Alaska state representative Harry Crawford (D-Anchorage) has introduced HB 248, which would establish a new, additional primary ballot (in partisan races) just for independent voters. Alaska has registration by party, and over half the voters are registered independents. The primary ballot for independent voters would include the names of all candidates running for partisan office, from all the qualified parties.
The votes cast in the independent voter primary would be tallied into the vote tallies for the partisan primaries.
Under existing Alaska law and procedures, the Republican Party has its own primary ballot, and independents and Republicans are free to choose that primary ballot. Then there is a blanket primary ballot, which contains the names of all Democrats, Libertarians, and Alaskan Independence candidates. Any voter is free to choose that ballot.
So, already, independents can vote in either type of primary ballot. But if HB 248 became law, an independent voter would be free to vote for any candidate of any party, so that the independent could vote for a Republican for Governor and a Democrat for U.S. Senator.
Since all qualified parties in Alaska already let independent voters voter in their primaries, it doesn’t seem likely that any qualified party would object to the bill or the idea behind the bill. Although there are already a multitude of primary systems in the United States, it seems that the idea behind HB 248 is a new idea, something that has never been tried before. Missouri once had a primary ballot just for independent voters, but the purpose of that primary was to nominate independent candidates for inclusion on the general election ballot. Aside from that Missouri procedure (which no longer exists), no state has ever printed up primary ballots for partisan elections that are intended only for independent voters. Thanks to Scott Kohlhaas for this news.
It seems that this would give the independent more choice in the primary than those registered with a party and may be an encouragement to register as an independent rather than with a party.
count me in.
Perhaps the 24 hour nights in AK in the winter causes strange stuff in the brains of party hacks in the AK gerrymander State legislature.
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed.
This sounds to me like something with about the same effect as the California partisan blanket primary of 1998. Is that true? And if so why is it not unconstitutional?
I agree with #4. This sounds like the scheme that the US Supreme Court struck down in California Democratic Party v. Jones, except that only independents can participate, whereas all voters were eligible for California’s blanket ballot.
It’s worth noting that the blanket primary that Alaska used pre-Jones did not include congressional races. The state had separate party primaries for congressional elections.
The reason it’s not unconstitutional is that all the qualified parties have already agreed to let independent voters vote in their primaries. They could change their mind, but a change of mind is not at all likely, because independents are 52% of the Alaska electorate, and why would a party want to displease 52% of the electorate?
The California blanket primary was not unconstitutional on its face. It was only unconstitutional as applied to any party that didn’t like it.
I would love to see an “Independent Primary” in each state in which genuine “independents” – not 3rd party members or even Democrats and Republicans – but “independents” could seek, and their fellow genuine “independents” voters could vote and nominate them for partisan offices. And in those states which still require a “runoff” primary, such could be held – just like the major parties do.
Such “Independent Primary” would have the exciting flavor of the old “one party states” mainly in the South when the Democratic Party Primary dominated, but nobody really thought of it as a “party primary.” Rather, it was just the “process” of nominating and electing candidates – whether they were liberal, conservative or whatever.
It would be refreshing to see such a primary. Candidates would run on their own merits and on their personal platforms. And candidates would be responsible for raising their own campaign funds – just like they used to do in the “one party primaries” of the South. The candidates would not be depending on a partisan label to help win votes, but the individual candidate would take his/her stood on the issues and trust such would persuade the voters to support them. Just the way it should be.
Of course, I’m not holding my breath or throwing pennies in the wishing well waiting on it to happen. For is such were presently available, in time the “Independent Primary” would have more candidates and voters participating in it than the Democratic and Republican primaries combined. Eventually, the Dems and Reps would become the “minor parties” in the election process along with the 3rd parties. The end result would be legislatures and a Congress where there would be more “Independent” members than Democrats or Republicans. The Democrats and the Republicans know this and they “ain’t’ gonna let it happen.
Oh well, we can still dream…
As the post mentions, there was such a procedure in Missouri, but it didn’t get used much.
The current Alaska law is awkwardly written, and it would not be clear that it provided for a voluntary blanket primary, unless you knew that it did.
Undeclared and non-partisan voters may vote in a party’s primary, unless a party actively excludes them. Voters from other parties may vote in a party primary if the party actively permits them.
No parties exclude undeclared and non-partisan voters, but only the Alaskan Independence, Democratic, and Libertarian parties permit other party voters to vote in their primary. Republicans are free to vote in the ADL blanket primary if they prefer.
If I understand the proposed law, undeclared and non-partisan voters would not be permitted to vote in the partisan primaries but rather would simply be given a separate ballot with all candidates names on it, and then there votes would be counted in the partisan primaries. This would also permit elimination of a separate ballot that is currently printed that only has ballot propositions.
