On January 10, two North Dakota Representatives, Corey Mock and Lee Kaldor, introduced HB 1299, to provide for a blanket primary. North Dakota now has open primaries. Currently, any voter is free to vote in any party’s primary ballot (and the choice of which party’s primary ballot is made in secret), but the voter must confine voting to the primary ballot of only one party.
The bill would change that, so that any voter could vote for any candidate in any party’s primary. This is the system that California used in 1998 and 2000, and for all special elections 1967 until 2010. It is also the system used by Washington state from 1934 until 2006, and it is the system used currently in Alaska (except that Republican candidates do not appear on the Alaska blanket primary ballot). Blanket primaries are not intrinsically unconstitutional, but they are unconstitutional as applied to any political party that doesn’t desire that kind of primary. They do not limit choices on the November ballot.
The authors are both Democrats. They say they are sympathetic to the pending lawsuit filed by the Libertarian Party against the law that says no one may be nominated for the legislature unless he or she receives approximately 130 votes in the primary. Not enough voters choose to vote in a minor party’s primary to make this goal reasonable. No minor party candidate for the legislature has managed to qualify since 1976. Of course, another solution would be to eliminate the minimum vote test. No other state has a minimum vote test for candidates whose names are printed on partisan primary ballots.
I know there is alot of good arguments against open primaries of any type. But I say as long as one dollar of taxpayers money pays for any primary – closed or open – the voters regardless of their political party affiliation or the lack of it – should have the right to vote in any party primary of their choice.
For those political parties – major and 3rd parties – who want closed primaries, then pay for them with your party money – and not my tax dollars.
What’s fair is fair!
P.R. and App.V. = NO primaries are needed — even in super frozen ND with voters miles and miles apart.
Richard: This is a little off the subject of this post, but in 1892 when the Democrats and Populists fused, Thomas E.Watson as the Populist half of the Bryan-Watson of the ticket received 217,000 votes in seventeen states, and twenty-seven electoral votes.
In what states did he receive these votes? Where can I find the number of popular votes cast for Bryan-Sewell and number of popular votes cast for Bryan-Watson in those 17 states?
Pingback: Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » North Dakota Bill for a … | North Dakota News
# 3 Perhaps do a google search — wiki for the 1892 Prez gerrymander election.
ANY body around from 1892 — a mere 118 years ago ???
#3, you mean 1896. Popular votes for that election are very complicated, because there were fusion Democratic-Peoples Party tickets in some states. In a few of those states, the voters could choose which party label to vote for. In some other states, the Democratic Party slate of electors was different from the Peoples Party slate of electors, so there were separate vote totals for each slate.
Voters were able to express support for the Peoples Party separately from the Democratic Party, for the presidential election, under either of the above scenarios, in these states, with the Peoples Party popular vote given here: Alabama 24,089; California 21,626; Colorado 2,389; Florida 2,053; Georgia 440; Illinois 1,090; Kansas 46,147 plus 1,240; Maine 2,387; Massachusetts 15,181; Mississippi 9,945; Nebraska 797; Nevada 574; New Hampshire 379; North Dakota 20,686; Ohio 2,615; Pennsylvania 5,071 plus 6,103; Tennessee 4,525; Texas 76,926; Vermont 461; Wyoming 486. There is also an unknown number of votes from New York; no record was kept, apparently.
#1: In 1995, the 8th circuit ruled that, when the state mandates that parties hold primaries, the parties cannot be required to pay for those primaries (Republican Party of Arkansas v. Faulkner County).
North Dakota already uses a Top 2 primary for nonpartisan offices. It would be so much simpler for North Dakota to do the same for partisan offices.