N.Y. Independence Party Activist Files New Lawsuit to Gain More Intra-Party Democracy in His Party

On August 15, Bill Van Allen filed a new federal lawsuit against New York state laws that make it almost impossible for rank-and-file members of the Independence Party to elect local party officers. The case is Van Allen v Walsh, 1:08-cv-876.

The ballot-qualified Independence Party is the only qualified party in New York that has exercised its rights to permit independent voters to vote in its primary. However, New York laws say that when a voter who has been registered “independent” wishes to join a ballot-qualified party (even the Independence Party), they can’t make their membership in their new party effective until the following year. New York is the only state that makes it so difficult for an already-registered voter to join a ballot-qualified party. It is very difficult for members of a small qualified party to get on their own party’s primary ballot for party office. Van Allen argues that the law making it impossible for new members to join a party quickly is not needed for any state purpose, and that it makes it that much more difficult to find volunteers to circulate petitions for candidates for party office, and public office, to get on the party’s primary ballot. The ostensible purpose of the law is to protect parties against “raiding” by hostile outsiders. But Van Allen argues that this rationale has no purpose in a party that has invited independents to vote in its primary.

The lawsuit also attacks the New York state voter registration form, which continues to warn voters that if they register as independents, they will not be able to vote in any party’s primary. That warning is not true in relation to the Independence Party.

Van Allen’s lawsuit would have an easier road to victory if the state officers of the Independence Party would support it. However, so far they have not joined as co-plaintiffs.


Comments

N.Y. Independence Party Activist Files New Lawsuit to Gain More Intra-Party Democracy in His Party — No Comments

  1. there is also the NYS Election Law “Opportunity to Ballot” petition for opportunity to write-in a name for public and especially party offices issue to form a constituted county committee. (more “home rule” for ballot access to local –town/city and county — offices)

    independentvoter@hvc.rr.com

  2. Richard – One minor correction in your post. As long as the voter enrolls in a party or changes to a new party 25 days or more before the general election, then the change will go through on the first Tuesday after the general election. Therefore, if I changed my enrollment now, it would be effective November 11th (possibly November 12th since the 11th is Veteran’s Day and they wouldn’t be there to make the change), not January 1st.

  3. A goal of the project will be to invite enough non-enrolleds to change enrollment to IPNY for the sole purpose of ensuring universal OTB (opportunity to ballot “OTB” write-in) primaries for ALL offices (public and party) in each election cycle. The state executive committee will still be totally free to pass out cross-party authorizations (so called Wilson-Pakula) and give the advantage to major party patrons, but there will be primary for every office and the disadvantage of the write can be addressed by several means.

    bill

  4. Bill, since colonial days, our country has had two dominant parties. But unless the system makes it possible for a third party to replace one of the two old parties, there is no incentative for the old parties to be responsive to what people want. To keep the presure on the two dominant parties to be responsive to the will of the people, we must do away with restrictive ballot access laws. Bill, your work for OTB and ballot access has been praise worthy. Thanks.
    George

  5. The NY registration form does not have a box for “independent”. It has a box marked:

    [ ] I DO NOT WISH TO ENROLL IN A PARTY

    The voter registration form also includes the following instructions:

    Box 11: Check one box only. In order to vote in a party primary, you must be enrolled in one of New York’s 5 constituted parties.

    *Except the Independence Party, which permits non-enrolled voters to vote in their primary elections.

    At worst, the instructions can be considered somewhat obscure. Since the right of non-members of any party to vote in a party primary is not unequivocal, the instructions might also be considered in error.

    The California registration form notes that a party may exclude persons who have not stated a party affiliation. And in fact, this can change from election to election. For example, the California Republican Party, had a closed presidential primary, but a semi-open state primary.

  6. of course “Box 11” does not say the independence party allowing non-enrolled voters to vote in primary elections. It just has a “* See above” — not in on the “form” at all.

    — this is one of the causes of action in the the new law suit.

  7. The instructions for Box 11 do state that a non-enrolled voter may vote vote in the Independence Party primary.

    Box 11 itself includes the ” * See above” which is intended as a pointer to the instructions.

    Perhaps Box 11 should be amended to simply say: “(Please read instructions)” and omit all mention of what a particular box means.

    And is it not true, that the Independence Party could change its rules as far as participation of non-enrolled voters in its primaries?

  8. again, and simply restated — the “instructions” are not part of the form. In fact, the instructions are omitted entirely in the “short form” being handed out by Ulster County BOE.

    Also ALL supporting or related voter notification post cards or forms still have the original warning without any explanation including asterisk explanation or anything.

    And the IPNY does not need to change any party rules regarding enrollment lock-box section of the NY Election Law.

    bill

  9. The registration form available on the Dutchess County County Board of Elections web site does include the asterisk and explanation. Perhaps it is an administrative error across the river?

    I did not state that the IPNY need change its rules regarding non-enrolled persons participating in its primary. I stated that the IPNY (or any other party) could change its rules with regard to participation in its primary. Thus the registration forms are misleading.

  10. Any party could change how they handle participation. After the IP participation of non-enrolled was approved, I made the first request to change the form. After much back-and-forth, the * was the states’ change to the form. I do not like there solution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.