Incidentally, the Alaska law has an explicit requirement for political parties to seek VRA pre-clearance if they change their bylaws with respect to opening and closing their primaries.
Hawaii requires independent candidates to run in their primary. In effect it is as if there is an “independent primary” where only the independent with the most votes qualifies for the general election (the independent must also receive 10% of the total vote in the primary, or outpoll the lowest party nominee).
Since Hawaii doesn’t have party registration, it uses a Pick-a-Party primary, so voters would also have to choose the “independent primary”.
I had suggested something like this that would combine qualification and nomination (endorsement).
Each voter could vote for any candidate, but in general, only his votes for his party’s candidates would count towards nomination. While a party may restrict who participates in its nominating activities, it may not restrict the other political activities of its members.
A candidate would qualify for the general election if he received some percentage of the vote, say 1%. In addition, if 1% of the voters voted for a party’s candidates, then their leading candidate could advance, even though he failed to meet the individual qualification standard.
Candidates who qualify for the general election could not withdraw, but they could endorse another candidate and have that endorsement appear on the ballot next to their name.
A party may:
(1) Permit non-affiliated voters to vote in its primary. This would be the same as if a voter affiliated, voted, and then disaffiliated;
(2) Permit other party voters to vote in its primary. This would be the same as if a voter affiliated, voted, and then re-affiliated;
(3) Permit voters to affiliate with the party on election day;
(4) Permit cross-filing, where candidate’s for the party’s nomination may seek the nomination of other parties;
(5) Permit cross-voting, where votes cast by voters from other parties count in a party’s endorsement contests and party qualification;
(6) Restrict filing for endorsement, including:
(a) Party members of sufficient duration (maximum 2 years);
(b) Endorsement petition by party members (maximum 10% of party members);
(c) Approval by vetting committee.
(7) Permit multiple endorsements by party, including endorsement standards:
(a) Maximum endorsements;
(b) Percentage of party vote; and
(c) Percentage of total vote (minimum of 1%).
#9: Alaska law had prohibited a blanket primary, but the state Supreme Court ruled that a voluntary blanket primary was constitutional.
As for the proposed independent primary: This is evidently not a constitutinal issue, but independents would be able to choose among all candidates of all parties, whereas party members’ primary choices would be limited.
#7: Louisiana’s nonpartisan system– popularly called the “open primary”– is an extension of the old one-party system. The biggest difference is that there was a Soviet-style general election in the one-party system, in which the Democratic nominee for each office was the only– or the only serious– candidate.
You’re right that legislatures are not likely to enact an “independent primary.” However, in states that have the initiative process, the citizens could enact it.
Here are the links to the descriptions of Hawaii’s nonpartisan primary: Factsheet
SinglePartyPrimary
Click here for the corrected link to the PDF on Hawaii’s nonpartisan primary.
Florida has a nonpartisan primary, which includes ballot questions as well as nonpartisan races. All of those questions and races, of course, are also on the party primary ballots.
Richard: Didn’t you once tell me that a court ordered Maryland to have a separate nonpartisan primary ballot?
Richard: Is it correct that, if HB 248 becomes law, independent candidates will continue to only be listed on the general election ballot?
#13 Alaska classifies candidates as “Party” and “No-Party” candidates. Party candidates are from recognized parties (by votes in last top-of-ballot election or sufficient registrations) and are nominated by primary.
No-Party candidates qualify by petition and include candidates for non-recognized parties. An “independent” would have a blank party designation.
Alaska distinguished between Undeclared and Non-Partisan voters (at least within registration records). An undeclared voter, simply has not declared a party affiliation or that he does not have a party affiliation. A non-partisan voter has actively declared that he is not affiliated with a party.
HB 248 simply restructures the ballot format, and simplifies existing law. Independent voters are by default permitted to vote in party primaries, and the parties must actively exclude them. Voters of other parties are by default excluded, and parties must actively include them.
Alaska also has non-partisan ballots with propositions and issues, with no candidates. So independent voters currently have a choice among 3 ballots.
HB 248 simply lets independent voters be given one ballot – which would surely help when absentee ballots are involved.
Presumably if a party objected to participation of independent voters in its primary, candidates seeking the party nomination could be left off the independent ballot.
Any primaries being held by FOREIGN corporations after the CU case ???
Is this the NEW AGE of election law INSANITY or what ???
EVERYTHING goes ??? – i.e. a totally ad hoc LAWLESS regime ???
See the various FATAL loopholes in the nearly dead U.S.A. Constitution ???
1. U.S.A. Minority rule gerrymanders – House, Senate, Prez E.C.
2. Pres vetoes.
3. Appointed party hack Supremes.
Three quite enough FATAL loopholes to cause the DESTRUCTION of the U.S.A. — politically, socially and even economically.
Many of the same type of FATAL loopholes in the State regimes.
The EVIL bastard party hacks EXIST to cause EVIL and chaos – finding every loophole possible and exploiting it.
See Hitler in 1933 using the FATAL loophole permitting the regime to suspend the German Bill of Rights in an *emergency* (created by the nazis, of course). See the infamous *Enabling Act* — result about 70 MILLION dead folks in World War II.
Armies of brain dead MORONS — especially in the MORON media incapable of ANY thinking — except to worship the latest and greatest party hack incumbents.
#11 Maybe California should institute a voluntary blanket primary, and include independent candidates and nominees of non-qualified parties, and add a modicum of support standard to qualify for the general election, say 1% of the total vote cast.
Trailing party candidates who received 1% or more of the total vote would be placed on the general election ballot as independents.
DTS and non-qualified party voters would get the blanket primary ballot by default, which would by default include only independent candidates and nominees of non-qualified parties.
A party could choose to have a closed, semi-closed, or open primary.
If it chose closed or semi-closed, it would have its own ballot with only party candidates on it. Party members could vote either the party ballot or the open primary ballot. If the primary were semi-closed, DTS voters could choose to vote the primary ballot.
If it chose open, its candidates would be added to the open primary ballot, and party voters would be given the open primary ballot.
#16: A blanket primary wouldn’t be voluntary if it were instituted by the state.
You refer to “nominees” of non-qualified parties, so you apparently mean that each of those parties would choose its nominee in advance of the blanket primary.
It sounds like, if a party had a semi-closed primary, an independent (“decline to state”) voter would be eligible for a party ballot AND the blanket ballot.
By “open primary,” do you mean that a party’s ballot is available to any voter who requests it? Current California law prohibits parties from inviting members of opposing parties to vote in their primaries.
Or by “open primary,” do you mean a “top two”?
Several years ago, I suggested a voluntary Democratic//Republican blanket primary for Washington state. This could have been accomplished by electing slates of pro-blanket primary candidates for precinct committee officer in the two major parties’ primaries (which were then separate). The state Grange rather smugly rejected this idea.
I also wrote letters outlining this concept to a large number of Washington state newspapers. As far as I know, only one of them ran the letter.
California’s Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom parties obviously will not participate in a blanket primary, since they all joined in the lawsuit against the state-mandated blanket primary.
This, of course, resulted in the US Supreme Court’s ruling in California Democratic Party v. Jones, which struck down the compulsory blanket primary.
#16: With your blanket primary proposal for California, are you conceding defeat for the “top two open primary” next June?
#17 Participation in the blanket primary would be voluntary for qualified parties.
In Alaska, non-affiliated candidates and candidates of non-qualified parties qualify by petition to demonstrate their modicum of support. In California, unaffiliated candidates qualify by petition (there is no provision to indicate an affiliation, even though the candidate may in fact have such an affiliation).
Instead, I am suggesting that a much lower petition level be used to get on the blanket primary ballot, but that the modicum of support be demonstrated in the primary (as approved in Munro).
A DTS voter would be eligible to vote one ballot. He would be able to choose which ballot, just as he currently does.
Yes. The blanket primary ballot would be available to any voter. It would be a voluntary decision on the part of the voter at the time they vote. It would be a voluntary decision on the part of the political party whether its candidates appeared on such a ballot.
#18 The Alaska affiliates of the Democratic and Libertarian parties voluntarily participate in that State’s blanket primary. The two parties that sought the voluntary blanket primary, the Green Party and the Republican Moderate Party, no longer are ballot qualified. They asserted that it was the lack of a blanket primary that caused them to lose their ballot status.
In California since Jones, there has been a precipitous decline in minor party candidates, and two parties, Reform and Natural Law, have lost their ballot status. Demise of the blanket primary has strengthened the two-party monopoly.
You don’t say what you meant by “open primary.”
I understand that the Alaska Green Party is in a good position to regain its qualified status.
#21 Open primary would be where all voters could vote for the party’s candidates.
So a party could choose from among (1) Closed – party members only; (2) Semi-closed – party members and independents; (3) Open – no restrictions.
You are probably thinking of the Alaska Libertarian Party, which failed to get 3% of the vote in the 2008 senate race (Stevens-Begich), so they are having to increase their registration. The Green Party has less than 1/3 of the number of registrants of what they need.
#22 The party hack Supremes typically screwed up in the Jones case.
PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices by PUBLIC Electors — to be TOTALLY controlled by PUBLIC laws.
But of course — there is NO need for ANY primaries, etc. — P.R. and A.V. — to put ALL of the obsolete party hack nomination stuff into a political graveyard along with divine right of kings, slavery, etc.