On September 4, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill said that a trial is needed to settle the Idaho Republican Party’s lawsuit against the state’s open primary. The case is Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa, 08-cv-165. The trial is needed to determine if “the open primary subjects the Republican Party’s candidate-selection process to persons wholly unaffiliated with the party.” Here is the decision.
Idaho is one of the 21 states in which the voter registration form does not ask voters to choose a party. The Idaho Republican Party believes that Democrats sometimes vote in the Republican Party primary just to help determine which Republican will be nominated. Democrats might do this for either of two different motivations: either they vote for the weakest Republican (someone who could be more easily defeated in the general election), or they vote for the Republican that they feel most closely adheres to policy positions that the Democratic voter favors. The Republican Party will now need to produce evidence that people who are Democrats in their heart are indeed voting in the Republican primary. Thanks to Harry Kresky for this news.
Idaho is also one of the eight “open primary, private choice” states, in which the voter picks a party in the secrecy of the polling booth.
Oral arguments were heard in the Idaho case last February, so Judge Winmill took his sweet time in handing down his ruling. If he was going to order a trial, you would think he could have done that months ago.
It seems to me that the judge could simply have looked at the U. S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in the 2000 blanket primary case, California Democratic Party v. Jones. For example: Political parties have “the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people only.” In fact, almost all of the reasoning in that case also applies to the open primary.
Wah- let’s go whining to the federal government.
“the open primary subjects the Republican Party’s candidate-selection process to persons wholly unaffiliated with the party.â€
It absolutely does. But the real question is, “do the voters of Idaho have the right to conduct their elections that way?” Of course they do! It’s a stupid system, but that’s not the same as an illegal system.
Get your fellow citizens to change the law. Don’t go running to the feds on something like this.
The citizens of Idaho won’t change the law, since most of them prefer the status quo.
The question is not whether the state-mandated open primary is popular: the question is whether it violates the U. S. Constitution.
Popular things are not necessarily constitutional.
PUBLIC nominations for PUBLIC offices are controlled by PUBLIC laws.
Subgroups of ALL PUBLIC Electors have ZERO power to control anything in such PUBLIC nominations.
Sorry – such subgroups are NOT independent Star Trek empires from another galaxy.
Much too difficult for the armies of New Age MORON PUBLIC judges to understand.
P.R. and A.V.
NO party hack STONE AGE caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
In Washington State Democratic Party v Reed the 9th Circuit ruled that the Washington blanket primary was materially indistinguishable from that in California, stating, “[t]hat the voters do not reveal their party preferences at a government registration desk does not mean that they do not have them. Following the same logic, then the Idaho system is not materially different from that in a State which maintains official records of the political beliefs of its citizens.
If the court rules in favor of the GOP executive committee, Idaho should ensure that it is the membership of the party that determines whether or not the party processes are closed to previously identified persons or not. After all, the GOP State convention voted not to continue this litigation. A decision of such a constitutional nature (ie who may participate in the nominating process of the party) should be made by the party membership, and not by executive decree. So let the state party convention determine whether a referendum should be held on the matter, and then let the primary voters decide.
If a party chooses to restrict participation in its primary, it should have the burden of identifying the voters it wishes to include or exclude. This burden should not be borne by the taxpayers. A party could simply provide a list that identifies which voters may or may not participate in its primary. If a voter was not permitted to participate in a particular party’s primary, then that option could be eliminated from hus Pick a Party ballot.
Idaho could also include all candidates on a blanket primary ballot. A voter could pick whether to participate in the blanket primary or a party primary (assuming a party had identified him as a participant). Any candidate who received a modicum of support could advance to the general election. He could also receive the nomination of a party or party if he had the most votes in that party’s primary.
#5: I mainly mentioned “open primary, private choice” as an interesting tidbit.
In the case you cite, the 9th Circuit also said, “The right of people adhering to a political party to freely associate is not limited to getting together for cocktails and canapes. Party adherents are entitled to associate to choose their party’s nominees for public office.”
When the state compels parties to nominate by primary, and when at least one party wants to exclude some voters from its primaries, it’s necessary to identify the voters’ party preferences. The most practical way to accomplish this is party registration, especially in a state where the voters’ choice of party on primary day has not been publicly recorded.
