Before adoption of the Australian ballot, the Democrats would have had their party “workers” out disrupting distribution of ballots with Platt’s name printed on it. Democratic and Republican leaning newspapers might omit Platt’s name from sample ballots they print, just as they often ignore minor party candidates in their news coverage.

Now political parties seek to exclude through control of the election law. Party lawyers have replaced the party toughs of the 19th century, but their purposes are the same.

But consider what would happen in an Open Primary state such as Washington or Louisiana, and soon to be California. Placement on the ballot requires a modest number of signatures and a filing fee, much as was promised when the Australian ballot was introduced over a century ago.

Endorsement and support of candidates is totally separate from placement of candidates on the ballot. The parties are free to recruit candidates, provide financial and other support, run positive or negative campaigns, but they could not use the legal system to prevent voters from casting a ballot for other candidates.

In California, political parties will be able to have their endorsements distributed as part of the Voter’s Pamphlet. In races where the party does not have a candidate, they may endorse a candidate who prefers another party, but may be closer to the party’s political views than the other candidates. A party might even endorse a candidate who prefers another party, if a candidate who prefers their candidate is an embarrassment (eg Tom Metzger or Duke Cunningham).

Other party’s primary voters should not be permitted to decide whom the Green Party is able to nominate.

While I am no constitutional lawyer, or lawyer of any sort, I don’t understand how one can give up his or her constitutional rights by signing a pledge.