Good Bye Open Primary, Hello Supreme Court?
I recently read several posts about a lawsuit challenging Virginia's "Open Primary" statute.
They can be found here (The Jaded JD) and here (Not Larry Sabato).
The case has not yet been decided, and I may be jumping the gun, but if The Commonwealth no longer has open primaries, does that mean all races will be convention-style elections?
As a taxpayer, aren't my constitutional rights being violated if a party holds a primary using taxpayer dollars and then doesn't allow a citizen to vote?
What about Independent voters? Will they be forced to register by party? Or, are you saying that the only way to remain an Independent voter is to exclude yourself from primary elections? Again, the same question arises, why should Independent voters' tax dollars go to pay for a party primary that they can't vote in?
It would seem to me that the only solution is for political party's to have a convention style nomination. And, most importantly PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.
posted by RBV @ 1:25 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Party conventions is one answer. But I don't get how you come to the conclusion that your "constitutional rights would be violated if the state holds a primary using taxpayer dollars and doesn't allow a citizen to vote?"
This is the way it works in most states that require registration by party. To vote in a Republican or Democrat primary, you have to be either registered as a member of that party or registered as an independent.
On the contrary, our constitutional right of free association--a fundamental concept under the first amendment--is being violated when the State allows members of one party to participate in a primary election held by the opposing party.
If you let Independents vote w/o registering as a member of a party then the problem is averted. People can vote and still remain Independent. However, that’s basically what The Commonwealth has now, right?
So, what exactly is it that needs to be changed? Is the case simply trying to get voters to register “R” “D” or “I”?
My argument was concerning a situation where a “registered” Independent voter would not be allowed to vote in a primary because they were not registered as a member of a party.
Ultimately, I don’t see how the case does anything to solve the “free association” argument. If there are two primary races b/w an “R” and “D” this is a non-issue. It’s when there is only one primary race on the ticket that this becomes an issue.
I have never understood the purpose of making people register by party but then letting indys vote in either primary.
Thats pointless, no one should ever register as anything but indy under that circumstance.
Also, under this particular situation, an independent can vote in as many dem primaries as they want; they just would not be able to vote in but a few GOP ones (depending on when each set of primaries were).
I think its a sticky situation, and obviously the general assembly will never agree to closed primaries, so it should be interesting to see this play out.
Dead blog
Post a Comment
<< Home