On September 21, an Alaska Superior Court in Juneau held oral argument in Alaska Democratic Party v State. The issue is whether the Democratic Party has the constitutional right to allow registered independents to seek the party’s nomination. State law says no one can get on a party primary ballot unless that individual is a party member. See this story. The case had been filed in 2016.
The Democratic Party rules provide that a candidates seeking the parties nomination would appear on the primary ballot as (Undeclared or Non Partisan or Independent or Non Affiliated), and if they were “nominated” would appear on the general election ballot as the same.
Wouldn’t this confuse the general election voter who elects to rely on party labels to decide who to vote for?
If the Democratic Party wins their suit, could other parties do the same, and even permit candidates affiliated with other parties to run for the nomination. And surely freedom of association should permit a candidate to run for the nomination of multiple parties.
So why not just go with California-style cross-filing
or better yet, switch to Top 2.
One more case to have NO primaries.
PR and AppV
Voters who rely on party labels to decide for whom to vote are confused already.
The biggest difference between California style cross-filing and Top Two and what the Alaska Democrats are trying to do is that the individual parties could choose if they want to allow independents in their primaries as candidates. With cross-filing and Top Two, the state forces those conditions on all parties and all voters.
P.R. would cause party labels to actually mean something — via the party’s platform / agenda.
See the many parties in P.R. regimes in the world.
Under California’s system of cross-filing, the party voters could choose who their party nominates.
Why should the party bosses be able to determine who may or may not run?