On October 17, an Alaska Superior Court ruled that if the Democratic Party wants to let registered independents run in the Democratic primary, then the party can do that, even though it violates election law. Alaska Democratic Party v State, 1ju-17-563. See this story. The 33-page ruling can be read here.
If an independent wins the Democratic primary, then, according to the court ruling, he or she will be labeled on the November ballot as a Democrat, because that is the party that nominated the individual. Thanks to Jim Riley for the link.
But don’t they share a primary ballot with the Alaskan Independence Party and the Libertarian Party? Granted, I’ve never understood it, either have all parties on the same primary ballot and take the top vote-getter under each party label to the general, or have separate primaries for all. It’s always seemed inherently unfair to me. But anyway, is it really accurate to call that the Democratic Party primary since it includes other parties?
Or am I just missing something obvious, like they changed their system there? This seems like something I should understand, maybe I’ve been up too long.
One more screwed up moron case about the alleged power of some faction/fraction of PUBLIC Electors [in a party gang] to be allegedly be an independent empire regarding PUBLIC elections – ie nominations.
That said —
NO primaries.
PR and AppV.
The current case is 1JU-17-00563CI
The case you cited was the previous case which had been dismissed because the Alaska Democratic Party had not actually changed their party rules, and was deemed not ripe for adjudication. The above format does work in the search engine for the Alaska Court System. I found the docket, which shows the summary judgement that the court had granted on October 17, but have not found the opinion yet.
This news story has a link.
https://www.adn.com/politics/2017/10/17/new-court-ruling-could-allow-alaska-gov-walker-an-independent-to-run-in-democratic-primary/
This direct link may work.
http://courtrecords.alaska.gov/webdocs/media/docs/akdem/order-summary.pdf
James… Originally the law was that all parties would be on the one primary ballot and then the top vote getter from each party would go to the general. But the courts decided that that violated the right of the party to choose who can vote in their primary (i.e; freedom of association) so the Republicans (after suing and winning that case) split their ballot off.
Umm… Demo Rep, this is closer to what you want actually. Now indies can run under the Dem primary. If they pushed this further what you would end up with is a 2 round election system, with a first round of all parties with multiple candidates, and then a second round with just the top vote getters from each party. Effectively if they took this further, there wouldn’t be a primary, but a 2-round voting system.
@JMIV,
After ‘California Democratic Party v Jones’, Alaska was going to get rid of its blanket primary, but the Moderate Republican Party and Green Party challenged the change in Alaska courts. While the the California decision said that the state could not force association of voters with a party, in Alaska it was decided that the state constitution provided greater protection than the 1st Amendment, and parties could voluntarily permit other voters to participate in their primary. Eventually parties could permit whatever parties they wanted to vote in their primary. Initially, the Democrats did not permit Republicans to vote in their primary, so there were three ballots:
Consolidated (a voter could vote for nominations of the Alaska Independence, Green, or Libertarian Party. Anyone could take this ballot, including Democratic and Republican voters.
Consolidated-Democratic (a voter could vote for nominations of the three smaller parties, plus the Democratic nomination). Anyone but Republicans could take this ballot.
Republican (I think Republicans let independents vote, but may not have initially).
After Democrats permitted Republicans to vote in their primary, the consolidated primary became the ADL Primary, as the Green Party had lost its recognized status.
The court’s decision put a lot of emphasis on ‘Timmons v Twin Cities Area New Party’ where the SCOTUS upheld a Minnesota ban of candidates seeking multiple nomination, and seemed to say that an interpretation of the statute that restricted a candidate to seeking one nomination only was valid.
It didn’t say how the ballot would be laid out, but suggested that there might be separate sections on the (blanket) ballot, so a voter would know whether they were voting for the Democratic, American Independence, or Libertarian nomination for a particular office, even if the candidate was not affiliated with a party. A voter could still switch nominations on an office by office basis.
