On January 15, the Republican Party county organizations that are suing Montana over the open primary asked the Ninth Circuit to grant injunctive relief, as to whether the party can block non-members from voting for party officers. The U.S. District Court had refused to grant such injunctive relief, saying there is no evidence in the case so far that non-members ever vote in Republican primaries for party office. The party committees argue that the case law is already clear that parties can always block non-members from voting for party officers. Therefore, the party says, there is no need for evidence on that point. In the Ninth Circuit, the case is Ravalli County Republican Central Committee v McCulloch, 15-35044.
What does the courts consider as members? Are these paid members of the RNC, or the MT Republican Party. Just saying I vote Republican does not make you a member. Since Montana has no registration by party only an official membership card would provide some level of proof.
The courts recognize multiple definitions of political party, including both the formal structure such as the executive committees, voters who align with the party, and persons who tell pollsters that they favor a party.
When the 9th Circuit overturned Washington’s blanket primary law, they said that a voter who goes into the voting booth considers themselves to be a “Republican” or “Democrat”, etc., and therefore Washington’s blanket primary was indistinguishable from that of California that was overturned in ‘California Democratic Party v Jones’.
California has party registration, but in a blanket primary, voters can participate (interfere) in the other party’s nomination process. Washington, like Montana does not have party registration, so any party alignment by a voter is secret. But the court said that a voter considered themselves to be a Democrat or Republican or independent could interfere in the nominations for any or all offices.
Washington used to elect its precinct officers on the general election ballot. After Washington adopted the Pick-A-Party primary, they moved the election of precinct officers to the primary ballot. Washington’s Pick-A-Party primary is the same as Montana’s except rather than having separate ballot papers, a voter is restricted to using only part of the ballot. So someone who voted for Republican nominations was presumably a Republican entitled to vote for Republican precinct officers.
After Washington switched to the Top 2 Open Primary, they kept the election of precinct officers on the primary ballot. This is the only part of the Washington law that was overturned. Since voters are not making party nominations, it doesn’t matter that a Republican in the first (or primary) stage votes for a Democrat, just as it doesn’t matter in the second (or general). But it would matter that they were voting for party officials.
The legislature corrected this by moving election party offices to a separate area of the ballot. They initially considered adding a statement of loyalty to a party, that a voter would mark, before marking a precinct officer candidate, but the final version simply has a presumption that if you vote for a Republican precinct officer, you are a Republican.
Idaho used to have a Pick-A-Party primary, which was challenged by the Republican Party. Governor Otter, said that Rod Beck was pushing the lawsuit because Beck couldn’t win a primary in a district that was overwhelmingly Republican. But to prove that Democrats were crossing over, you have to essentially assume that the candidates who defeated Beck were crypto-Democrats. If they were merely Republicans who weren’t as zealous as Beck, then it is reasonable to assume that those who voted for them were also Republicans.
In the Idaho case, the Republicans offered weak evidence of cross-over voting, such as races in which a congressional stalwart received fewer votes than a pair of candidates for a legislative seat. This was supposed to show that the cross-over Democrats would not vote for the true Republican. But it likely means that many voters skip races with one candidate on the ballot. The courts rejected this evidence.
But the state’s expert explained that personal partisanship was not always based on political views, but sometimes for cultural of family reasons, and pollsters take that into account.
There are Republicans who identify as Republicans and generally support the views of the party. But there are also persons who identify as Republicans but don’t share most of the views of the party. They may be Republicans because their grandparents were, or similar reasons. And some persons who claim they are an independent vote for the Republican candidate almost all the time, and also share the views of the Republican party, but won’t claim to be Republican, perhaps because they feel they are making thoughtful choices.
The expert then offered that no doubt that some Democrats had voted in an Republican primary, and the judged jumped on that statement, and made his ruling for the Republican party. The government in Idaho is controlled by Republicans, and they did not appeal, and so Idaho now has party registration.