Let’s say that you hate the national Republican party, you have mixed feelings about the state party, and you enthusiastically support the local party candidates. Can you vote in the Republican primary? The answer depends on how you voted last general election and/or how many of the party’s nominees you intend to vote for in this election.
IC 3-10-1-6 sets forth the requirements for voter eligibility to vote in the primary and take a party’s ballot:
A voter may vote at a primary election:
(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or
(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election;
as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.
So, first step – you have to be registered. Next, you potentially have a choice – you can take a primary ticket for the party who you voted for a majority of the nominees or, if you intend to vote at the next general election for a majority of the nominees of a different party, you can take that ticket instead.
The primary is this Tuesday, May 6. Go vote.
The statute should be challenged. It is illegal to require someone in Indiana disclose her or his vote in an election. It also is illegal to offer consideration for someone’s vote—i.e., a quid-pro-quo whereby someone is given the opportunity to vote in the primary in exchange for a promise of at least a 50% vote for a specific party.
Seriously. If parties want closed primaries, they should enact those laws. I ALWAYS vote in the primary election and, since Lugar left, I have no intention of voting for any Republican for national or state office.
Why should the internal affairs of a private association be codified in a state’s statutes?
For what it’s worth, that’s always seemed odd to me too.
Because reality is different from the Articles of Confederation you live your fantasy political life in
What a vapid, irrelevant, canned response. Are Indiana political primaries discussed in the Articles of Confederation? Do you even know what the Articles of Confederation are? It seems not.
Yesterday, you called me a “neoconfederate” (new friend?). Today, you cite to the Articles of Confederation in a fury after having been embarrassed, yesterday.
It’s a riot that you don’t know that the Articles of Confederation were not an instrument of the Confederate States of America.
I trust that I know more about everything, including the Articles and the later Confederacy, than you do, This little aggrieved response you throw out every time someone doesn’t take your neo-Confederate, nullification rear end seriously is one of the funnier things I see.
I refuse to take you seriously, especially when you rant about the Party system which has existed within the United States since almost the ratification of the Constitution. You want to go back to a time prior to Parties, then — at best — you are talking about the first Washington Presidency. Since the largest period of US hisotry without Party was the A of Confederation, you got that moniker.
I find nullifiers and secessionists are less offended by being accused of supporting the Articles (see Levin, Mark or Woods, Thomas) than by being called Neo-condeferates, since they assume –incorrectly– that being a neo-Confederate means supporting slavery.
At any rate, if you see me make fun of your silly political beliefs, it’s because I refuse to accept to take seriously the arguments which led to the a) the creation of a strong central government and b) the dissolution of that idea in favor of Treason.
You may continue to act offended, so I can laugh at you.
“I trust that I know more about everything, including the Articles and the later Confederacy, than you do,”
There is not one subject of any consequence on which you are 10% as knowledgeable as me. This is an objective and provable fact. I’ve had the misfortune of reading your “work.” You’re not a peer; you’re not even worthy of being a junior member on a team I head.
When I say something, accept it. I’m not interested in your destructive and whinging lamentations.
Easy kids. Don’t make me stop this car.
I vote the party where I want to have the most effect. I challenge the judges to challenge me… Since I get flyers from both sides to support their candidates with funds, I feel free to make that choice.
How does someone know what party I voted for in the last election or who I will vote for in the coming election? I don’t remember telling anyone in the election area who I voted for, and I live in Lake County! Is this just some form of intimidation?
If you vote in a partisan primary, which ballot you take (D or R) is public information and is used by the party’s (and anyone they sell that info to) for mailers and other GOTV efforts.
One time, a decade or so ago, I got a call by a volunteer urging me to vote for the slated opponent in the local city-county primary election, because it “wasn’t the other guy’s turn.”
I voted for the guy I was told not to vote for and he won by one vote. I’m sure there was a re-count which I did not follow, but I was so happy. Slating is evil in the first place.
Matt Stone, the Marion County Election Board says that is not public information.
This looks to me like an entirely aspirational law. How in the world would it ever be enforced?
I agree. I’m not advocating for the law or saying it’s enforceable. But I know there are people who want to follow the rules and don’t know what the rules are with respect to primary voting. So, I thought I’d write a post mentioning what the rule was.
