In 2002, the Arizona Libertarian Party filed a federal lawsuit against a law that mandated that the party must allow independents to vote in its primary. The party’s members are far outnumbered by the number of registered independents in the state. The party had an extremely close primary contest for Governor in 2002. Both candidates were willing and able to campaign among the approximately 18,000 registered Libertarians, but neither had enough resources to try to campaign among the hundreds of thousands of independent voters. The party won the case in U.S. District Court on August 6, 2002.
However, after the primary was over, in 2003, the 9th circuit told the U.S. District Court to re-do the case. The 9th circuit said that while it is obvious that the party can’t be forced to let independents vote in its primary for party officers, the question is not so clear on whether the party can block independents from voting in its primary for public office. The 9th circuit said the lower court should analyze each matter separately. Since then, the U.S. District Court has not ruled.
According to the judge’s law clerk, the judge is working on the decision, so it should be out this year. In the meantime, Arizona State Representative Steve Gallardo (D-Phoenix), who is probably not aware of the case, has called on the legislature to pass a law letting independents vote in presidential primaries. The existing law forcing parties to let independents to vote in their primaries does not pertain to presidential primaries. Gallardo hopes that the Governor will call a special session of the legislature this month, and if that happens, he will try to make that change.
Let’s say the Court rules that the Libertarian Party must allow independents to vote in its primary. Will
the party also be forced to allow any “independent”
Let’s say that the Court rules that the Libertarian
Party must allow independents to vote in its primary.
Will the party also be forced to allow “independent”
registered candidates to file for this office? Also,
how can it be justified that an “independent” voter
be resticted to voting in only one party’s primary.
Can’t the arguement be made that an “independent” can
vote for ANY party’s primary candidate they choose
for various offices on the same ballot? Is there any
case law that applies to Arizona on this matter other
than the case that stripped California of its unified
primary ballot a few years back, that was challenged
in Court by EVERY ballot-qualified party at the time
except for the American Independent Party.
The US Supreme Court decision on the California “blanket primary” said that parties can’t be forced to let members of other parties vote in their primaries. That’s not quite the same issue as whether parties can be forced to let independents vote in their primaries. The US Supreme Court case had been brought by the California Democratic, Republican, Peace & Freedom, and Libertarian Parties, in 1997, and the parties won it in 2000.