As previously noted, on September 8, 2014, the Republican Party of Ravalli County, Montana, filed a federal lawsuit to obtain a closed primary for the Republican Party. A pre-trial conference in that case has been set for December 11. However, on January 10 the state Republican central committee will meet and vote on whether the state party should join the lawsuit. It’s somewhat likely the pre-trial conference will be postponed, to wait for the state party’s decision. The case is Ravalli County Republican Central Committee v McCulloch, 6:14cv-58. The case is assigned to Judge Brian Morris, an Obama appointee and a former member of the Montana Supreme Court.
Republicans won’t pay for this closed primary, if it should hold muster with the courts. Republican support political welfare and expect us, the tax payers to foot the bill. So much for supporting a smaller government.
David:
What if all 3rd parties were allowed to have equal access to the electoral process in Montana and all other states, but such equal access required the 3rd parties to hold primary elections to nominate candidates?
Would you then favor making the 3rd parties pay for the expense of holding their primary election? How many 3rd parties could afford the expenses of its own primary election?
Our election process must be assured that all have the right to participate, and to do this, the government must oversee the process, including paying for primary and general elections from the public treasury.
Are you a member of the Constitution(al) Party?
In 2008 Republicans decided they would hold a presidential caucus and pay for that themselves. The Republicans found out hoe expensive that could be and opted to return to the June 4th primary. Why should I pay for a closed primary I can’t vote in. The Independence Party of Oregon pays for it’s internet primary. In 2012 the Montana Libertarian Party should have had a primary, but the state didn’t want to pay for the expense and stopped the primary on technical grounds. The state was advocating both candidates for the Libertarian primary in the U.S. Senate race both advance to the general election. Running a majority of statewide candidates should have triggered a primary, where any voter would have had the chance to vote for a Libertarian. I’d rather see the parties pay for there own primaries or hold a convention to nominate candidates. We could also have ranked voter choice and skip the primaries all together and everyone would advance to the general. We know the general election is where people start looking at candidates and issues. Primaries always have small voter turnouts.
“Why should I pay for a closed primary I can’t vote in.”
You pay taxes (just as I do) for government spending that you/I don’t agree with. So what is the difference than you/I as a taxpayer having pay for a Primary which you/I cannot vote in?
You still ignore my main question. How many 3rd parties could afford to pay for a regular Primary Election? Not many if any. Even the GOP (as you point out) realized even they could not afford a Primary Election. (An internet primary is a horse of a different color.)
About 100 years ago, primaries were forced on parties. They didn’t want them. The Socialist Party went to court in several states arguing that forcing them to nominate by primary, when the dues-paying members had previously been the people to nominate Socialists, violated the party’s rights. But the party lost all those lawsuits.
So it isn’t fair or just to now treat primaries as a gift to the parties.
Are you opposed to the Australian (government-printed) ballot? I know that has been a Libertarian platform plank at times.
How about a hybrid system?
Before the government-printed ballot, anyone could run for office. They didn’t even have to “run”, but as a practical matter they or their supporters would have to encourage voters to write their name on the ballot. And of course, parties and newspapers would print ballots (and newspapers were more partisan back then).
So under a hybrid system, running for office would be as simple as declaring as a write-in candidate is now. But a candidate would have to pay to have their name and party printed on ballots.
Primaries don’t have to be what we see today. 3rd parties could just nominate by convention, so they wouldn’t have that large expense of printing ballots for all registered voters and hiring all that help to administer their primary. We all pay for a lot of government essential services. A primary isn’t one of those essential services.
David,
Does it not violate free association rights of political parties, which are private entities, to force open primaries? Is it not an unfunded mandate to force parties to have primaries instead of much less expensive conventions, but to also require them to pay for them?
Couldn’t we compromise by charging political parties for the estimated cost of conventions, subtract that cost from the cost of primaries and charge tax payers the difference? In this way, taxpayers are paying only for the cost of the oversight and regulation. Or we could just allow parties to have conventions, but that would risk party bosses and elites having too much influence over rank and file members to choose the nominees.
Under Top 2 all candidates are placed on a single ballot, so you don’t have the expense of printing a ballot for each party. Political parties remain free to support whomever they want.