The California Democratic Party, and the California Libertarian Party, have told the Secretary of State that they will allow independents to vote in their 2020 presidential primary. The American Independent Party had already made a similar decision.
The deadline for California parties to make this decision is Friday, October 18. It appears that the Republican, Green, and Peace & Freedom Parties will not invite independents to vote in their presidential primary. Thus the 2020 decisions mirror their 2016 decisions. Thanks to Mark Seidenberg for this news.
I am surprised that Libertarians participate in the primary in California. Staying true to their independence from government platform, they do not in West Virginia. Richard, in how many other states do Libertarians use the government (taxpayer) funded primary?
At one time or another, the Libertarian Party has used a government-administered primary in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, D.C., Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (29 jurisdictions).
If a state election law tells parties they can only nominate via government-administered primary, there is no case law that says that law is unconstitutional. In the 1900’s decade there were many lawsuits filed by parties to retain the right to nominate by party meeting, but they all lost. Parties in the U.S. are far less free than they are in all other democracies.
Jeff, several states will have Libertarian primaries and will put our candidates on the ballot regardless of it they want to be or not. Additionally, there is at least one instance of an individual paying the fee to be on a presidential primary ballot against ‘Uncommitted’ and using the ‘victory’ for self-promotion.
While I certainly do not believe that states should be controlling or funding the process by which parties choose their candidates, I would argue that avoiding primaries does little to alter the fact that, as Richard notes, states are doing so. Avoiding the primaries surrenders tactical and strategic advantages for candidates, and thus the party, without gaining any leverage towards reforming the process to reduce state involvement.
See: https://medium.com/@Chris_Powell/lp-presidential-primaries-would-be-a-great-tool-to-promote-our-candidates-ef483981a116
Nominations are done by PUBLIC Electors in each State —–
ALL in new top 2 primary States
or
SOME in factions [aka *parties*] in the olde other States.
—
NO primaries.
ONE Election Day
EQUAL nom pets or filing fees
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
I have been asking around and gotten some information about which affiliates are using primaries. Currently I know that the New Hampshire, Nebraska, North Carolina and California Libertarian parties will be having primaries while Oklahoma and West Virginia will not. I’m currently writing an article for when the preference primaries and delegate selections will happen.
In Oklahoma a party does not have the option to not have a presidential preference primary, if candidates file to participate then there will be one.
TOTALLY CRAZY TO HAVE MUDDLED BRAINED *INDEPENDENTS* VOTING IN ANY PARTY’S PRIMARY —
TYPICAL OF THE POLITICAL INSANITY IN RED CA.
@Martin Hale,
I am curious as to your source on OKLP’s Presidential Primary. My contacts with the party tell me the opposite. Not only that, but all primaries in the state are controlled by the state and a party can’t simply choose not to hold one.
OK LAW on the subject ???
How many folks use Google ???
@E. Zachary Knight
The Oklahoma part was a typo