On July 7, several New Jersey voters who do not wish to be registered members of any party asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their lawsuit, Balsam v Secretary of State of New Jersey. They argue that partisan primaries are integral stages of the election process, and that it is unconstitutional to exclude any voters from any stage of the election process.
New Jersey has a closed primary system. Only party members can vote in primaries. However, on primary day, any registered voter who is not a member of any party is free to ask for a primary ballot; but if the voter does that, he or she will be listed as a member of that party. The voter is free to re-register immediately afterwards and regain independent status.
The lower courts had upheld New Jersey’s system. The Third Circuit oral argument was on March 16 and the decision was released on April 8.
All voters nominate — as in top 2 primaries
SOME voters nominate — as in the robot party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions.
—-
NO primaries.
Ballot access ONLY by equal nominating petitions – to get serious candidates.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
I agree, the U.S. would have better government without primaries. No other country in the world has government-administered primaries for parties to choose nominees. The primary system was added early in the 20th century. The current primary system discourages talented people from seeking public office. In other democratic countries, parties choose individuals they believe would be useful in elected office, in party meetings, and then manage the general election campaigns. In that system, that takes a big burden, financial, time, and energy, off the candidates. Also U.S. primaries make the campaign season very long and dilute. Congressional primaries range from March to September, and the presidential process takes 20 months.
Richard,
I would like to know whether you believe the plaintiffs have a legitimate case.
Based on my understanding (and admitted bias), I do not believe that voters have a constitutional right to vote in partisan primaries. It seems to me that they are not integral stages of the electoral process, since all voters can vote for whomever they want in the election that counts – the general election.
Partisan primaries are essentially private.
Why should parties be forced to allow non-members to vote in their elections?
Also, why would a non-member want to vote in a party’s primary if they are not members or want to associate with that party?
It seems to me that the true constitutional concern is with top-two primaries (especially in CA), where voters cannot vote for their preferred candidate in November and where, as you have pointed out, candidates need to essentially earn 30% of the vote to make it to the general election – far above the standard 5% threshold upheld by the Supreme Court.
Sorry – ALL nomination stuff by PUBLIC Electors-Voters for PUBLIC offices is PUBLIC business subject to PUBLIC Laws —
The party gangs are NOT independent empires.
See the old Texas White Primary cases circa 1928-1932.
—
The party gangs can have their internal clubby stuff –
see the 1989 Eu case in SCOTUS.
If party primaries are financed by the government – or administered by the government (at taxpayer cost – they should be open to anyone and everyone. Better would be for the parties to, if they wish to have a primary, pay ALL costs for the primary. In such a case, if they wish it closed to only its members (however defined), a primary could be closed.
Primaries now come even earlier and earlier and prolong campaigns and costs. They could easily be dispensed with.
Parties never wanted government-administered primaries. They were forced on the parties. Parties went to court to keep the right to nominate by convention, but they lost in many state courts, in the 1900-1915 period.
Parties can’t pay for primaries themselves. They don’t have enough money. Texas law formerly let parties keep the revenue from filing fees to help pay for primaries, and the filing fees were huge. When the US Supreme Court struck down huge filing fees in 1972, the Texas government started paying for primaries. Now all states pay for primaries.
I agree with Drew’s comments above.
Prior to ‘Bullock v Carter’, parties in Texas were required to fund their own primaries from the filing fees for the candidates. The filing fees for local office were high because the state set the filing fees for higher offices, and they were divided up among counties.
Filing fees are still used for paying part of the cost of primaries. The county parties send a bill to the SOS for the cost of the primary. If a county primary cost $120,000 and there were $18,000 in filing fees, the $18,000 would be retained by the county party, and the state would send $102,000 to the party.
The govt primaries happened in 1888-1890 due to the TOTAL boss- dictator corruption / tyranny of the party gangsters.
i.e. vote the gang line or get purged — lose your job, etc.
Now primaries only produce more robot party hack extremists – think Stalin and Hitler clones.
i.e. the USA is de facto in a nonstop Civil W-A-R — esp. since 1932 and 1964.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NO primaries.