On May 3, the Florida legislature passed HB 7013. Here is a copy of the bill. Go to the end of the document to see a summary of all the changes.
The bill moves the presidential primary from January to March. It moves the non-presidential primary from early August to late August. It does not include the provision that would have relaxed the duration of membership requirement for candidates to run in a party primary. Because section 99.021 was not amended in HB 7013, the restriction passed in 2011, saying candidates cannot run in a party primary if they have been members of another party during the preceding year, remains in place.
If any qualified political party passes a bylaw contradicting the state law, and saying candidates can run in that party’s primary even if they were members of another party in the past, the party would probably win the lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut that states cannot tell parties that may not nominate a non-member. Duration of party membership laws have been struck down in Colorado and New Mexico.
Again – the SCOTUS MORONS can NOT detect election law 101-
PUBLIC nominations by ALL/SOME PUBLIC voters according to PUBLIC laws.
i.e. —
ALL voters = top 2 primaries
SOME voters = all other cases — open/closed primaries, with/without independents and/or other party voters.
Have there been ANY SCOTUS appointees who were NOT robot party hacks since 1789 ???
The remark in Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut about restricting the ability of a party to nominate a non-member was dicta; the case was about whether the state could forbid a party from allowing non-party members to vote in its primary.
Since then, several federal courts have upheld laws requiring that parties nominate only party members. For example: Van Susteren v. Jones, 331 F.3d 1024, 121 A.L.R.5th 671, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4798, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6065 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Jun 06, 2003) (NO. 01-57210), Certiorari Denied by
Van Susteren v. Shelley, 540 U.S. 1106, 124 S.Ct. 1051, 157 L.Ed.2d 891, 72 USLW 3309, 72 USLW 3437, 72 USLW 3446 (U.S. Jan 12, 2004) (NO. 03-601), summarized its holding:
“Applicant for listing as political party’s candidate for congressional seat on primary election ballot whose application was denied on basis that he did not qualify under state law requiring that partisan candidates be disaffiliated from membership in other political parties for one year prior to filing for primary ballot access brought action against secretary of state and county registrar of voters, challenging the disaffiliation requirement as a violation of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Qualifications Clause. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Barry T. Moskowitz, J., granted summary judgment for defendants, and ballot applicant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Schroeder, Chief Circuit Judge, held that the disaffiliation requirement did not violate the First Amendment, theEqual Protection Clause, or the Qualifications Clause.”
Also, Tashjian was a 5-4 decision (and did not pertain to the party membership of candidates). Its dicta on that subject cited no case which held that a party cannot be restricted to nominating its own members. There have been several cases that have upheld such requirements, including:
Smith v. Ward, 47 S.D. 243, 197 N.W. 684 (1924); Roberts v. Cleveland, 48 N.M. 226, 149 P.2d 120, 153 A.L.R. 635 (1944); Crowells v. Petersen, 118 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1960); In re Weber, 186 Colo. 61, 525 P.2d 465 (1974).
I wish it were otherwise and ask others to provide cases striking down such requirements.
The Van Susteren precedent mentioned in comment #2 is not applicable, because the Libertarian Party of California was not a co-plaintiff. Therefore, the Van Susteren precedent is somewhat like the Nancy Argenziano precedent from Florida in 2012. In both cases, candidates sought relief, but their parties weren’t part of the case. It is parties that have the freedom of association to nominate a non-member; a candidate all by himself or herself can’t win a case like this.