On September 17, the 2nd circuit New York’s restrictive rules that make it difficult for voters to change parties. The 7-page decision is Van Allen v Cuomo, 07-3118-cv. New York lets previously unregistered voters make a last-minute decision to register to vote and to enroll in a party. But if someone has already been a registered voter, and switches parties (or switches from being an independent voter to a member of a party), the change can’t go into effect until next year.
The decision was no surprise, because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the same restriction in 1973. The ostensible reason for the time restriction is to protect political parties against “raiding”, i.e., the insincere behavior of voters who want to join a party so as to vote in its primary, even though that voter isn’t loyal to that party. If a political party in New York were to join as a co-plaintiff in a future case on this subject, and that party were to indicate that it welcomes voters into the party, without the long time lag, that would change the legal outcome.
Was the ’73 ruling Rosario v. Rockefeller?
These precedents seem to underscore that, when given the opportunity, the US Supreme Court will strike down a state-mandated open primary, in which each voter picks a party on primary day.
yes
Gee – Again –
Public nominations for public offices by public Electors is PUBLIC business of ALL Electors — and NOT the business of ANY group of party hack Electors and/or independent Electors.
I.E. The STATE can DICTATE how PUBLIC primaries are held.
See the WA top 2 primary case in 2008 in SCOTUS.
i.e. with or without party labels, with or without other party hack Electors and/or independents voting in a primary, etc. (i.e. ALL combinations possible).
i.e. ONE PUBLIC election *process* – start to finish.
Too difficult for SCOTUS to detect ??? — regardless of ANY of their prior MORON cases.
—–
P.R. and App.V. = NO MORON irrational party hack primaries are needed.
Richard, please explain how some states still have a state-mandated open primary, in which each voter picks a party on primary day.
#1 Just because a court upholds an election method doesn’t indicate that they like it. In Lopez Torres the Supreme Court justices made it clear that they hated the idea of judges being elected in the first place, and that they really weren’t that keen on the system used in New York.
#4: The US Supreme Court has not yet had a case on the constitutionality of the state-mandated open primary. Two such cases, one in Idaho and one in South Carolina, are now pending in US district courts.
A trial will be held on October 12-15 in Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa.
In December 2007, the 4th circuit held that there is a circumstance in which the party– not the state– decides who is eligible to vote in a party’s primary. This was a Virginia case, Miller v. Cunningham. The ruling was not appealed to the US Supreme Court.