In Idaho, the executive committee is a committee within the state party’s central committee, which is the party’s governing body; as such, the central committee is empowered, among other things, to adopt party rules and to authorize the filing of lawsuits. If the party members don’t like some of the committee’s actions, the members can vote any or all of the committee members out.
The state Republican Central Committee has adopted a rule that says that only party members may vote in GOP primaries. The committee has authorized the lawsuit because the party wants to be able to enforce its rule.
“This burden [of identifying voters’ party preferences] should not be borne by the taxpayers. A party could simply provide a list that identifies which voters may or may not participate in its primary.”
If the state enacts party registration, it would only need to add such a box to the voter registration form– hardly a “burden.” Absent party registration, the Idaho Republicans would likely have to poll every registered voter in the state– an expensive proposition. It’s not unreasonable for the state to register voters by party, especially since the state is mandating that parties nominate by primary.
Furthermore, if the state enacts party registration, it has the option of deeming all currently registered voters to be independents. The only voters who would then need to re-register would be those who wanted to affiliate with a party.
The state cannot mandate a blanket primary. The only way that could happen would be if two or more parties agreed to it voluntarily, as with Alaska’s Democrats and minor party(ies).
Here’s my take on the Idaho case and open primary litigation in general.
If (1) Idaho’s open primary law is struck down, and (2) the state does not adopt party registration, the Republicans could require any voter requesting a Republican primary ballot to sign an oath of affiliation with the party.
The Idaho Democrats apparently intend to keep their primaries open, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
*Democrats in their heart* — how about in their heads and wallets ???
Any New Age brain scans or torture (water boarding, etc.) being planned to detect who’s who and what’s what ???
The committee could enforce its rules, if it had the manpower and resources to conduct a private primary where only card carrying Republicans could vote. But when you get free money, Ideas like that go out the window.
#9: In Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County (1995), the 8th Circuit said that, when the state requires parties to nominate by primary, the parties cannot be forced to pay for those primaries.
I doubt that the Idaho GOP could come up with the money to pay for a statewide primary anyway.
Idaho law not only requires parties to hold primaries, it also mandates that those primaries be open to all voters.
The Republican Party is unable to enforce its rule for a closed primary, since it conflicts with state law. Hence the lawsuit against the state law…
#6 So the court in the Washington blanket primary case was saying that if people who thought of themselves as Republicans nonetheless voted in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, they would effectively be rendering those who thought of themselves as Democrats to little more than a social group. The overwhelming majority of primary voters do not participate in any partisan activity other than voting.
If a party wishes to include certain persons or exclude certain other persons, the party should have the burden of identifying those individuals. Why should the state do the vetting process for the party? Who is to say whether party registration administered by the state would satisfy all political parties? Why couldn’t a political party limit participation in its nominating activities to those who have been registered with the party for one (or more) years?
Idaho law defines a political party as “an organization of electors under a given name.” That is, the party is the voters, rather than the executive committee. Idaho law further says that a party at its convention may “adopt rules, regulations and directives regarding party policies, practices and procedures.” Now it might be possible that a party convention may delegate all of its authority to a central committee. But Idaho by law need not permit such delegation in such a fundamental matter as who constitutes the party.
As an analogy, think of the central committee as the executive branch, the party convention as the legislative branch, and the party voters in the primary as the electorate.
The party convention (legislative branch) writes the party platform and defines the rules of the party, the central committee (executive branch) provides day to day operations of the party, etc. But the party membership should determine who is recognized as a party member in a referendum at its party.
I was not proposing a blanket primary, I was proposing a variant of the Pick a Party primary where one of the options would be a non-partisan ballot on which all candidates for an office would be placed. A candidate who received a certain level of support in the non-partisan ballot would be placed on the general election ballot regardless of their performance in the partisan primary. They would not appear with the party label on the ballot. Think of it as more of a form of cross-filing or fusion with an independent option.
Idaho could keep its pick a party primary. Let’s say that the Republican and Constitution parties decide to close their primaries, while the Libertarian and Democratic parties keep their primaries open.
The Republican and Constitution parties would provide election officials with lists of voters eligible to vote in their respective primaries.
A voter who was on the Republican and Constitution party list would receive a Pick A Party ballot with the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Constitution party ballots. As now they would pick a party in private. While a political party may be able to restrict who votes in their party, they may not restrict voters to voting in their primary any more than they may restrict who they vote for in the general election.
