Three Rhode Island Democratic Senators have introduced SB 2150. It requires political parties to let independent voters vote in their primaries. The authors are Leonidas Raptakis, Marc Cote, and Michael Pinga. Some leaders of the Republican Party have been thinking about excluding independents from the Republican primary. The existing law is vague about whether parties can exclude independents.
They’re trying to suck voters away from Chafee.
Richard,
An interesting story out of California this morning about a Green Party candidate for state legislature.
It appears to indicate a need for petition signautres 1,500 signatures, even though Greens have ballot access in California.
Is the story correct?
Here’s quote, and link to story.
According to the Secretary of State’s Web site, candidates for state Assembly must pay a candidate filing fee of $952.91 — roughly 1 percent of the position’s annual salary — or submit 1,500 signatures supporting their candidacy. Chesbro said he hoped to submit the signatures in a week’s time.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_14439405?nclick_check=1
I believe the Rhode Island bill is unconstitutional. Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut gave parties the power to invite independents to vote in their primaries. If the state cannot force parties to exclude independents from their primaries, the state also should not be able to force parties to let independents into their primaries.
In 2007, the Libertarians won an exemption from Arizona’s law that compels parties to let independents and members of unqualified parties vote in their primaries (Arizona Libertarian Party v. Brewer). To my knowledge, the only other example of the state mandating that parties let independents into their primaries is Nebraska, whose law applies only to congressional primaries.
Carey, I think 1,500 signatures is a typo. The actual requirement is 150 or 10% of the party’s registration in the district, whichever is less. These signatures are in lieu of the filing fee. If you pay the fee, you only need about 30 (does anybody know the exact number?).
Steve #3, I am under the same impression. Richard, can you summarize the current state of federal constitutional law on this question?
Comment #4 is correct, concerning parties that have registration of under 5% of the state total. Democrats and Republicans need 3,000 signatures in lieu of filing fee if they are running for US House or State Senate, and 10,000 for statewide office.
All candidates who pay the filing fee need 40 signatures if they are running for district office, and 65 for statewide office. But candidates who are using a petition in lieu of the filing fee can count their in-lieu signatures also for the purpose of the basic primary ballot access requirement (one petition doing 2 jobs).
As to whether parties have a right to exclude independents from their primaries, the only precedent so far is the Arizona Libertarian Party decision, saying the Arizona Libertarians have a right to exclude independent voters from their primaries, because if they don’t, and two Libertarians run against each other for a Libertarian nomination, the registered Libertarians would be so badly outnumbered by the registered indepedents that the party would lose control of its nomination process. No one knows what would happen if a major party were forced by a state law to let independents vote in its primary, and that major party sued.
Some century the party hack Supremes will detect that —
Nominations for PUBLIC office by PUBLIC Electors is PUBLIC business — NOT party hack business — in PUBLIC primaries (by ALL Electors or some party hack Electors with or without independent Electors).
As to ALL Electors in a primary see the WA top 2 primary case by the Supremes — regardless of the ongoing party hack stuff in the lower courts.
See the earlier Texas White Primary cases in the Supremes — white Donkeys tried and failed to keep black Electors from voting in Donkey primaries.
P.R. and A.V.
NO primaries are needed.
#7: Since much of the US Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Jones state-mandated blanket primary case also applies to the state-mandated open primary, I predict that the justices will also strike down the open primary when given the chance.
The Jones case involved the state forcing parties to let non-members vote in their primaries, which is what the Arizona law does, and the Rhode Island bill would do.
One quote: Political parties have “the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people only.”
Independent voters should have the freedom of whether to pay taxes to these self-created societies. If political parties are going to finance their elections with public revenues, the public should be allowed to vote. People who are taxed without having a vote are being subjected to taxation without representation.
In 1995, the 8th circuit said that, when the state requires parties to nominate by primary, the parties cannot be compelled to pay the costs of those primaries (Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County).
If (1) a voter wants to vote in a party’s primary, and (2) that party does not invite independents into its primaries, that voter should simply register with the party. He can always change back to independent status later.
#11 if states have two options for nominating with either a convention or primary, does the taxpayer still get stuck with bill?
#9 The 9th Circuit in overturning the Washington blanket primary after Jones ruled that even though Washington does not have party registration, voters thought of themselves as being Republicans or Democrats, and thus were capable of voting in the primary of the other party on an office-by-office basis. The thus ruled that Washington’s law was not materially different from California’s.
