Arizona currently has semi-closed primaries (for office other than President). Representative Thomas Thorpe, the Speaker Pro Tem, and five other Republican representatives have introduced HCR 2014. It would alter the Arizona Constitution to say that only registered members of a party may vote in that party’s primary, for all office.
If this bill passes, then the voters would vote on the idea, because it is a constitutional change.
As worded, the bill violates the associational rights of political parties that want to let independents vote in their primaries. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that if a party wants to let independents vote in its primary, then the government cannot block that policy.
Ironically, if this bill became law, the current law making it extremely difficult for Libertarian candidates to get on their own party’s primary ballot would be clearly unconstitutional. The existing law, which is already being challenged by the Libertarian Party in the 9th circuit, says that Libertarian candidates must obtain thousands of signatures to place themselves on a Libertarian primary ballot, but that independent voters can sign such petitions. If the law forbade independent voters from voting in a party primary, then it seems obvious that the law could not continue to allow independents to sign primary petitions. And if independents couldn’t sign Libertarian primary petitions, then the law would make it literally impossible for Libertarians to get on primary ballots (because there aren’t enough registered Libertarians) and the law would be obviously unconstitutional.
The 1986 case is one more MORON SCOTUS election law case to be OVER-ruled.
Party gangs full of HACKS are NOT independent empires regarding PUBLIC elections of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices via PUBLIC LAWS.
—
NO primaries.
PR and APPV.
Ironically, the Arizona Libertarian Party opened their primary after winning their lawsuit because it was too hard finding voters to sign their petitions.
Open Primary states like California, Washington, and Louisiana do not have this problem because they don’t have segregated partisan primaries, whether Semi-Half-Opened, Closed, Winking-Closed, etc.
In your heart …
Government administered party primary elections are a subsidy to political parties. They should be abolished for the same First Amendment reasons government cannot subsidize church facilities and activities.
Governments and courts also try to avoid getting involved in disputes over who owns church property. Is the pastor, the board of elders, the national body, etc., the owner. What if they claim a thick black book is their bylaws? Church subsidies may interfere with the beliefs of the church.
The same thing can happen with political parties. Who owns their property, the most valuable of which is the ability to place candidates on the general election ballot? The simplest way to handle this is to do away with party nomination privileges.
So… this bill would effectively prohibit independent voters from signing minor party candidate petitions, but it would not reduce the number of signatures required for minor party candidate petitions? Is that correct?
It’s somewhat ambiguous. It is poorly worded. It doesn’t say explicitly that independent voters can’t sign a primary petition, but because independents could no longer vote in such primaries, it creates uncertainty about signing.