A voter who was on the Republican list, but not the Constitution list would receive a ballot with Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian ballots.
A voter who was not on the Republican nor Constitution list would receive a Democratic and Libertarian ballot.
#12: Party registration is the most practical way of identifying voters’ party preferences. Again, the state mandates that parties nominate by primary, so, when one or more parties wants to exclude some voters from its primaries, it’s reasonable for the state to register voters by party. Also, Idaho has no records of the primary voting history of its citizens.
Iowa, Utah, and Alaska, e. g., all have party registration. Both of Iowa’s major parties have open primaries… Utah’s Democrats have an open primary… and AK’s Democrats have joined the minor parties in a blanket primary, in which ANY registered voter may participate. AK’s Republicans invite independents into their primary.
If the state has party registration, the state sets the deadline for eligibility to vote in a primary. In most states, this is no longer than 30 days prior to primary day.
Are you saying that the state should tell parties HOW to determine who their members are? That would never withstand litigation, as there are lots of precedents against it.
What you’re proposing in your last paragraph amounts to the state forcing party-affiliated candidates to simultaneously run as independents. I suppose you could make that optional for the candidates, but I suspect each of the parties would prohibit anyone who sought its nomination from also running on the nonpartisan ballot. If a state tried such a scheme, there would definitely be litigation.
#13: You’re assuming here that the state-mandated open primary will be struck down. Again, absent party registration, the Idaho Republicans, e. g., could require any voter requesting a GOP primary ballot to sign an oath of affiliation at the polling place. This wouldn’t work, however, if the Republicans– or any other party– wanted to let independents vote in its primary.
The Republicans– or any other party– could conduct a statewide poll to determine each voter’s party preference. Or the party could invite registered voters to register as party members at the party’s headquarters or by mail. But it would be much simpler– and far less expensive– for the state to simply add a “party preference” box to the voter registration form.
The state could avoid making all voters re-register by only requiring those who wanted to affiliate with a party to re-register. All others already registered would be deemed to be independents.
The U. S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres (2008) does not bode well for the state-mandated open primary: “A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.”
I don’t know of any way to identify independents other than (1) party registration by the state or (2) polling all voters and asking them their party preference. Do you?
#14 re #12 process by which political party makes fundamental decisions: The state of Idaho may define what a political party is with respect to the nomination process. It has chosen to define a political party as a group of electors. Idaho may define a process which ensures that the political party (ie its members and not some central committee) determines who may vote in its primaries.
If a court decides that a political party may restrict participation in the party’s primary, then the state may define the method by which the political party actually makes a decision to restrict participation.
A reasonable and rational process would be to require that the membership as a whole make that decision.
See Justice Scalia’s dissent in Tashjian where he notes that the decision to open the primary was not made by those who actually constituted the party.
#14 re #12 voter registration: Idaho has no interest in determining and recording what the political beliefs of its voters are. If a political party wants to restrict participation in the primary, it should have the burden of actually identify the persons who may vote in the primary.
#14 re #12 qualification vs. nomination: A state may define a process by which a candidate qualifies for the general election ballot that is independent of how party nominations are made.
A party has no right to restrict who may run for office. It only has the right to determine which candidate bears its name on the ballot.
#14 re #13: In Idaho, a voter is given a ballot with the primary races for all parties. He tears off the section for one party and voters that portion of the ballot (or does the equivalent if using some voting device).
If a court decided that a political party could restrict who votes in its primary, and if the political party then decides to restrict participation and provides an inclusive or exclusive list of voters to the state, then the state could give the voter a ballot with a limited set of choices.
So if only the GOP restricted participation:
“GOP voters” would get a ballot with the Republican, Democratic, Constitution, and Libertarian primary ballots.
Other voters would get a ballot with the Democratic, Constitution, and Libertarian primary ballots.
Why should the State of Idaho administer an oath of affiliation for a private organization? Its only interest is that voters only vote in one party’s primary.
You have identified a number of different ways by which the Republican party could identify voters, such as having the voters register at party headquarters or by mail. It would be up to the party to determine which method it prefers to use.
#15 Next sentence: “These rights are circumscribed, however, when the State gives the party a role in the election process as New York has done here by giving certain parties the right to have their candidates appear with party endorsement on the general-election ballot.”
#16 Why do you need to identify independents?