The decision says that the nominee of a party would have to have that information on the general election ballot. It did not say that was the only information, so it could contain the affiliation of the candidate, and which nomination he was seeking.
This could have presented an interesting presentation for Bill Walker. When he petitioned onto the ballot, he was a registered Republican. When the Democratic candidate for governor, Byron Mallot, became Walker’s running mate, he insisted that Walker change his affiliation to non-affiliated.
So conceivably the ballot might have said that Walker was a Republican, Mallot was a Democrat, and they were running as nominated by petition. Or perhaps Walker could have had the ballot changed to say that he was non-affiliated.
Of course, the real answer is for Alaska to switch to Top 2.
Top 2 is a cure worse than the disease.
No, the answer for Alaska is a blanket primary with all the parties on the same ballot, not the segregated system they have, and moving the top-vote getters from each party to the general, but the rest was very informative, so thank you for explaining that, it’s much appreciated.
AJ-
I SAY WHAT I WANT.
NO SECOND PERSON NEEDED — SAME FOR ALL OTHER FOLKS.
This *independents* machination by the AK Donkeys is just one more evil deception —
akin to the *independents* on the CA gerrymander commission — who were undercover agents/spies of the CA Donkeys.
—
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
@JMIV, AJ
Even before statehood, Alaska used a blanket primary, everybody got the same ballot, and a voter could participate in the nomination process of different party’s for different offices (they could vote for a Republican gubernatorial nominee; a Democratic senatorial nominee; etc.). Each party would (could) still have a nominee, but that might have been determined by voters of other parties.
During the 1990s, the Republican Party challenged this, and during litigation, the Republican Party had its own ballot. But eventually, the blanket primary was upheld, and everyone went back to voting in the blanket primary.
After ‘California Democratic Party v Jones’, the Alaska Legislature passed a new law that provided for separate primaries for each party. By default, each primary would be semi-closed (Party registrants + Non-Partisan + Undeclared). A party could by rule close its primary; or it could open it further to registrants of other parties.
The Green and Republican Moderate sued in Alaska courts to continue to have a combined primary for their two parties and were eventually successful before the Alaska Supreme Court in ‘Green Party v State of Alaska’
https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/2005/s-11272-1.html
The reasoning behind this new decision is similar to that of the Supreme Court in 2005, which suggests that it will be upheld on appeal. Ironically, neither the Republican Moderate or Green Parties are recognized any longer (the head honcho of the RMP was the Democratic nominee for senator in 2016 and finished 4th with about 11% of the vote).
I can’t find anything in statute (or regulation) that actually specifies how the combined ballot works. The sample ballots in 2016 show the candidates for US Senate and Representative in alphabetical name order, with ballot rotation by state house district. It happened that the three Democratic House candidates (Hibler, Hinz, and Lindbeck) were before the two Libertarian candidates (McDermott and Watts), but in House District 2, they were listed Watts, Hibler, Hinz, Lindbeck, and McDermott (i.e. LDDDL).
If there were an independent seeking the Democratic nomination, there would have had to been some indication of this.
Here is a history of the Alaska primary.
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/doc/forms/H42.pdf
@CP and JMIV
Have you actually looked at legislative elections in ANY state.
In 2016, for the 40 Alaska House seats, there were two contested Democratic primaries. In one it was between the incumbent who was part of the Republican-dominated Majority Coalition, against a Democrat who is now part of the Democratic-dominated Majority Coalition. One of the Democratic nominees withdrew so as to permit the re-election of an independent (i.e. the Democrat was a spoiler candidate).
There was one COUNT one American Independent candidate, and ZERO Libertarian candidates.
It is plain goofy to maintain the segregated partisan primaries.
Jim Riley, I look at state elections for fun, so yeah, I have. I’m unsure your point, because as I’ve explained I oppose the segregated primaries, and said in just this post that I supported a blanket primary of all political parties. I wasn’t opposed to the idea that the Democratic/Libertarian/Alaskan Independence Parties being on the same primary ballot in a bubble, I’m opposed to it because the Republicans get their own primary ballot, and it is completely unfair. If they’re going to be stupid and divide them, why not put the Alaskan Independence Party with the Republican primary ballot? Republicans are more likely to support them than Democrats, and same with the Libertarians.
