Louisiana’s House Bill 17, passed by the legislature on Friday, January 19, and likely to be signed by the Governor soon, is flawed. This is the bill to have party nominees for Congress.
It says that only qualified parties which polled 5% of the vote for a statewide office in the last state office election, or the last presidential election, may have primaries. Louisiana has three qualified parties that did not poll 5%: Libertarian, Green, and Independent Party. The bill has no provision for how those parties to nominate congressional candidates.
No member of those three parties would be permitted to petition, because the petition procedure to get on the general election ballot can only be used by candidates who are not a member of a qualified party.
There is no provision in the bill for these parties to nominate by convention.
It is unconstitutional for any state to completely exclude any adult citizen who meets the age requirement from running for Congress. However, the bill doesn’t take effect until 2026, so there will be a chance for the legislature to fix this problem in the regular 2024 session, which begins in April.
The last time Louisiana had party nominees in Congressional elections was in 2008 and 2010. The 2006 bill providing for congressional elections was Senate Bill 18, but it didn’t take effect until the 2008 election. Unlike the new bill, the 2006 bill provided that all qualified parties should have their own primary for Congress. The system used in 2008 and 2020 was repealed in 2010, but the repeal didn’t take effect until 2012, so 2008 and 2010 were the only elections in this century with party nominees for Congress.
Louisiana has two standards for party recognition.
The 5% threshold is used for membership on parish election boards. Only the Republican and Democratic parties currently qualify. It will now be used for congressional, supreme court, BESE, and PSC. A voter who is not a Republican or Democrat is not affiliated with a recognized party for the purpose of congressional elections, so they may run as an unaffiliated candidate.
The 1000 registrant threshold is currently used for offices which do not have partisan nominations. A candidate affiliated with one of these parties will have that affiliation displayed on ballots. The Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Independent parties qualify by this standard and will continue to qualify. Note that there is also a requirement for a candidate of these parties every four years.
The restoration of the Open Primary for Congress was passed in the 2010 legislature. It did not take effect until 2012. The 2010 congressional election used segregated partisan primaries. Of the 14 potential partisan primaries (7 congressional districts times two parties), only four were actually held. Louisiana cancels elections if there are fewer than two candidates. There was only one primary runoff.
Ironically, the current governor, Jeff Landry, was elected in 2010 under this system in a district where the incumbent Democrat ran for the Senate. Landry ran for re-election in 2012 under the Open Primary but was defeated in the Open Primary runoff by Charles Boustany a fellow Republican incumbent. As a result of reapportionment, Louisiana had lost a representative (7 reduced to 6), and Landry and Boustany were paired in a district in which Boustany had represented more of the voters.
Thank you, Jim. I fixed the post to show that both 2008 and 2010 had party nominees. The Libertarian Party had its own primary for US Senate in 2010.
IS LA THE MOST BYZANTINE STATE FOR ELECTION STUFF — DUE TO OLDE FRENCH REGIME ???
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
@AZ,
I think the Louisiana Civil Code which is derived from French and Spanish, and ultimately Latin law, mostly applies to private disputes. It may have have significant admixtures from common law over the past 200 years.
The Open Primary is actually a simplification over the complex mixture of major party, minor party, and independent candidacies in other states.
Louisiana does not have an open primary. “Open primary” has been defined in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and in political science books about political parties, as a system in which each party has is own nominees, but any voter can vote in any party’s primary.
The SCOTUS called the system used in Louisiana the ‘Open Primary’ in ‘Foster v. Love’. Political scientists probably refer to it as a “jungle primary”, which hardly does credit to their discipline as being science.
Their lack of discipline is quackery, not science. However, Richard Winger’s definition of open primary makes more sense and has been in use longer.
I wasn’t aware jungle primary was a derogatory term. Louisiana’s outgoing system is significantly better than west coast style top x. It’s a shame they’re getting rid of it.
@Bob,
A more accurate term for the primary system used in other States is “segregated partisan primary”.
Internal party qualifying event, with a great deal of state government interloping, would be far closer to the mark.
@Bob,
Why should the state be involved in organizing political association any more than any other First Amendment activity?
They shouldn’t. It should merely inform voters of candidates party affiliation since it saves busy voters time and effort. It’s more pertinent than the candidates membership in the Jaycees,4H club, etc. The state should stop short of administering or interfering in political party nomination process.
@Bob,
If a political club doesn’t want someone to run against their favored candidate, why should the state enforce their diktats?
They shouldn’t. Whoever wants to run against them can run under whatever label is mutually fitting.