OLIGARCHY – MONARCHY.
Each gerrymander is an act of W-A-R against REAL Democracy.
P.R. and A.V.
Is this question not common sensical: “Why not let political parties pay for their own caucuses or primaries from their members’ dues?”
Why do a plurality of Americans who are independents or third party supporters have to subsidize the major parties elections. Political parties are not public entities they are private parties aren’t they? And then of course they heavily restrict/prevent indies and 3rd partiers from getting access to elections. Are there any lawyers out there willing to file a RICO lawsuit against the FEC and the Dem/Rep parties to expose their hypocrisy?
I bet forcing the major parties to fund their own activities would drastically reduce the number of “Republicans” and “Democrats”. Especially the ones who’ve never given a dime or one second of effort to either organization. Not too mention one brain cell’s effort to understanding the true platforms of either of those parties.
#13: “’Why not let political parties pay for their own caucuses or primaries…'”
The state-mandated party primary is the only nominating event for which the state pays; the parties pay for conventions, caucuses, etc. If the state left it up to each party as to how it nominated its candidates, a party would be very unlikely to hold a primary, due to the expense. Then the voters, who are accustomed to primaries in most states, would raise hell. Thus states will continue to require and pay for party primaries.
Virginia, e. g., gives its political parties several nominating options, but if a party nominates by primary, the state nevertheless pays for it.
In a situation where all of the candidates for a particular office run under the same party label, and that party does not hold a primary, grassroots citizens miss out on voting for that office.
See comment #7… Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County.
Response to #14:
Well, the 4th Circuit is not the end all be all…you make it sound like the Supreme Court has definitively decided the constitutionality of something (citizens paying for primaries) that is not in the constitution or even envisged by the founding fathers.
Grassroots citizens? Voters missing out? What are you talking about? It is BS for the exorbanent costs involved with primaries to be paid be taxpayers.
At least you acknowledge that Dems/Reps are full of it that they wouldn’t pay for primaries and select own represntative candidates.
Living in this 5th district that has a large geographic spread (the size of NJ), I can understand why they select a primary. However it will allow the incumbent’s supporters to vote against the strongest of the contenders.
As for indie candidates, several are expressing interest, but today is the earliest to the petition drive. So let’s hope a few succeed this time.
#16: I take it that the 5th district Democrats are not holding a primary. Does the incumbent have any opposition for the Dem nomination?
“… [the Republicans holding a primary] will allow the incumbent’s supporters to vote against the strongest of the [GOP] contenders.”
This statement illustrates a major reason why I predict that, when a case involving the state-mandated open primary reaches the US Supreme Court, the justices will declare it unconstitutional.
#15: Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County was in the 8th Circuit. Since it was not appealed to the Supreme Court– or the justices refused to hear the case– the 8th Circuit’s ruling is controlling.
“Grassroots citizens? Voters missing out? What are you talking about? It is BS for the exorbanent (sic) costs involved with primaries to be paid by taxpayers.”
Many states require parties to nominate by primary. However, if (1) all the candidates for a particular office ran under the same party label, and (2) that party nominated by a method other than the primary, then grassroots voters would miss out on choosing that official.
If you read the article to which the above post links, you saw that many of the counties in Virginia’s 5th US House district are complaining about the expense of conducting a primary. Do you think the Republican Party could afford this expense? And that’s just one House district… imagine the expense of a statewide primary.
Years ago, in some places, the candidates in a primary were required to pay the costs of the primary. I believe that South Carolina’s Republicans still make the candidates pay for their presidential primary.
I just remembered that, for the 2008 presidential primary, the South Carolina legislature decided that the candidates would pay their fees to the state instead of the party.
Did you know that Osama Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll right up until the day before 911?
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU