Came across this language in an old Indiana Supreme Court case, Kelso v. Cook, 110 N.E. 987, 992-993 (Ind. 1916) and thought it was worth sharing:
But vastly more important, if [Art 2, sec. 2 of the Indiana Constitution] controls, any election of the precinct, though avowedly an adherent of no party, may participate on equal terms with party adherents in selecting its candidates, and the adherent of one party, with only single candidates for nominations, might, with safety to his own party, go into the camp of his political adversary and maliciously vote for its most unworthy candidates with the deliberate purpose of wrecking it. No political party ever held a voluntary primary open to others than its adherents, and it may be safely assented that no sane organization, political, religious, or otherwise, will ever voluntarily countenance such folly as permitting the selection of its officers by nonadherents. To assume that because of said constitutional provision non-Republicans may select the officers and candidates of that party, is as devoid of reason as the assumption that agnostics be permitted to elect the trustees of a church. To assert that Democratic or Progressive candidates may be selected by Republicans, Socialists, and adherents of no party, is as fatuous as the idea that a military strategist ought to submit his plans for his country’s defense to the commanding general of the enemy.
If taxpayers are going to continue supporting the primary process for Democrats and Republicans, I think them being open should be kept. If the parties pay for it themselves, then they can run them as they see fit.
I concur with Matt partly for a personal reason: I have repudiated the GOP without becoming a Democrat, or finding any other party home yet. I’d be mightily miffed if the *government* gave an election (even a primary) and I couldn’t come, or could come only by falsely claiming loyalty to a party.
One must also consider the way the major parties can and do control access to the ballots in the first place.
In addition, in some communities, the primary IS the election. So a Democrat might want a say in his/her choice at the top of the ticket, but the primary is likely the only opportunity to choose the Republicans who WILL be elected locally.
Oops! I meant to add, before closing, that the Kelso case’s reductio ad absurdum is exactly the sort of absurdity that has become official policy at some public universities: religious groups must let the irreligious vote on their leaders as a condition of official recognition.
Just to clarify, my headline was meant to indicate that the judge writing the opinion wasn’t a fan of open primaries. I wasn’t taking a position myself.
1. Beliefs, and hence, party adherency, are not immutable and can change.
2. Party platforms and planks are not immutable and can change.
Given 1 & 2, a citizen may determine that any number of candidates may be best. To deny a citizen from voting in a primary (which is a prerequisite for election) would violate that citizen’s rights to elect the candidate they so choose. I think it can be argued that voting in a primary is an expression of speech, informing the party who that individual would like to see elected.
I am sure there are holes in my logic when you consider independent candidates and write-ins, but as others have expressed here, if parties get the benefit of publicly funded primaries, then that public funding must not prevent a citizen’s right to exercise their electoral and free speech rights.
Dear Doug. Just read tow of your blogs today which were referred to me via facebook by John who may be a friend of your. Nevertheless, I find what interest you interesting. Keep it up. Cheer, John
Not quite on point, but one of the areas I strongly disagree with Libertarians with is the notion we need to do away with primaries or at least publicly-funded primaries. The minute you do that, the nomination process starts replicating the Marion County slating system where the candidates, picked by a handful of party bosses have to agree to give up their political soul in exchange for the bosses support. In many areas there isn’t even a general election to speak of. The primary protects our democratic system of government.
As I understand it, California will be having the ultimate in open primaries. The law was changed such that the November election will be a runoff between the top two candidates in the primary. this means that some Republicans will be running against Republicans and some Democrats will be running against Democrats.
The goal was to elect more moderates and fewer incumbents. This will maximize voter interest.
Just maybe it is because of my advanced age and senile situation, but I do believe that primaries should be for party members ONLY. I have observed the described cross over voting where by people of one party having only one candidate (or a sure to win one) have crossed over to the other party in the primary to seek to elect a very weak opponent for their party. The whole idea originally for primaries was to allow the many to participate in selecting the candidates for their party. The caucus method or slating convention leaves out most people and puts the selection into the hands of a few. Believe the less a person has as to being part of the selection/election process the more likely they will forego participation in the final election process—we already have too few well informed voters participation in any of the process now. And a totally side note issue is the many boards, commissions, etc. are to contain appointees representing each party—so how do we determine that–look at the primary voting record, but if it is open to whoever then that provision might as well be dropped from laws.
Primaries are an example of my high school history teacher’s adage that “today’s reforms are tomorrow’s corruption.” Primaries are an answer to the “smoke-filled rooms” of political fixers. But, they come with their own problems. They seem to promote ideological calcification for their parties; making the (sometimes ugly and compromising) process of governing that much harder.
Tend to agree with your comment Doug. Maybe not a scientifically significant stastistically tested point but would seem we have currently another situation of 25% of people (or at least would vote that way if given choices) that are extreme right or conservative (if you please) and 25% extreme left or liberal (if you please). This leaves about 50% on a scale some where in between and a place where I find myself. One might think this would be sufficient grounds for a viable third party (I know now should get responses from several offering their party to fill the gap.) Observing the activities in state and local legislative bodies it is as if compromise is a dirty word when faced with differing philosophy so stalemate becomes a reality. Understand the idea of “standing up for what you believe”, but anything carried to extreme of not being willing to settle for what you can get now and continue to work for change also may have merit rather than allow collaspe of the whole structure/idea.