The Arizona Secretary of State has released new registration data here. It is as of January 1, 2010. Since the October 1, 2009 tally, Republicans have lost 5,168 registrants, Democrats have lost 7,020 registrants, Libertarians have gained 798 registrants, and independents have gained 9,001 registrants.
Arizona has stopped tallying Green Party registrants, and all Greens are now lumped in with independents. The data in the paragraph above this paragraph is based on the assumption that Green registration since October 2009 has not changed. It was 4,237 in October 2009. Of course it has probably changed slightly, but the data is unavailable, so that is the best approximation that can be made.
Good job Libertarians!
Yes, by not getting 5% in the Presidential race and by not having a sufficient number of registered voters, the Greens technically lost ballot access, although we are likely to reach the petition threshold and regain it for the next election cycle.
At least one reason that Arizona has so many registered independents is that independents may vote in either the Democratic primary or the Republican primary.
The state forces the Democrats and Republicans to let independents into their primaries, other than for president.
#2 The constitutional amendment in Arizona was approved by 60.5% of the people, and had a majority in all but one county. Since only 14% of Arizona voters were independents at the time, it likely had majority support among the rank and file of the two major parties.
#3: The US district court nevertheless exempted Arizona’s Libertarians from the law. If the Democrats and Republicans would file suit against the law, they very likely would be exempted too.
California’s 1996 ballot initiative for the blanket primary won with some 60%, and it was upheld by the US district court and the 9th circuit. The US Supreme Court nonetheless struck it down.
#4 The rank and file of the Democratic and Republican parties apparently favor the open primary. The party bosses probably recognize that it is not to their advantage to slam the door on voters who have some leaning toward their party, but for some reason or the other have not declared a formal affiliation. If they vote in the primary, they are more likely to vote for the party nominees in the general election. The fact that they voted in the primary also means it is fairly likely that they will vote in the general election.
Participation in the Libertarian primary dropped by 60% between 2006 and 2008 with just 8.9% of Libertarians voting.
The district court did not rule that Libertarians were making a wise decision.
The Arizona Libertarian primary in 2006 had statewide candidates on it, for 4 offices. But the 2008 Libertarian primary had no statewide candidates printed on it. No one wants to bother to vote in a primary with no candidates printed on the primary ballot.
I have advocated that small qualified parties nominate by convention, not primary, ever since the 1960’s.
So the difference between 2004 and 2008 is because 2004 had a senate race? Why do you think turnout for the Green Party primary in 2008 was almost as high as for the Libertarian Party, even though there were 5 times as many registered Libertarians, and the Green Party only had candidates in 2 of 8 congressional races, and 5 legislative seats?
#5: “The rank and file of the Democratic and Republican parties apparently favor the open primary. The party bosses probably recognize that it is not to their advantage to slam the door on [independent] voters…”
If you’re referring to the Arizona scheme, it’s a semi-closed— not open– primary, in which independents are the only nonmembers who are eligible to vote.
More likely, the leaders of Arizona’s major parties are afraid that, if they brought suit against the state’s scheme, Senator McCain would publicly slam them.
In 2004, the illustrious Senator McCain wrote a piece favoring California’s Prop. 62, the “top two” initiative. He apparently thought it was similar to Arizona’s semi-closed primary, as he called both the “top two” and the Arizona scheme “open primaries.”
It’s not the role of courts to determine whether laws are wise or unwise– only whether they are constitutional.
If an independent wants to vote in the primary of a party that does not invite independents, that voter should simply change his registration.
#8 So you are saying that not only are the party bosses not smart enough to recognize that it would be unwise to slam the door on independent voters, but they are also afraid of Senator McCain?
Unlike Senator McCain, the committee members of the two major parties ARE smart enough to know the difference between the nonpartisan “top two” and a semi-closed partisan primary.