Closed Primary's... why the issue?
The Republican party voting this weekend to close their Primary is not a new surprise to many of us. My legislation this past session was to avert this vote in the party and to allow for either party to set the rules for running their spring primary. It's unfortunate that we were not able to pass this legislation due to folks believing it was "the Republican's trying to pull something".
As a matter of fact, we were trying to change the Idaho code to ensure that the state's election process for ALL parties was designed to provide for the most effective use of our states dollars used to run these primary elections.
Any party is now allowed to set it's own rules for running their primary elections as decided by the US Supreme Court in 2000 in a case brought by the Democrats against the state of California.
Stratigic cross over voting impacts the results of a primary election, although the Executive Director of the Idaho Democratic Party touts "this is nothing but urban legend" is either not being honest or is really uninformed about his own party's primary elections. It has so much of an impact that the National Democratic Party will not have a 2008 Presidential Primary in the State of Idaho becuase we don't have controls regarding stratigic cross over voting. They have not had a Presidential Primary for years in this state. Saying that he is "not aware it happens in Idaho" is just a faultshood or he is not aware of what his own party is up to.
Is stratigic cross over voting happening in Idaho? It is alive and well, I have received letters and have the following links as proof....
"Tuesday, I voted the straight Republican ticket
Jim Fisher, Lewiston Morning Tribune
1994-05-29
Page: 3F
As an Eagle Scout, I did my good deed last week by helping the Grand Old Party of Idaho select its general election candidates.
No need to thank me, you Republicans. It was nothing really. The Democrats didn't offer me much reason to go to the polls.
Besides, I have a lot of practice at this. I'm a native Washingtonian.
Washington readers may or may not know that they and Alaskans share the distinction of conducting the nation's only blanket primary elections. Under a blanket primary system, voters may cross from party to party on the same ballot to help choose nominees, and
as long as they don't vote in more than one party for any one race, their ballots are perfectly acceptable.
Idaho, like several other states, has what's called an open primary. That means you must choose which party's primary you are going to vote in, and stick with it throughout the ballot. If you cast one vote in any other party, your ballot is thrown out.
Even though it is more restrictive than Washington's system, an open primary still offers the ability to pick and choose depending on the election. If the Democrats offer the more interesting choices this year, you can vote in the Democratic primary. And if the Republicans offer the better array two years down the road, you can move over to their column.
Closed primary states do their best to prevent this. In those states, you must be a registered member of a particular party to vote in its primary.
Closed primary proponents, otherwise known as party regulars, say that system is best because it keeps members of other parties from crossing over and sabotaging their ticket. And I know what they mean by that. Time was when I was more mischievous than I am now.
I was a Washingtonian at that time, and that state's ballot gave me full opportunity to help one party pick its strongest candidate when it needed my vote and to help the other party pick its weakest when I thought my vote would do some, er, bad.
And I could do both on the same ballot. If, say, I wanted to re-elect the incumbent Republican governor, as I invariably did when Dan Evans was governor, I could skip his primary, which he was assured of winning, and vote for the Democrat it would be easiest for Evans to beat. At other times, I would be rooting for a Democrat with a safe or no primary race, and would vote for the goofiest candidate on the GOP ballot.
The trouble with voting that way, aside from the fact that it drives party regulars up the wall, is that sometimes goofs get elected. That's possible in every state, even Washington, but it's even more likely in Idaho. So as an Idahoan, I consider it my duty to help whichever party whose primary I participate in choose its best horses.
I'll give you an example. If I were Larry EchoHawk, the Democratic nominee for this year's race for governor, I would rather go up against Republican Larry Eastland than Republican Phil Batt. Eastland takes more extreme positions and is easier to paint as a reckless character than Batt, who is more moderate in his approaches to issues and in his temperament.
But I'm not EchoHawk. I'm an ordinary Idahoan who will have to live with whichever candidate gets elected. And I would rather live with a Gov. Batt than a Gov. Eastland. So I cast my vote for Batt on Tuesday.
I followed that same impulse down the ballot: in the races for Larry LaRocco's 1st District House seat, for state school superintendent, for state auditor, for lieutenant governor and for a few local offices.
The Democrats didn't offer me anywhere near that many choices. There was the lopsided contest between EchoHawk and Ron Beitelspacher, and what I trusted (mistakenly) would be an equally lopsided race among incumbent Latah County Commissioner Dana Magnuson and two opponents, but that was about it.
So last week at least, I was a Republican. And a sincere one to boot. Come November, I might vote for some or none of the candidates I supported Tuesday. But that's my business. It is, as they say, a free country."
Other examples:
Cross over letter 1 from Bingham county
Cross over letter 2 from Bingham county
Boise Weekly Recommending Cross over voting from Boise
This is not about one party trying to "get one up" on the other party, it's about closing loop holes in our state's primary election process to allow the parties to run their primary in the way that they believe will provide them with the best representative candidates of their party for the fall election. It doesn't matter what party... it does matter that it's not diluted by people that don't have that party's best interest at heart when they cast their ballots.