Why in the hell are the affairs of private corporations (primaries of political parties) written into the laws of any state?
Why in the hell are the affairs of private corporations (primaries of political parties) treated as official government elections and held at taxpayer expense?
Why in the hell are private corporations (political parties) treated by the government so reverently that they appear as official components of the government?
Why in the hell do members of a private corporation get their corporate membership listed on official election ballots in the general election?
Why in the hell are voters allowed to vote for corporations instead of persons (straight-ticket voting) in a general election?
A party’s affairs should be conducted in private, as a party sees fit, entirely absent governmental control and taxpayer expense.
A person’s corporate affiliation has no business on any ballot.
Is Neo-Confederate not a party?
I’m all for a primary election.
Put all candidates on the ballot with no party designation. The two candidates with the most votes will seek election in November.
Two Republicans? Fine. Two Democrats? Fine. One of each? Sure.
If there’s only one candidate in May, save some money and have no November election.
Joe, your plan makes things worse.
Why two levels of elections? Why is one election not good enough? Why does ballot access for the election, itself, have to be accomplished by runoff? Why should smaller candidates have to be destined for failure by having two expensive campaigns to run?
Petitions to get on the ballot were instituted as a means of ensuring that the candidate has some base of support. Why the redundant primary?
No, the only proper course is to have one election. For each office, any candidate who has required the proper number of petitions should get on the ballot. Position on the ballot should be determined by straws or dice roll. The name should be presented without any party affiliation.
I didn’t think this would ever happen, but I completely agree with Freedom. If the parties in power voted to change the laws to allow it, they would still control the details of making it work, particularly what that threshold of signatures would be. I don’t see either of those steps happening, but it’s a nice goal to dream of. And if I can agree with Freedom, I guess anything’s possible.
The primary election should prove the base of support. To Coach’s point, remove the threshold of signatures. If you have a base of support, you will be in the top two and advance.
I prefer the runoff election because the ultimate winner would have a majority of the votes.
I also like it because it could mean that parties can’t control who gets nominated for an office. Think you can take on the incumbent? Go for it. You shouldn’t need permission from a party to get on the ballot. (Which is why it would never happen in this state.)
I was not aware that this system was in use in California, Washington, and Louisiana, but it is. Apparently, the technical term is “nonpartisan blanket primary”.
Great idea! You remove any chance that small, poorly funded candidates can win and that the State Party apparatus will slate whomever they wish, put their resources behind that person, and deprive citizens and those not part of the elite from access to such resources.
A case in point, Dick Lugar would have crushed Joe Donnelly in 2012. Mourdock’s only chance to win the general election was to win the primary and receive the money and endorsement and party apparatus the primary affords.
Which is to say, your analysis is parochial. For a poorly funded, populist candidate to win anything, he/she needs Party support, meaning he/she needs a primary.
“A case in point, Dick Lugar would have crushed Joe Donnelly in 2012. Mourdock’s only chance to win the general election was to win the primary and receive the money and endorsement and party apparatus the primary affords.”
My way, the primary election would have been
Donnelly
Horning
Mourdock
Lugar
Top two gathering votes advance. I suspect it would have been Lugar vs. Mourdock.
I suspect you are right, but the two party system is ingrained in law and tradition and one of the crassest things about Parties is how they conspire to make sure their interests are served in voting and redistricting (which, I think is even more gross that the election stuff).
After all, if we eliminated anything about Parties controlling elections, my hope would be ridiculous boundaries for Congressional and Statehouse seats, which presents me the lovely opportunity of voting for Mike Young or no one.
“which presents me the lovely opportunity of voting for Mike Young or no one.”
As a former constituent of Sen. Young, you have my utmost sympathy.
As a former law school classmate of his and current constinuent, I accept your sympathies with a heavy heart;)
“The primary election should prove the base of support.”
We disagree. There should be only one election. I cannot see an essential democratic purpose in holding multiple elections for the same office. Let the parties conduct their primaries, as they will, but let them run their selection process on their own dime.
“I prefer the runoff election because the ultimate winner would have a majority of the votes.”
An outcome of precisely no benefit. Merely playing March Madness with elections doesn’t mean a majority victor is preferred to a plurality victor.
“I also like it because it could mean that parties can’t control who gets nominated for an office.”
