On September 9, the Texas Republican Party informed the U.S. District Court that its lawsuit is now stronger than it was originally. The new filing points out that the state party recently passed a resolution in favor of a closed primary for itself. This is the lawsuit in which the Texas Republican Party argues that it has a First Amendment right to a closed primary if it wants one. Hunt v State of Texas, n.d., 2L25cv-200.
primaries — part of the PUBLIC nomination – PUBLIC election process
PARTIES ARE NOT INDEPENDENT EMPIRES IN SUCH PROCESS
SEE NOW OLDE TX WHITE PRIMARY CASES 1928-1932
—
1 AMDT IN 1791 — LONG BEFORE 1888-1890 OFFICIAL PRIMARIES
@AZ,
Grovey v Townsend (1937) ruled that political parties were independent of the State.
Texas did not have government-sanctioned ballot access until 1903 effective for the 1904 election. The primaries and conventions in Texas in 1906 were not administered nor funded by the State of Texas. Texas did not have voter registration until the 1960s.
The RPT is demanding that a federal court issue a decree that the State of Texas maintain records of the political beliefs of its citizens.
A better solution would be to let each party fund and administer its own nomination process, just like in 1906, except there would not be a requirement that certain parties nominate by primary. Move the primary and precinct conventions back to a Saturday in late July and require them to be held in separate buildings one hundred yards apart. If a party wanted to have a Crawford County style convention where delegates to county and other conventions were instructed, they could. If they wanted to have a rolling convention like the American Party used in 1968 they could. If a party wanted to have some sort of pre-registration of voters they could. Whether candidates had to pre-file or pay a filing fee would be at the discretion of the party.
Better yet would be to do away with partisan nominations entirely. Voters can freely associate when they encourage or recruit candidates, “you should run for governor, Anna”. They can display a bumper sticker for Bob and a yard sign for Charlotte, even though they are of different parties. They can attend a campaign rally for Dave, and block walk for Emily, and make financial contributions to Fred and Georgia, all of different political beliefs, why can’t they associate freely in the voting booth when their support is most effective?
The idea of government interference in internal party governance and elections is absurd and abhorrent.
“A better solution would be to let each party fund and administer its own nomination process, just like in 1906, except there would not be a requirement that certain parties nominate by primary.”
Jim Riley said it. I believe it. That settles it.
@RW,
In Texas, the state convention is the governing body of a party, in effect its legislature. Only the state convention may make permanent rules. An executive committee may only make temporary rules.
The idea that a non-entity in Washington D.C. can dissolve the No Labels party in Kansas simply because they financed a petition drive is nonsensical and fabulous.
The state convention of the RPT did not pass a “resolution” in favor of a closed primary. The state convention of the RPT amended the permanent rules of the party. The lawsuit was not ripe because no competent body had promulgated rules calling for a closed primary.
“Better yet would be to do away with partisan nominations entirely. Voters can freely associate when they encourage or recruit candidates, “you should run for governor, Anna”. They can display a bumper sticker for Bob and a yard sign for Charlotte, even though they are of different parties. They can attend a campaign rally for Dave, and block walk for Emily, and make financial contributions to Fred and Georgia, all of different political beliefs, why can’t they associate freely in the voting booth when their support is most effective?”
Certainly, voters should be free to associate with any candidates they wish – except for those who freely chose the risk of not appearing on the general election ballot by seeking a partisan nomination and losing.
They could have run as independent candidates instead, which has some advantages and some disadvantages over running with a party label.
The problem of not being able to vote in different party primaries simultaneously can be addressed by
1) not having “sore loser” laws
2) not having ballot access for independent candidates that is more difficult than that of partisan candidates, or at least those of certain parties
And
3) having parties conduct their own nominations, which would make it difficult to impossible for them to prevent voters from participating in more than one party’s nomination process
Which would be aided by
4) not having partisan voter registration
“In Texas, the state convention is the governing body of a party, in effect its legislature. Only the state convention may make permanent rules. An executive committee may only make temporary rules.
The idea that a non-entity in Washington D.C. can dissolve the No Labels party in Kansas simply because they financed a petition drive is nonsensical and fabulous.”
Non sequitur. Kansas isn’t Texas. There’s existing precedent for national parties succeeding in court fights and dissolving state affiliates which Jim Riley of all people certainly must be familiar with.
5) Even where voters are prevented from having a candidate who sought a party nomination and lost being listed on a ballot, they should still be free to write that candidate’s name in, or vote for that candidate by voice vote, and have that vote counted.
That doesn’t mean that losing party nomination candidates should be compelled to conduct active campaigns seeking write in votes or to serve if elected, but they should be free to do so if they wish.
Just as parties should be free to ban them from seeking that party’s nomination again if they ignore the results of the nomination process and run against the party nominee.
Better yet would be to do away with candidates and ballots entirely.
@Sherlock,
Texas interfered with the RPT by subsidizing their nominating activities. They were emasculated and are no longer self-reliant. They are welfare queens. Meanwhile Libertarian and Green candidates are required to pay a poll tax to even speak at a convention.
Both of those things are bad.
Mình thấy bài viết này chia sẻ khá thực tế về moviebox pro . TONY09-08
@LAF,
I should have reversed the order of the second and third paragraphs. The basis of the RPT’s new brief was that the party (as represented by its state convention) had amended its rules.
It is nonsensical for any entity other than body of voters as a whole to represent the interests of a political party.