On September 8, the Ravalli County, Montana, Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit to obtain a closed primary for itself. Montana has open primaries. The county party took this action because in the June 2014 primary, Democrats intervened in the Republican primary for State Representative and apparently altered the outcome of a very close race.
The state will probably defend the open primary by saying a county party doesn’t have standing to sue, and that only the state party has standing. That has been an issue in the South Carolina lawsuit on the same subject, in which only the Greenville County Republican Party sued, not the state party. Thanks to Mike Fellows for this news.
I would have no problem with the major parties having closed primaries, provided they would in the same breath, would argue that 3rd parties should also have a closed primary (Independents would still have to obtain signatures or pay a filing fee – the latter I prefer and believe to be fairer).
But until the major parties automatically gives us a closed primary of our own, I am going to continue to vote as an Independent in those open primaries. Thus far, Alabama has open primaries for both Democratic and Republican parties, and when I vote I choose the primary, where I feel my vote can do the most damage.
As I have written before. We are at war with the Democratic and Republican parties. In war, you do whatever you can to hurt the enemy.
The Republicans still want political welfare from us the tax payers. The Republicans want our money but not our vote. Besides those folks would just register Republican and vote in their primary anyway.
David: I don’t know what philosophy you hold, but I have found that Republicans love to say things we Christian voters like to hear, then once they are elected they forget us. Both the Democrats and Republicans care only about Power and wealth. The recent court case involving the former governor of Virginia and his wife, shows the hypocrisy of many Republicans. They presented themselves as a typical Christian couple who Americans could model after. Now we learn that especially in the case of Mrs. McConnell, it was about “greed.”
I am not ashamed to admit that I am a real Christian who has trusted in the shed blood of Jesus on the Cross for forgiveness of my sins and for assurance of eternal life in Heaven. But if you are a professing Christian in public life, at least half-way act like it. Don’t be like the McConnells and many other “Christian-proclaiming” politicians of all parties whether major parties, 3rd parties and even Independents.
If a State (i.e., all of its taxpayers) pay for the conduct of a primary, then it should be open to all voters. If a party desires a closed primary, then the party should be allowed one provided that it (the party) pays for it.
Gene: I have to disagree with you. All party primaries and general elections should be paid for and policed by the government – regardless of whether the primaries are closed or open. You seem to forget that the 1st duty of government is to provide as best it can an honest and open election process – though I admit there is corruption and fraud in some government paid primaries. You must be a cold-hearted calloused Republican who thinks the government should not shoulder the cost of one ounce of government. It is people like you who think that children should have to purchase their own textbooks for school and their parents should have to pay a poll tax to vote. I’m glad we’ve moved past these draconian days and someday – if people with common sense would awaken – that we might take back this county and have a truly people’s republic as the founding fathers wanted.
NO robot party hack primaries.
—-
ONE general election — ballot access via EQUAL nominating petitions.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Demo Rep; What part of the above messages that I posted that you don’t get. There would be no “robot party hack primaries” as you call them. They would be state paid for and policed closed primaries for each party – major parties and 3rd parties, and then one general election.
I am opposed to all petitions for large electoral demographies. Any political office that has over thousand voters should be allowed to pay a filing fee of no more than 1/10 of one percent of the annual office or $5000 – whichever is the smallest.
Political office jurisdictions of 1000 voters or less could handle the requirement of 10 signatures or 10% of the voters – whichever is the lesser.
Why don’t you start making sugestions that have merit rather than your continuing babbling of “NO robot party hack primaries ONE general election – ballot access via EQUAL nominating petitions. P.R,. and nonpartisan App V.
Let me correct the next to last sentence in the reply that I send to Demo Rep. I meant it to read: “Political office jurisdictions of 1000 voters or less could handle the requirements of 10 signatures or 1% of the voters – whichever is the lesser.
Alabama Independent,
I would like to challenge you to explain why party primaries, or any form of primary, are really necessary. They are fraught with dilemmas, are expensive, increase the length of campaigns, make too-early filing deadlines necessary, reduce choices for voters in the general election, create a more polarized field of candidates and can eliminate candidates the overall voters like better. Our nation existed for a century without them, and no other nation uses them.
I don’t see anything wrong with Demo Rep’s idea that primaries could be abolished. Please understand the very important role that the use of the very flawed and undemocratic plurality voting method has played. If not for the use of this voting method, primaries would never have come into existence in the first place. Consider that Demo Rep advocates the use of approval voting and proportional representation which would make primaries obsolete.
The practice of “Crossover Voting in Open Primary Elections” in Montana was perfected by the Republican Party between 1956 to 1964. (Normally, crossover voting occurs at about the rate of 1% to 5% and this level of back and forth rarely affects the outcome of an election.) However when the crossover vote goes over 20%, you can logically conclude that there is an organized effort to affect the outcome of the election.
So why did the Montana Republicans stop a practice that helped elect the Republican governors Hugo Aronson, Dan Nutter, and Tim Babcock. First, the Democratic candidate for governor, Roland Renne, spoke out about the Republican practice. “We had some anxious moments Tuesday evening but I feel we came out okay in spite of the heavy Republican crossover.” June 4, 1964. Second, the members of the media began investigating.
After asking the governor to respond to the Democrat’s allegation, the Independent Record reported: “Governor Tim Babcock, in analyzing Tuesday’s election returns, said obviously a sizable number of Republicans cast ballots in the Democratic primary due to unusual interest in the contest for the gubernatorial nomination.”
After this open admission, the crossover votes for the 1968 to 1972 primary elections returned to about 3%. Both parties selected their own candidates without any raiding going on. With fair elections, the Democrats controlled the governor’s office till 1989.
The actual complaint cites the election of party committeepersons. There was a very close race for the Republican nomination in a senate race within the county, so that might be a motivating factor.
Under Montana’s pick-a-party primary system, voters are given primary ballots for each party. They select a party ballot in private, then dispose of the other party ballots.
One reason the Secretary of State did not want to permit a Libertarian primary for the contested US senate race was that it would require printing of a Libertarian ballot for every primary voter.
Under Montana law, the election of precinct committeemen is not differentiated from the nomination of party candidates. So a voter who selected a party based on the top of the ballot candidate, might go ahead and vote for other offices on the ballot.
Of course, such interference by supporters or even independent voters is clearly unconstitutional. You might recall in Arizona, that the court initially ruled in favor of the Libertarian Party on the issue of independents selecting the Libertarian ballot then voting for party officers; it was only later extended to party nominees (Arizona and Montana are both in the 9th circuit).
Since the State of Montana is dictating how the Republican County Party committee for Ravalli County is constituted, the county party may indeed have standing as the case is presented (see the precedent of San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee v Eu).
The county party seeks injunctive relief prior to the meeting of the legislature in January 2015. One reason for the length and complexity of the 2014 Top Two legislation was that it had to preserve the partisan election of party committees.
Additional provisions were included in the 2014 legislation to update the language and style of the election laws to contemporary standards, and to preserve the filling of vacancies in the legislature by party bosses, bypassing the voters. If the election of the party committees was moved to party meetings, it would also be logical to restore the use of special elections for the legislature. If Montana’s single US House seat becomes vacant, a statewide special election will be held. It can not be that hard to hold a special election for one of 100 Montana house seats.
With those changes, implementation of Top 2 Open Primary would be quite possible.
The Republican Party is quite dominant in Ravalli County. For example, John Walsh would not have qualified under a Top 3 system, receiving fewer votes than all 3 Republican candidates. If a Ravalli voter wished to have an effective vote for county commissioner, they would have to vote in the Republican primary.