Cheers,
Marv
Posts
9 comments:
I for one am a life long Republican and I feel that the current party leadership is cutting it's own throat. I will not vote for incumbents in any up coming election. I will vote for the most liberal candidate there is because if the party sees a liberal I will see a moderate. And as for the Boise weekly recommending crossover voting how many people read it that vote?
Brad I understand your concerns. The legislation that we tried to pass this last session was to fix the loop holes that in our state laws that would allow each party to set their rules for how they wanted to run their Primaries (as the Supreme Court has ruled). We had it set up so that the parties would be responsible for dis-allowing independant voters from voting in the primary elections.
My preference would be to allow the independant voters to vote in the Primary elections, but in the end the individual party is allowed to setup their own rules and the state is required to provide for those elections. If the state can not, then that opens up litigation by the parties against the state to force the state to change it's laws to allow for the party's choice. The Democratic party took the state of CA to the Supreme Court that eventually brought us to this point.
Data supports that a "modified" or "semi-closed" primary (where independant voters are allowed to participate) bring better candidates to the General Elections in the fall.
Thanks for your comments, it's important for our governing officials to hear the opinions from those that are paying the bills.
Cheers,
Marv
FYI, the reason we ran with the legislation was because the Republican party voted last fall to put having closed Primaries in their platform, so it was just a matter of time that the rule would be implemented... and the state would then be open to litigation because our laws are not setup to allow for this type of primary.
Due to more pressing issues that limited our time(GARVEE for one), we were not able to educate enough folks in the Legislature that the state was or would be soon challenged to this type of litigation to get the changes implemented in time to keep us out of this mess.
How do you stop a Dem from crossing over even under a closed primary? I assume there is some early registration requirement, before candidates are selected.
Do you believe that closing the primary will make the Idaho Republican part even more conservative? If so, are you concerned about this, or is this a good thing?
Just recently (June 8th) the either the Supreme Court or the Federal court passed down a decision in the State of Mississippi. The Democratic party challenged the open primary of that state and the state lost.
There are really two issues here: 1) Will our state laws pass Supreme court muster for holding primary elections if challenged (last weeks decision is a key indicator) and why we were pushing for change this last session; and 2) Will this change be good for the Republican party? This is harder to answer, data clearly shows that semi-closed primaries provide the best candidates for the fall General Elections, but there is no any data that supports that to be true in Idaho because we have never had semi-closed primary elections.
That said, the state has had closed primary elections in the past. The Democrates currently hold all of their Presidential primary elections in closed caucus and not in a primary election. I don't think that closing out those that are independants is a smart thing for any party to do, however, the Republican party has elected to do so and that's what will happen.
The state has no way to hold a closed or semi-closed Primary, the laws and rules do not allow that to happen (again, hence our legislative try this last session to change that). I suspect that now one of two things will happen, if the state legislature doesn't change the laws this next session, the state will be challenged in Federal court to do so.
... just my 2 bits. Thanks for the questions and comments.
Marv,
how do you judge what is the "best candidate"?
And since all that get elected are republicans in this state, why shouldn't the moderates and liberals get a choice in which Republican gets the vote? The primary is essentially the whole election in many areas because of the "redness" of this state.
Independents and moderate liberals deserve a voice and all your vote did was take away theirs. Thanks a lot for nothing.
Hi Jay, good to hear from you again.
First, I am not a voting member of the central committee for the Republican Party. Those members decided to continue along with what was decided during the caucus to develop the platform that the party needed to have closed Primaries. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "all your vote did was take away theirs"?
As you might have read above, I believe it would be best for the parties to allow for independants to vote in the Primaries. Studies out of Harvard, Georgetown University and others focusing on comparing candidates to party platform positions show that the best candidates come from these types of primary elections. (See the studies at www.thecommoninterest.com)
That being said, the Republican Central Committee voted to close the Party primary elections. The Primary elections are to distill the candidates to the best ambassator for the upcoming General Election (were all vote for the best candidate regardless of party).
We too quickly confuse the purpose of the primary elections with the General Elections because we are so "Red" in this state now.
It surprises me that so many folks are upset with the Republican Party when the Democrats have done this already for years... why is that?
It's a function of Majority vs. Minority, Marv. If you don't understand that, you're just playing partisan politics. Since we're stuck with the reddest person selected during the primary with no real chance of a challenger, there is little input from the more moderate independents or liberals which makes the rulers of this state more and more "red".
Primaries draw more extremists, the outer edge fringe dwellers, typically.
You'd better watch out, you may not be "red" enough for those guys.
Hello,
By way of a brief intro, I'm the Kootenai County Clerk and a Democrat (I know, I know—a speck of blue in a sea of red). As a county clerk, I'm of course interested in all things elections and admit to being a bit of a political news junkie. I try to keep up on anything election related and try to read as many points of view as I can so that explains how I found my way to Representative Hagadorn's blog (via reading about it on the Trish and Halli site).
One of my personal views on primaries (which doesn't make me that popular in my own party either) is that the main argument for closing them is because they are "just" about party business. Fine, then the parties should hold them on their own, and more importantly, pay for them themselves.
Elections are very expensive these days and if ALL the taxpayers are expected to pay for them, then ALL the taxpayers should be able to participate. Otherwise, it is taxation without representation and it seems like we had a problem with that concept some time in the past...
Post a Comment