I don’t know how I can say I support a blanket primary and your response is to ask why we want to maintain the segregated partisan primaries. Opposing top two as a ballot restricting disgrace that doesn’t give voters a choice at the time they actually pay attention to elections (e.g. the general) does not mean I have no desire to see the partisan primary ballots continue. It’s not mutually exclusive.
My issues with this specifically is, one, calling the Democratic/Libertarian/Alaskan Independence a Democratic primary when it just by definition is more than that, and two, that if parties are going to share primary ballots like they should, ALL parties should, not just some of them. That is plain unfair, and I’d rather have a fair, segregated primary system for all parties over a half-blanket/half-segregated primary. That would at least make more sense to me.
Oh, and the lack of third party candidates in state races is not an argument for top two. It just really isn’t.
Jim,
We all know that general elections have the highest participation. Top two held to determine who will be on the general election ballot means that a fraction, often a quite small fraction, of voters will determine who is on that general election ballot. If you want an election process that creates the greatest opportunity for the largest number of voters to be able to support a candidate that approximates their individual viewpoints, Top Two does the opposite of that. If you want an election process that allows a minority of voters to narrow the options to what they find acceptable(often meaning two very similar candidates), thus providing the majority a pair of candidates previously deemed worthy by that minority which is more engaged with and influenced by the political establishment than the electorate as a whole, then Top Two is the ticket.
@JMIV,
It is unconstitutional to have a blanket primary of the type you propose, where parties are required to let all voters vote in their primaries for individual offices. After ‘California Democratic Party v Jones’, the Alaska Legislature went back to restricting voters to individual primaries. By default, primaries are semi-closed, where nonpartisan and undeclared voters may select the primary ballot of the party. But a party is free to close its primary, or to open its primary to other parties.
The Green and Republican Moderate parties filed suit to permit them to combine their primary. They were successful in a ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court. It is unlikely they would have won in federal court, based on the first amendment (see ‘Clingman v Beaver’), but they were successful under an interpretation of the Alaska constitution.
After that decision, the Alaska Independence and Libertarian parties joined in, as did the Democratic party, but they did not permit Republicans to vote in their primary. Any voter could choose a ballot on which they could vote for the nominees of the American Independence, Libertarian, Green, or Republican Moderate parties OR anyone but Republicans could vote for the nominees of those four parties and the Democratic parties.
There would be little reason for a Republican to select either of these ballots, since they then could not vote for the Republican nominee. Registered minor party voters would likely take the minor party ballot. Being able to also vote for the Democratic nominees, would not have that much appeal. Voters could also vote for the minor party candidates on the Democratic-combined ballot. Democrats would likely select that ballot, as well as Democratic-leaning independents.
In 2004, 18 times as many voters voted in the Democrat-Combined primary as voted in the Minor Party- Combined primary.
Nonetheless, Alaska Independence candidates for Senate received about 20% more votes in the Minor Party-Combined Primary. The Libertarian candidate received 93% as many votes in the Minor Party-Combined Primary (but that still meant a voter in that primary was 17 times as likely to vote for a Libertarian as a voter in the Democratic-combined. The Green candidate received 38% as many votes in the Minor-Party combined as the Democratic-combined. This suggests that some Democrats given a choice between a Green and a Democratic candidate, will choose the Green candidate.
After that election, the Democratic Party started letting Republicans vote in the Democratic Primary, and the combined primary became known as the ADL primary after the Green and Republican Moderate parties that had sued to start the system became non-recognized.
Republicans are not going to vote in the ADL primary (and the only reason Democrats let them vote is because of that). Republicans do let nonpartisan and undeclared voters vote in their primary, and there is no reason to let Democrats vote for the Republican nominee.
