On September 19, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the U.S. District Court decision Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa. In that case, on March 2, 2011, the U.S. District Court had ruled that if the Republican Party wants to exclude sympathizers of other parties from its primaries, it may do so. The state, which had lost this case, did not appeal, and changed its election law to let qualified parties close their primaries.
Voters in Idaho who did not agree with the U.S. District Court decision, and who had been permitted to intervene in the case while it was in the U.S. District Court, appealed to the 9th circuit. But the 9th circuit said, “As a general rule, if a challenged law is repealed or expires, the case becomes moot.”
Opponents of the closed Republican Party in Idaho are free to file a new lawsuit, alleging that the new law is unconstitutional, although such a case would probably lose. The new law permits parties that wish to retain open primaries to do so, and the other qualified parties in Idaho (Democratic, Libertarian, Constitution) are expected to retain open primaries for themselves.
More brain dead court stuff.
If the civil INJURY happened as of the date of the complaint filing, then there always may be $$$ damages.
Law repeals are generally for the FUTURE and not the past.
As usual – PUBLIC nominations of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices.
ALL Electors – as in top 2 States
SOME Electors – in party hack groups with or without other Electors in other party hack groups and/or independent Electors.
Way too difficult for the MORON courts to understand.
Idaho does not hold primaries for parties with candidates for less than a majority of offices, if they are uncontested. So conceivably only the Democrats and Republicans will have primaries in 2012. And voters can choose a party at the primary.
So in a State like Idaho, why wouldn’t a voter just say they were a Republican, when there is a pretty good chance that the Republican nominee for legislature and county offices will be unopposed in November?
The judge relied on the defense expert witness who said that voters will say that they are Republicans in a State like Idaho in order to be able to vote. So the new scheme won’t exclude sympathizers of other parties. In fact, it might skew the primary the other way.
When pollsters are asking for party identification, they ask Republicans and Democrats if they are strong or weak supporters of the party. If someone says they are independent, they are asked if they tend to vote for the Republican, Democrat, or half-and-half.
Weak partisans are less likely than leaner independents to vote for the party candidates. Apparently, voters vote based on their political beliefs; while party identification is often based on other factors such as family history, etc.
Someone who has a strong identity as an independent may be unwilling to say they are a Republican, even though they usually vote for Republicans; while a weak Republican or a Democrat may have no quibbles about voting in the Republican primary. So the new system is unlikely to produce the sought after outcome.
At the most recent state convention, the Republican party considered a rule that would require that party committees screen primary candidates. Not unsurprisingly, Rod Beck favored this new rule. If the rule were ever adopted by the party, they would likely go back to federal court.
There’s no injury here, as there has not yet been a closed primary election in Idaho as of yet. The first will be in March of 2012.
And even if one could claim to have been damaged by the law, there’s no way it equates to money damages. I mean, really, you have to prove actual damages. “I didn’t get to vote for the candidate of my choice, give me a million dollars!” Right…
Obviously the closed Primary will not fix all the problems of cross-over, and Dems can still lie on their registration cards. However, a certain number of hardcore Dems will refuse to register as a Republican, and we only need about a 5% swing to change the odds for ideological conservative/libertarian candidates in the primary.