The Lewiston Tribune has this article, explaining that Idaho election officials will have a difficult job deciding how many Republican primary ballots to print in 2012. Before 2011 Idaho did not ask voters to choose a party on voter registration forms. In 2011 the law changed, so that in 2014 and years even further in the future, voters will have chosen a party on voter registration forms or at the polls on primary day in 2012. So, for 2014 and years beyond, election officials will know how approximately many primary ballots to print for each party. But 2012 is a special problem, because the registration by party system is still being phased in.
In 2010 and earlier years, election officials printed up one primary ballot for all voters. Voters, in the secrecy of the voting booth, decided which party’s primary to vote in. Even though all party primary ballots were on the same piece of paper, a voter could only vote in one party’s area of that ballot. Thanks to Mike Fellows for the link.
The article is in error. An unaffiliated voter may change their affiliation on election day. If they wish to switch parties, or become unaffiliated, they have to do that before election day (Idaho Statutes 34-411A(1) and (2)).
Since the Democratic Party does not require affiliation to vote, a voter could register as a Republican, and then choose a Democratic or Republican ballot based on whether Rod Beck was running in the Republican Primary. Or they could simply switch back to unaffiliated after each primary.
In fact, the district court’s decision was based on testimony that voters would do exactly that. The Beckites presented a bunch of weak evidence, suggesting that because Rod Beck had lost three primaries in a row, it was because of stealth voters; or that because voters skipped over an unopposed candidate in a primary, they were revealing their true allegiance. In one instance, they had bad election data. They used polling data that if it were accurate would mean that a voter had voted for candidates of different parties in the primary; or that a vote who had voted for FDR in 1932, and realized his mistake would be counted as switching parties. Or perhaps someone who had lived in Mississippi had voted for a Democrat. The court dismissed all this evidence.
The State’s expert witness explained that there was different ways that voters expressed their party affiliation. Some voters would say they were a Republican or Democrat because that was what their parents or grandparents were, but would hold political views more consistent with the other party. Other voters would say they were independent, but would consistently vote for one party’s candidates. When pollsters ask for party affiliation, they push to get a more correct affiliation. “partisans” are asked if they always vote for the party candidate. Weak partisans are willing to admit their lapses. They might claim to be a teetotaler, admit to having drunk once or twice, but actually be a total lush.
“Independents” are queried to determine whether they were tended to vote for candidates of one party or the other. Someone can think of themselves as exercising independent judgment, but then always come to the same conclusion.
Leaner independents more consistently vote for the party’s candidates than weak partisans. But a weak partisan will register with the party; and leaner independent might not, in order to maintain their sense of independence.
The witness also noted that in a one-party state like Idaho, voters will say they are Republican in order to participate in the election of their officials. If they don’t say they are Republicans, they won’t be able to vote for their county commissioner, since in almost all cases that is decided in the Republican primary. If there is a choice for legislator it will in the primary. If there is a Democratic candidate, he will be unopposed in the primary, so there is no reason to vote in the Democratic primary.
The witness concluded that there will be some voters who will act in a rational manner in order to be able to effectively exercise their franchise. The judge didn’t understand what the witness was saying.
The new law won’t keep out stealth Democrats, if they actually exist. It won’t keep RINO’s out, because they think of themselves as being Republicans. And it won’t keep rational voters out, who simply want to have a say in who their officials are.
It is likely to be harmful to smaller parties. The Libertarian and Constitution parties often don’t have primaries, and when they do, they are uncontested. There is no reason to actually register as a member if it means you can only vote in the Democratic primary. And then, Idaho might decide to base party qualification on registration numbers.
To get what Rod Beck really wanted, Idaho should have switched to a voluntary blanket primary, with a pick-a-party ballot. Each party could decide who could vote in its primary, and could provide a list of eligible voters to the State election officials. Before handing the ballot to a voter, they would mark off the parties the voter could not select.
Alternatily, Idaho should switch to the Top 2 primary like their neighbors to the west.
Why should taxpayers be asked to pay for political party elections? Basically, a party primary is government sponsorship of a private association’s elimination of all candidates, save the primary winner who advances to the General. Then, pray tell, why do political parties OWN slots on the general election ballot. This is not a right to be found in the US Constitution. Nor is it to be found in the state Constitution. It is a right TAKEN by politicians to protect their turf. in Washington State and California, voters have attempted to remove this usurped power by voting for OPEN nonpartisan primaires where the two two vote-getters advance to the General. In Arizona, a similar initiative to change their Constitution that removes all taxpayer support for political parties – already has 60,000 signatures. The consent of the governed and respect for the individual will prevail. Idaho wake up!
Ted Downing
I think that when you register Republican, you only get a Republican ballot. All the other folks would get ballots from all parties that are in the primaries.
#3 Each party can choose whether they want to permit outsiders voting in their primary. If the Democrats open their primary, a Republican could vote in the Democratic primary if they wanted to.
Republicans can choose who they will let vote in their primary, they can’t force them to do so.
#4 That would not be the case since a registered Republican should only get one ballot (Republican) vs getting a Democratic or Libertarian ballot, since it would be a straight ticket voting for Republicans unless a voter changed his or her registration.
#5 See Idaho Statutes Section 34-904A (Elections/Chapter 9).
In particular, Subsection (1) let’s each party designate who may vote in their primary: including party registrants; unaffiliated voters; and party registrants affiliated with (selected) other parties.
So for example, the Democratic Party could permit Democrats and Republicans, but not Libertarian and Constitution, nor unaffiliated voters.
Unaffiliated voters are permitted to affiliate on election day. So an unaffiliated voter could affiliate with Democratic Party, and then vote. Partisan-registered voters may not change their affiliation on election day, but may some time prior to a primary.
But also see 34-904A (7) where it is quite clear that a partisan-registered voter may select the ballot of any party that permits him to.
Because of the complicated rules, which may change from primary to primary, I’d be certain that the SOS will provide instructions to voters. So if a voter were a Republican, and both Republicans and Democrats permit Republicans to vote in their primary; the election official would ask, “Would you like to select the Republican or Democratic ballot?”