A pragmatic independent would choose the Republican primary because that would let them cast a meaningful vote.
Blanket primaries have been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. It is really a quirk that the half-way system in Alaska was created. Continued participation by the parties is not guaranteed, and effectively you have a Democratic and Republican primary. Democrats rarely have contested primaries, and Libertarians are so few, it doesn’t matter whether they vote in the Democratic primary.
Blanket primaries would be fine if (1) they were constitutional; (2) that independents had to run in them; (3) there were qualification thresholds to advance to the general election; (4) partisan candidates who lost the primary could still appear on the general election ballot as independent candidates; and (5) that the general election required a majority for election.
Blanket primaries of this type are complicated. So why not go to a simple Top 2.
Jim, top two limits voter choice in the general, that is why I will never support it. If the blanket primary has been ruled unconstitutional, and I have no doubt you’re correct, then I disagree with the ruling. A blanket primary gets rid of the partisan primaries that are a problem, and gives voters a choice in the primary that carries over to the general. As for it being complicated, yeah, elections aren’t going to be easy, but you will never get me to support a system that will end in having the only two candidates I get to vote for in the general being two Republicans or two Democrats, let along just one of each. That is, frankly, reprehensible to me, to limit voter choice in the general.
As for your points, like I said, it should be constitutional. I won’t base that point of view off any law or ruling, except it seems the most reasonable system of voting to me, as it gives maximum choice to the participants. As for independents running in them, what would be the point? As far as I’m concerned, if an independent candidate can qualify under reasonable ballot access laws, they should be in the general anyway, as they’re not representative of any party and thus it’s not like only the independent who got the most votes in the primary would move to the general. Under the best system, all independent candidates would automatically be general election choices.
I don’t think there need to be any qualification thresholds except being the top vote-getter of the party you’re running under. I don’t care if the Green Party candidate only gets 1% of the primary vote, if he’s the top Green Party candidate, he should be an option in the general, period. As for your fourth point, sure, if a candidate who loses wants to run as an independent or write-in candidate in the general, they should have that right. Lastly, I disagree with requiring a majority for the election, which is why I stopped supporting IRV. A plurality is all one needs, as far as I’m concerned.
A simple top two is simple, uncomplicated, and also limiting. I think it is, frankly, an absurd system that gets rid of almost any voter choice when it comes to elections. If we had a top two here in Indiana, I’d probably never vote again, and it’d just be Republicans trying to out-conservative each other. Why would someone like me, who cares about third party ballot access, who cares about letting voters have an actual choice in their elections, ever support top two?
Jim, as far as I’m concerned, top two is the absolute worst election reform I have ever heard about. I dislike the majority requirement of IRV, but if it was that or top two, I’d take it in an instant. Top two limits voter choice in the general election, that’s just an outright fact, and that’s what matters to me. You can stop trying to convince me of the merits of top two, because I find it a disgusting versions of elections that is a complete cancer.
When I see the U.S. House elections in California from 2012 up, where the only choices anyone had were Democrats, Republicans, and one or two no party preferences, that makes me sick, Jim. When you get rid of the option to support, in the general election, the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party, American Independent Party, and any independent candidate who doesn’t have the money to possible campaign enough to win one of the top two positions in a highly populated area, I wonder what the point of voting even is, and I question if, at that point, it can even be considered anything close to democracy.
Blanket primaries are not unconstitutional automatically. They are only unconstitutional for parties that object to them. When California’s blanket primary was ruled unconstitutional, the California legislature could have said that the blanket primary would be retained, but that any party that didn’t want to participate would be free to nominate by convention instead.
Some possible chaos–
Party A wants/permits voters in 0, 1, 2 or more other parties to vote in Party A primaries.
Same for each party / faction / fraction —
Mere N x N spreadsheet would be needed — with YES or NO cells.
NO confusion ???
How about more confusion if Party A wants Party Z voters to vote in a Party A primary BUT Party Z does NOT want Party A voters to vote in a Party Z primary ???
