Bill Dolan, writing for the Northwest Indiana Times, has an article entitled Dems vow political crossover crackdown. Indiana Democratic Party chairman Dan Parker says he is ready to challenge the votes of any lifelong Republicans who attempt to vote in the Democratic primary with “mischievous intent.”
“If there is a coordinated effort by Republicans to affect the outcome of our primary, that would be something the party would try through the challenge process to keep those voters out.”
Lake County GOP Chairman John Curley said he finds that appalling.
“I haven’t run into too many Republicans interested in a Democratic race, but you can’t stop someone from voting a ‘D’ or an ‘R,'” Curley said. “This is America.”
The practical difficulties of Parker’s plan are legion and policy-wise it might be questionable — Sure, you don’t want some kind of Limbaugh effect where Republicans are going to the polls in a concerted effort to try to divine the Democrat who would be weakest against McCain. On the other hand, if life-long Republicans honestly want to reconsider, it would be a little stupid for Democrats to prevent the conversion.
That being said, John Curley is an idiot. Not only is restricting party participation American, it happens to be the law.
The relevant statute seems to be IC 3-10-1-6 that says you can vote in a party’s primary if 1) at the last general election, the voter voted for a majority of the party’s regular nominees or 2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election but intends to vote for a majority of the party’s nominees at the upcoming election. The statute governing challenges is IC 3-10-1-9 which allows a voter in a precinct to challenge a person desiring to vote in the primary. That person has to sign an affidavit affirming that one of the two criteria listed above is true.
Clearly enforceability would be a problem if Republicans bent on mischief were willing to submit false affidavits, but during the Clinton impeachment hearings, I learned that lying under oath makes you worse than Hitler.
This is why I go to the polling place, sign the book, and go home. I have no intention of casting the majority of my general election votes for either Democrats or Republicans.
The challenge you refer to rarely happens. It requires someone to be present as a person asks to cast a primary vote for one party or the other, and someone to observe it and find the request fishy. Frankly, I don’t care to have it be that the people in the polling place know so well what each voter’s tendencies are.
Even though I don’t waver from party to party, there are plenty of true independents who do. They shouldn’t be harassed if this year they’ve given up one party for another. Whatever party has the majority one year invariably alienates enough voters to make it so.
If the Democrats were well organized (which they are), they would have all this information digitized and available on a laptop. They could very quickly see who voted for what, when, and challenge Republicans crossing over.
And then they would challenge me. I have voted for both parties over the years depending on the races which are hotly contested. But in the Primary in Tippecanoe County that has only been Republican so far.
I frankly think it will be hard to do, since neither party can afford to alienate people.
The desirability of closed primaries is very much in question. What it says, essentially, is that it’s o.k. for party regulars to decide which candidates will be available to the citizenry in the general election.
I have a new post on crossovers. The Indiana Democrat party Chairman is full of s***, and Limbaugh of all people called him on it.
They can’t stop anybody from voting. This is a non-issue.
The desirability of closed primaries is very much in question. What it says, essentially, is that it’s o.k. for party regulars to decide which candidates will be available to the citizenry in the general election.
And the problem with that is… what? Exactly?
If it were just Democrats voting, Hillary would be the nominee. If Democrats had the same primary rules as Republicans, Hillary would be the nominee. So, why exactly should she drop out? She is as legitimate a Democrat candidate as Obama. Maybe more so. She gets more votes from lower income, traditionally Democrat voters.
BTW, in New York, you had to register with a party when you registered to vote. You had to re-register if you wanted to change parties, and you couldn’t vote in the very next primary after you re-registered.
How’s THAT for voting regulation? It is the People’s Republic of New York, after all.
If a Republican is challenged but is willing to lie about his voting record, you’re absolutely right.
I don’t know that it is a problem, necessarily. But, I can see an argument for the proposition that it’s a problem. A substantial chunk of the citizenry isn’t committed to one party or the other. They vary from one to another to a third party for a variety of reasons. The fact that they were enthusiastic about one party in the last general election — perhaps one that mainly concerned local officials — shouldn’t necessarily mean that they are locked out of the nominating decision for the next general election with different candidates and different issues.
Thanks for the clarification, Doug.
I see what you’re saying, but being a party guy, I guess I just don’t think that primaries should work that way.
Being a Republican, I want the best Republican on the ballot.
Seeing the Hillary/ Obama race, and all the numbers and stats out there, I just don’t think that Obama is the best Democrat in the race. Clearly, Hillary is the choice of real Democrats. Look at the last couple of Michael Barone columns at US News for the details.
As a side note, this is another good example of badly written law in the Indiana Code.
I would suggest that provisions requiring Kreskin-like mental powers to enforce should not be included…
When I lived in Minnesota, you didn’t have to declare a party. When you arrived at the precinct you received both a democratic and a republican ballot. You completed one ballot and voted and placed the other one in an envelope which was placed in a blank ballot box at the end.
It was quite fair and impartial.
According to IC 3-10-1-6, No person that is Republican should have voted if the Democrats were the ones having the primary because they all probably voted for the majority of the Republican candidates in the last General Election. Who held this primary,the Democrats or the Republicans?