If voters in a state without party registration think of themselves as being aligned parties; then it is reasonable to believe that independents are also so aligned. Independents are probably a mix of the indifferent, Republican-aligned, Democratic-aligned, and some who are motivated more by factors such as personality, ethnicity, etc. The indifferent probably won’t vote in primaries, the Republican- and Democratic-aligned will probably choose their party ballot, though they may be less likely to participate.
Since independents have to publicly align with a party to vote in a primary in Arizona, there may not be a significant difference between letting voters align with a party on election day, and then becoming an independent once again the next day, and simply letting them vote in the primary.
In the decision in the Arizona case, there was a clear distinction between the effect on the Libertarian Party and larger parties. In Arizona, voters registered with non-qualified parties may also vote in primaries, so voters registered with the Green Party (unqualified at that time) and Natural Law were able to vote in the Libertarian or other party primaries.
Ballot qualification for primaries in Arizona is based on the party registration, but signers are not restricted to party members. So for Congress a candidate needed about 20 signatures from a few 100,000 voters. There was a case of a candidate who advocated for nationalized health care who qualified for a Libertarian primary for Congress and came reasonably close to winning.
#11 So the State should be in the business of hassling voters? I don’t think the idea of the motor voter laws was to make voters think of voting as the equivalent going to the DMV.
#12: Virginia provides its parties with multiple nominating options, but the state still pays for primaries. Several VA politicos have told me that, as far as they know, the state has always paid for primaries.
South Carolina lets parties nominate by primary or convention (75% of convention delegates must approve nominating by convention). I believe there are some instances in SC in which the parties pay for primaries, e. g., municipal primaries.
#13, paragraph 2: The difference is that, with party registration, the voter has joined a party by signing a piece of paper.
Paragraph 3: If you’re saying that Arizona independents have to re-register at the polls in order to vote in either the Democratic or the Republican primary, that’s not true (although it is true in some states).
In New Hampshire, an independent may vote in either major party’s primary by re-registering at the polls on primary day. Before leaving the polling place, that voter may switch back to independent status, effective immediately.
Rhode Island has the same setup as NH, except that the change-back is not effective until 90 days later.
“So the State should be in the business of hassling voters? I don’t think the idea of the motor voter laws was to make voters think of voting as the equivalent going to the DMV.”
What in the world are you talking about?
Sounds like you need to change the water in your bong.
#15 In California, voters did sign a piece of paper. In Jones, the Supreme Court decided that voters who crossed over on a single race were interfering with another party.
In the followup case, concerning Washington’s blanket primary, Washington argued that there system was different. They argued that sent voters weren’t registered with a party, it was more like they were independents. The 9th Circuit disagreed, and said that voters thought of themselves as being politically aligned, and thus the Washington and California blanket primaries were not materially different.
In Arizona, independents can choose which primary to vote in. Based on the 9th Circuit’s logic in the Washington blanket primary case, they are aligned with a party before they go to the polls. Since they have to publicly align with a party, they may have an even stronger relationship with that party.
Thus there is no material difference between Arizona, and a state where voters may change their registration before (or on) election day, and change it back later (or on) election day.
If the voter has to do this in 3 trips (change registration; vote; change registration back) the state is just hassling the voter, making him go through additional paperwork and effort. This simply generates paper-shuffling for election workers, for no benefit to anyone but those who are paid to shuffle the papers. I hope this clears the water.
#16, paragraph 3: The difference between Arizona and Washington state is that an Arizona independent has officially registered as an independent.
Paragraph 4: Regardless of WHEN a voter registers with a party, that voter is a member of that party at the time that he’s helping to choose the party’s nominees (in other words, whether the voter registers with the party BEFORE primary day or ON primary day).
Paragraph 5: New Hampshire voters (see comment #15) love their system, and I assume Rhode Island voters like theirs too. A few years ago, there was a bill in the NH legislature to enact a waiting period for voters to switch back to independent status, and the voters raised hell about it. The bill had breezed through one house before most citizens found out about it; it was killed in the other house.
The process I described for NH and RI, to be sure, all takes place at the polls on primary day.
RI Republicans are considering withdrawing independents’ eligibility to vote in GOP primaries. The legislature is considering a bill to force parties to let independents into their primaries, which I believe is unconstitutional.