How about if a party only wants specific classes of voters to vote in *its* primaries — only men or women of certain ages or locations, only whites, only blacks, only martian aliens, etc. ???
See the White Primary cases in SCOTUS –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_primaries
I repeat my comment – second from top.
The lawyer and worse SCOTUS morons are incapable of detecting PUBLIC electors doing PUBLIC nominations of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices according to PUBLIC LAWS [and NOT the decrees of faction gangs].
ie CA Dem v Jones 2000 is one more JUNK case by SCOTUS — as STUPID as ALL of the screwed up ballot access cases since Williams v Rhodes 1968.
@CP,
When California had the blanket primary in 1998 and 2000, when there was only one candidate of each party on the ballot, and the primary did not matter since all the unopposed candidates would advance to the general election, the results of the general election and primary were not materially different.
That is, though there were fewer voters, the distribution of their votes were not that different from the general election. Those who did not vote in the primary, voted pretty much the same as those who did.
If there were more than one candidate from a party in the primary, they collectively did better in the general election than the nominee of the party. That is, the primary voters apparently did perceive a distinction that you did not. Those who voted for Danny Democrat, would not necessarily vote for Donna Democrat.
@JMIV,
Here is a form of blanket primary that would probably pass constitutional muster:
Political Parties
Party qualification for parties would be quite simple for actual parties, as opposed to someone in Washington D.C. paying petition circulators (e.g. Americans Elect). Qualification would be similar to in Florida, except that there would have to be a minimum registration for a new party, say 100 voters, who would consent to have their registration changed to the new party. In addition, the state executive committee must be chosen by voters registered with the party (with some modest quorum, perhaps 10%).
The state might send out ballots to all party registrants, and collect them for the party. The party would then count and interpret them. A party could count the ballots themselves, or hire either a private or public vendor to do it for them. This would let parties use different voting methods. Alternatively, the party could have the state send notices of party conventions to registrants. Unlike in Florida, there would be no requirement for cash flow, but there might be a registration fee.
Voters would only be permitted to register with an existing party. If registration fell below 100, the party would be disqualified, and all registrants switched to non-partisan. If a party fails to maintain an organized structure, it would be considered dormant. Registrations would not be changed, but there would have to be an affirmative effort to reactivate a dormant party.
First Round
Candidates qualify as individuals, by either petition: 0.05% of turnout (ballots cast) in previous two elections; or a filing fee equivalent to the petition number divided by 6 times the minimum hourly wage.
Parties would determine which voters may participate in their nomination contests. A party may not dictate that their registrants vote only for their candidates; nor that other registrants may not vote for their candidates. They may only control who may participate in the nomination process. Parties may permit election-day affiliation by nonpartisan and/or other partisan voters.
Ballots will be marked with the party affiliation of the voter, but otherwise the ballots will be the same. Parties may make endorsements, which will be distributed with the sample ballot.
If a candidate receives a majority of the vote they will be elected.
If 5% or more of voters participate in a nomination contest, then the top candidate for the party will advance as the party nominee. Party nominees, plus other candidates who receive 5% or more of the vote advance to the second round. These other candidates will run without party designation. Other candidates may combine their support to have additional candidates reach the 5% threshold.
Second Round
Parties may endorse candidates, with the endorsements distributed with the sample ballot. Write-ins permitted, but not for sore losers. Write-in candidates will be ignored unless they surpass the vote total of one of the on-ballot candidates. None of these candidates will be an option.
A candidate who receives a majority of the vote is elected. Otherwise, the smallest number of candidates, N, who have a cumulative vote greater than N/(N+1) will advance to the 3rd Round. That is, if the Top 2 collectively have 2/3 of the vote they will advance; or the Top 3 have 3/4 of the vote they will advance, etc. Eliminated candidates may coalesce their support so some may continue.
Candidates other than the Top 2 may withdraw.
Third Round, etc.
The process repeats until someone is elected.