The January 8 New York Times has this article about the court fight being waged in Idaho by the Republican Party, over who should be allowed to vote in Republican primaries. The story is misleading when it says that the Republican Party doesn’t want independents to be able to vote in the Republican primary. The party’s objection is to Democrats voting in its primary.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Can even the genius MORONS in the NY Times detect that —
PUBLIC Electors in PUBLIC nominations for candidates for PUBLIC offices is PUBLIC business — totally subject to PUBLIC L-A-W-S.
ALL electors (top 2 States) or some factional part of all Electors (all the other combinations under the Sun – closed primaries, open primaries, etc. etc.)
P.R. and App.V. = NO primaries are needed.
“While the state party has based its case on constitutional rights, election experts say fights like the one in Idaho often signal a shift toward more ideological politics.”
There’s nothing wrong with ideological politics.
Gee – party hack Platforms = Ideology on paper — since Day 1 of party hack groups.
Basically WAR between NET taxpayers (aka Tax Slaves) and NET taxgetters for 6,000 plus years of recorded history.
They really don’t need party registration. They could simply ask voters a series of questions, devised by each party, and based on the answer mark out the capability to pick that party on the ballot.
So the Republicans might ask, “Are you a Democrat?”, and if the answer is Yes, the Republican option would be disabled. The Libertarians might ask, “Are you a Libertarian?”, and in the answer is No, disable the Libertarian option, and so on. After all questions were asked, the voter would be given the ballot and they could then pick any of the remaining parties in secret.
“Michael Ames contributed reporting from Ketchum, Idaho.”
Ketchum is the nearest town to Sun Valley. So was the story written from New York, with the help of a reporter on a ski vacation?
# 4 How about brain scans by the party hack gangs ???
Any lies detected and off with one’s anti-party hack head ???
Nobody is looking at the mixed party voter. Independents see people in more than one party that they would like to vote for to fill the available offices. This is just an attempt to gain tighter control over the election.
If the Idaho Republican Party makes itself unpopular by its attempts to change the rules about its own primary, one would think the other parties on the ballot in Idaho would gain (assuming they keep open primaries). The free market in elections is one mechanism by which indepedents have power over the Republican Party. They can say they won’t vote for any Republican if the Republican Party pursues an unpopular rule change. They can also get independent candidates on the ballot fairly easily. Fortunately Idaho has lenient procedures for independent candidates. The only bad ballot access law for independents in Idaho, the presidential independent procedure, was declared unconstitutional last year and the legislature will be passing a bill to make it easier.
Since when are independents unified about ANY subject under the Sun ???
The top Donkeys and Elephants are in a continuous EVIL conspiracy to enact and enforce their EVIL party hack agenda laws — via any means available.
#8 (1) What is the fundamental principle that would have the State of Idaho make inquiries as to the political beliefs of its citizens, and maintain records of those beliefs?
(2) What is the fundamental principle that would have the State of Idaho require voters to reveal whether or not they were Democrats, not so that the Idaho Democratic party may include them, but so the Idaho Republican party may exclude them? The Idaho Democratic party may be ambivalent or indifferent as to whether or not a voter in its primary is a Democrat.
(3) What if the Idaho Republican Party only wanted to exclude communists from its primaries. Could the State of Idaho be compelled on their behalf to make inquiries as to whether each voter was a communist or not?
(4) Why should the State of Idaho engage in activities that may discourage participation in elections, in particular nonpartisan elections that may be held concurrently with a primary?
(5) If the basis for the State of Idaho recognizing a political party is some level of popular support for that party, why shouldn’t the State of Idaho require that those who support the party control matters of a constitutional nature with respect to the party?
Since the State of Idaho conducts the primary, and the State of Idaho would maintain the records, and place an item on the government form which voters must complete in order to establish their right to vote, many voters may perceive the State of Idaho as imposing the party registration regime, and not the Idaho Republican Party.
The more likely response of voters would be implement a Top 2 Open Primary.
If the Idaho Republican Party wishes to control who may vote in its primary, let them maintain the records, and establish the procedures by which a voter may establish their privilege to vote in the Republican primary.
It would be a very simple matter for election officials to disable selection of particular parties in a pick-a-party primary, and to permit any voter to vote for any candidate for office as an unaffiliated voter.