Texas Representative Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) has introduced HB 1061, which would add a question to the voter registration form, asking for the applicant’s party. The bill would also not permit parties to nominate candidates who are not registered members, a policy that the U.S. Supreme Court said in Tashjian v Republican Party would be unconstitutional.
The bill also does not permit party members to sign a petition for an independent candidate. The only other states that ever had that restriction were Louisiana before 1948, and Arizona 1993-1999. The Arizona restriction was held unconstitutional in Campbell v Hull in 1999.
The bill also does not permit party members to sign for a new party, unless they are registered independents. That policy was held unconstitutional in New Mexico in Workers World Party v Vigil-Giron in 1988, and in Kentucky in Libertarian Party v Ehrler in 1991.
The bill is ambiguous as to whether voters would be allowed to register into an unqualified party. Thanks to Jim Riley for the news.
HB 1061, HB 1072, HB 1347, and HB 1353 appear to be the same. The purpose of the bill is not to add a party question to the registration form; but rather to institute permanent party registration.
In Texas, voters do not have party affiliation in the sense of other states. In any (even-numbered) election year, a voter is restricted to participating in the nomination activities of a single party, including the primary, the primary runoff, conventions, and candidacy. Once they have participated in the activity of one party, they can’t participate in the activities of other parties.
A voter does not swear allegiance to a party, they simply state that they have not participated in the nominating activities of another party, and by voting are restricted from doing so. In other states, it is possible for a voter to vote in a different party’s primary, but when they do so, they can’t vote in their own. For example, Republicans in Alaska and Idaho may vote in Democratic primaries, but if they do so, they may not also vote in Republican primaries.
So Texas is not really different, except that it is essentially impossible to become a “Republican” or “Democrat” prior to the primary. A voter becomes a Republican or Democrat by voting in their primary. They are then restricted for any conventions that year, as well as the primary runoff. As soon as the primary runoff is over, everyone reverts to having no party affiliation (technically on December 31 of the even numbered year, but for most practical purposes by the end of May). Every two years, voters are issued a registration certificate with a blank space for party affiliation. Previously, the registration certificate was stamped when a voter first voted in a primary. But since the registration certificate is no longer used for voter identification, they are not stamped.
The aim of the bill is to prevent voters from picking their party on election day, based on who was running. A voter might choose a primary based on the candidates running. In Texas, the Democratic primary for major offices might not be contested, so conceivably voters could vote in Republican primary, and then vote for the Democrat in the general election.
The restriction on cross-over participation would be the same under HB 1061, but the party choice would have to be established 30 days before the primary (any change after that time would not be processed until the end of the year). In addition, the voter would have to actively change the registration for future elections.
Tashjian said that Connecticut had to let independent voters vote for Republican nominees for certain offices. Of course, Justice Marshall was wrong with respect to splitting offices. Section IV is pure gobbledygook. See Justice Stevens dissent to understand why.
Under current Texas law, this is not a problem, since all voters are “independent” before they actually vote in a primary. When they vote, it is not a question whether a voter is Democrat or Republican or independent, it is whether they have voted in another party’s primary.
Currently, Texas does not permit a voter to sign an independent petition if they have previously voted in a primary for the office in question. This has been upheld in American Party of Texas v. White. When Kinky Friedman and Carole of the Many Names were running for governor in 2006, the Friedman campaign urged voters to not vote in the primary, to save themselves for Kinky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuYysRnzBPY
The problem with the new bill is that it is possible that someone could have skipped the primary and still not be be permitted to sign a petition. It is a change from activity to status.
In Texas, new parties qualify based on having sufficient number of voters participate in their conventions, rather than voting in the primary or conventions of another party. This appears to confusing to some individuals, who are familiar with systems where a party must qualify before they can nominate (e.g. Ohio and California, formerly) or who qualify and actually organize after they have nominated (e.g. New York con-fusion).
Texas does permit a supplemental petition after the conventions. Signing is restricted to those individuals who could have participated in the convention of the party.
There really is no ambiguity about registration. A non-qualified party conducts its nominating activities concurrently with with their qualification. For example, the Green Party is no longer a (pre)qualified party in Texas. If they decide to qualify in 2018, they would certify their intent to nominate by convention, just as the Libertarian Party is required to do, or the Democrats and Republicans do with respect to conducting primaries.
Under HB 1061, a candidate would have to be affiliated with the Green Party 30 days before they declare their candidacy. In addition, voters would have to be affiliated with the Green Party for 30 days before the precinct conventions.
It would be nonsensical if a party had to be qualified before a voter could participate in the activities that would qualify the party.