This newspaper story covers negotiations in the Idaho legislature over possible changes in the Republican Party primaries of the future. The very end of the story quotes Secretary of State Ben Ysursa as saying “The battle’s over”, which seems to say that the state won’t appeal the March 2 decision in Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa. The decision said that the Republican Party has a right to prevent non-Republicans from voting in its primaries.
Public primaries are PUBLIC actions by PUBLIC Electors — regardless of MORON bureaucrats.
1. all Electors – top 2 primaries
2. some Electors – other types of primaries
— 100 percent subject to PUBLIC laws.
I know that states are forced to pay for these primaries, but if my tax dollars are being used to fund this primary then if I should be able to vote in that primary if I choose to. Otherwise Republicans should nominate by caucus or convention.
#2: States are not forced to pay for party primaries. States mandate that parties nominate by primary, and states pay for those primaries by default– who else could afford to pay for them?
In 1995, the 8th circuit ruled that, when a state mandates that parties hold primaries, the parties cannot be required to pay for those primaries (Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County).
A recent one-round special city council election in one ward in my hometown cost some $16,000. Can you imagine what a statewide primary would cost?
When a party nominates by convention or caucus, and all the candidates for a particular office are in that party, grassroots voters do not get to vote for that office. So states will continue to mandate and pay for party primaries.
I’m beginning to wonder if a suit against a state-mandated open primary will ever reach the US Supreme Court. The 4th circuit’s ruling in the Virginia case (Miller v. Cunningham) may control in the South Carolina Republicans’ suit.
I have it on good authority that Tennessee’s Republicans are preparing to file suit against their state-mandated open primary. However, Tennessee parties, as in Virginia and South Carolina, have the option of nominating by convention; Tennessee parties are only required to nominate by primary for governor, the state legislature, and the US Congress.
Since Tennessee is not a part of the 4th circuit, that prospective suit may have the potential to reach the Supreme Court.
What part of the U.S.A. Const. says that X percent of ALL Electors in a State have a magic constitutional right to have a state paid closed primary ???
Look for such X percent in the Const.
Report back ASAP.
Part of the evidence presented by the Republican Party was Rod Beck’s 3 consecutive losses in the primary. They didn’t claim that the primary-chosen nominees were not Republicans nor that most voters were independents, but there were sufficient cross-over voters to cause Beck to lose. Judge Winmill pretty much disregarded the Republican evidence, but accepted an admission from the State’s experts that there were non-Republicans voting in the Republican party, just as there were non-Democrats voting in the Democratic primaries in the one-party South.
Many voters are going to pick a party in order to participate in the democratic process, rather than ideology. In Idaho, voters can choose the party in secret. In Texas, voters choose their party at the primary. They don’t have to swear any allegiance, they just agree to only vote in one party’s primary that election year. In California, there is party registration, but it simply means (or meant) that the voter intends to vote in that party’s primary. None of these systems ensure that the voters are ideologically aligned with the parties.
So what would happen if Idaho had party registration? Some voters who consider themselves independent are going to register as Republicans. Otherwise, they won’t be able to vote in an election where an actual choice is being made. Even some voters who consider themselves Democrats and contribute freely to Obama and Pelosi will register as Republicans. It is naive to think otherwise.
Now imagine if Rod Beck were to lose a 4th primary? The Republican Party could go to court and show that there were some persons who were crossing over and diluting the message of the party, and forcing their unwanted political association on the party.
The only way to prevent this is to let each party (if they so choose) to prepare a list of voters who are permitted to vote in their primary. Idaho could keep its system where the choice of primary remains secret. If a voter was not on the Republican list, the option of picking the Republican Party would be disabled on the ballot. The voter could still pick another party in secret. Even if a voter were on the Republican list, he would be free to pick another party in the primary, just as he may vote for other party candidate’s in the general election.
#6: There you go again… trying to “muddy the water.”
When a citizen registers with a party, he signs a piece of paper attesting that he prefers that party. A loyalty pledge or oath of affiliation would accomplish the same purpose. Or would you rather citizens gave blood samples?
Even the great libertarian economist, Milton Friedman, was a registered Republican in California… for practical purposes.
In California Democratic Party v. Jones, Justice Scalia had this advice for those living in one-party jurisdictions: JOIN THE PARTY.
Ronald Reagan was a registered Democrat until 1962, despite supporting Eisenhower for president in 1952 and 1956 and Nixon for president in 1960.
Once again: Party registration is the most practical way of identifying voters’ party preferences, which is why 29 states and D. C. register voters by party. NO STATES use your scheme.
Louisiana has had party registration since 1908, and, except for president, that state does not have party primaries.
It will be interesting to watch the negotiations in the Idaho legislature. Rod Beck has suggested same-day registration in the 2012 Republican primary, with those registrants afterward being considered Republicans.
The Idaho legislature also has the power to deem all currently registered voters to be independents. The only ones who would need to re-register would be those who wanted to register with a party. This is the approach that both Rhode Island and Utah fairly recently used.
Justice Lewis Powell said, “The act of voting in the Democratic primary fairly can be described as an act of affiliation with the Democratic Party.” The same is true, of course, of voting in any other party’s primary.
#7 In Texas, a voter pledges not to vote in another party’s primary or runoff that year. It has nothing to do with party preference or political ideology.
Justice Scalia, if he were honest, might just as well advised those who lived in a one-party jurisdiction to rub their belly and pat their head, or perform whatever other totems are required to affiliate with the party.
Or as Justice Stevens in his dissent wrote, In the real world, however, anyone can “join” a political party merely by asking for the appropriate ballot at the appropriate time or (at most) by registering within a state-defined reasonable period of time before an election; neither past voting history nor the voter’s race, religion, or gender can provide a basis for the party’s refusal to “associate” with an unwelcome new member. There is an obvious mismatch between a supposed constitutional right “not to associate” and a rule that turns on nothing more than the state-defined timing of the new associate’s application for membership.
Or as Justice Scalia wrote in Tashjian, The … voter who, while steadfastly refusing to register as a Republican, casts a vote in [a non-closed] Republican primary, forms no more meaningful an `association’ with the Party than does the independent or the registered Democrat who responds to questions by a Republican Party pollster. If the concept of freedom of association is extended to such casual contacts, it ceases to be of any analytic use.