Parties should be able to nominate whomever they want, and they should be able to inform the public of their nominee. That fact, however, should appear nowhere on the ballot.
“Think you can take on the incumbent? Go for it. You shouldn’t need permission from a party to get on the ballot.”
An outcome more readily guaranteed by the system I proposed. Your system keeps the parties firmly in control of general election success. The goal is to reduce the power of political parties and the amount of elected officials with stated party affiliation.
“Your system keeps the parties firmly in control of general election success. The goal is to reduce the power of political parties and the amount of elected officials with stated party affiliation.”
“Parties should be able to nominate whomever they want, and they should be able to inform the public of their nominee. That fact, however, should appear nowhere on the ballot.”
I disagree that you’ve reduced the power of parties just by removing the label from the ballot and allowing parties to conduct primaries. By eliminating the nominating filter is where you truly reduce the power of parties.
“I disagree that you’ve reduced the power of parties just by removing the label from the ballot and allowing parties to conduct primaries. By eliminating the nominating filter is where you truly reduce the power of parties.”
Really? You’re still stuck on this? As I’ve abundantly described, how do the machinations of any party matter if the party name is not on the ballot?
My ballot:
For Governor of the State of Indiana
Jane Davis
Bob Adams
Dennis Watson
Philip Smith
Your ballot:
For Governor of the State of Indiana
Jane Davis – Republican
Bob Adams – Democrat
Dennis Watson – Libertarian
Philip Smith – Green
Which ballot greater allows party membership to influence voter selection?
I already said at the top “put all candidates on the ballot with no party designation.” We agree on that. Keep up. My personal opinion is that political parties cause more harm than good.
“As I’ve abundantly described, how do the machinations of any party matter if the party name is not on the ballot? Which ballot greater allows party membership to influence voter selection?”
Where’s your multiple Republican candidates?
Real life example – the 2010 Indiana Senate primary ballot could have had the following if we had an open primary:
Don Bates
Richard Behney
Dan Coats
Brad Ellsworth
John Hostettler
Rebecca Sink-Burris
Marlin Stutzman
Ellsworth was the D and Sink-Burris the L. The rest were R’s.
Your plan – whomever wins a seven person election is the next Senator of the state of Indiana for six years.
My plan – whomever wins the next round of election between whichever two people got the most votes in the open primary is the next Senator for the state of Indiana. Could be any combination of candidates.
They’re more alike than different, so I don’t understand the haterade.
“Where’s your multiple Republican candidates?”
It seems you aren’t reading my proposal correctly. Any person who makes the filing and has the required number of petitions gets on the November ballot (all other ballots and elections having been abandoned). I didn’t want to type forever, but there could be 100 names on the ballot. Among the 100 could be 42 “Republicans,” although all candidates will have only their names presented, absent all party designation.
I understand your argument and your proposal. I just think it’s as spotty as Billy Idol’s recorded output between 1994 and 2004.
Sure, have an all-comers election with a required number of signatures to get into the election. Of course it’s going to be something gamed to where only those supported by The Party can do it.
I don’t understand how a number of required signatures to get onto a ballot is more of an “essential democratic purpose” than an open, all-comers primary election.
If you can show up and prove you live in the district, you should be on the ballot. Done. One signature – yours – and you’re on the ballot. Forget what The Party says.
“Sure, have an all-comers election with a required number of signatures to get into the election. Of course it’s going to be something gamed to where only those supported by The Party can do it.”
We need to have some sort of recognition that parties are anti-constitutional. Parties may be fine as clubs, but as organized interests in government, they become the government. Parties, qua parties, must be forbidden from acting as collective interests in government.
“I don’t understand how a number of required signatures to get onto a ballot is more of an “essential democratic purpose” than an open, all-comers primary election.”
A primary is needless and harmful.
“If you can show up and prove you live in the district, you should be on the ballot. Done. One signature – yours – and you’re on the ballot.”
Fine by me.
“Forget what The Party says.”
Not sure how they got back into the discussion.
““I don’t understand how a number of required signatures to get onto a ballot is more of an “essential democratic purpose” than an open, all-comers primary election.””
“A primary is needless and harmful.”
Your reply was only the former if that’s all you’ve got.
???
I’ve not given the issue a ton of thought, but a couple of people whose opinions I respect have advocated instant runoff voting.