On March 1, the Kentucky House Elections, Constitutional Amendments, and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee defeated SB 41 by a vote of 5-4. This is the bill that provides that independent voters may vote in the primary of their choice. If the bill were to pass, Kentucky would then have a semi-closed primary. That is the term for a primary in which party members can only choose the primary ballot of the party they are registered into, but an independent may vote in any party’s primary. These terms have been defined in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as political science books, such as “Voting at the Political Fault Line.” UPDATE: the vote was partisan, with all Republicans voting “Yes” but only one Democrat voting “Yes.” The Committee has six Democrats and four Republicans. Bills need a majority to pass, so the bill needed six votes. The vote was five “Yes”, two “No”, and three not voting. Not voting in Committee is the same as voting “No.”
Most reporters don’t know these definitions, so the stories about SB 41 refer to it as an open primary bill. An open primary is a primary in which all voters are permitted a free choice of which party’s primary ballot to choose.
Primaries are PUBLIC actions by PUBLIC Electors-Voters.
— i.e. ALL Electors (top 2 primary regimes) or SOME Electors (in party hack robot gangs with or without independents)
— according to LAWS.
The SCOTUS MORONS messed up in the CA 2000 blanket party case — per usual — when they write NON-sense in their JUNK opinions.
It’s almost certainly unconstitutional for the state to force parties to let independents vote in their primaries.
In 1986, the US Supreme Court empowered parties to invite independents to vote in their primaries (Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut). In some states, one major party invites independents (semi-closed primary), while the other major party does not (closed primary).
It’s also possible for just one party in a state to have an open primary.
Utah Democrats, for example, have an open primary, while the Republicans have a semi-closed primary.
Re: Herald-Leader 03/02/11-Rep.Higdon asked:why people who want to vote in primary simply do not register as Democrat or Republican: I say: this is the very purpose of being a legally registered independent: So I can choose to vote either Democrat or Republican and that should extend to the primary. I am assuming that Higdon knows this and he is just acting like he doesn’t know. Otherwise, how would he have been selected to set on the House Committee? One must be required to know some basic facts before being chosen.
Correction to my post above: Rep Kevin Bratcher, R-Louisville asked Higdon…Re: Herald-Leader 03/02/11-why people who want to vote in primary simply do not register as Democrat or Republican: I say: this is the very purpose of being a legally registered independent: So I can choose to vote either Democrat or Republican and that should extend to the primary. I am assuming that Bratcher knows this and he is just acting like he doesn’t know. Otherwise, how would he have been selected to set on the House Committee? One must be required to know some basic facts before being chosenyou might forgive my mistake since I was so ticked that the issue never got out of committee…sorry.
Since neither Kentucky party invites independents to vote in its primaries, SB 41 was an effort to have the state force the parties to let independents into their primaries.
This, in my view, is unconstitutional.
In Kentucky, most people are registered Democratic only because in the past, the Democrats have had the more interesting primaries. If people are allowed to choose which party’s primary to vote in by registering as Independent, the Democrats would lose their advantage in registration. This, I believe, is why the Democrats in the State House defeated the bill.
Of course, in the fall, anyone can vote for anyone, regardless of party, and anyone can vote in the primary for non-partisan offices such as judges and some city councils. Perhaps Bratcher (who is my representative and whom I even worked with for one term when I taught at ITT Tech, where he works) believes that the representative of the Republican Party ought to be chosen by Republicans only.
Remember that many Republicans believe that McCain was chosen by non-real Republicans in early primaries in 2008 because he would be the easiest Republican for the Democrat to beat, and that there are even websites now that are promoting people to vote for Sarah Palin for the same reason. Even Rush Limbaugh tried to get people to vote for Hillary Clinton in primaries because it would be easier for McCain to defeat her. He was unable to do so in Kentucky because of the current law.
There needs to be some way of letting Independents vote without letting one party choose the other party’s nominee (i.e., letting them choose the weaker candidate). I like the idea of letting the party choose whether it is open or closed. If that happens in Kentucky, the Republicans would probably choose “open,” in order to try to convince the Independents to vote for them in the fall.
I do hope that this November, the Independents will remember that it was the Democrats who killed this bill, and, after voting for Galbraith/Riley for Governor, will vote for the Republicans in the minor offices (assuming some Independent does not run for these offices).
Steve, right now in Kentucky the parties cannot choose to be open or closed — they are forced by law to be closed. They are not allowed to invite independents to vote in their primary.
I understand that the “freedom of association” provision would make “forced-openness” unconstitutional, but shouldn’t it make “forced-closeness” unconstitutional as well?
#7: In open primary states in 2008, Rush Limbaugh– who has never liked McCain– urged voters to cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton, because Obama was leading in the Democratic race. If Hillary had been ahead, Rush would have urged voters to vote for Obama.
#8: A state cannot prohibit parties from inviting independents to vote in their primaries. See my comment #2 above.
The post at the top has the correct definitions of open, closed, and semi-closed primaries.
There are several lawsuits pending against the state-mandated open primary, in which each voter picks a party on primary day. The US district judge’s ruling in Idaho Republican Party v. Ysursa should be coming down any time now.
South Carolina’s Republicans have also filed a federal suit against the state-imposed open primary.
When did the first State have the first *open primary* (after official ballots came along) ???
Did the party hack robots go to court ???
What’s next — back to the Dark Age ???
Only party hack closed caucuses and conventions watched over by the Stalin and Hitler clones ???
NO secret ballots – in primaries and general elections ???
— i.e. party hack control freak stuff over all ???
In the 1900’s decade, when the Socialist Party was forced to nominate by primary in many states, the Socialist Party did go to state court, trying to keep its ability to let only the dues-paying members of the party choose the nominees. But the Socialist Party lost all those lawsuits.
#12: In California Democratic Party v. Jones, Scalia wrote that the Supreme Court has ruled that states may require parties to nominate by primary.
That’s not correct, is it?
#12 Any citations for the cases that got reported ???
Gee – PUBLIC Elector-Voters do nominations — NOT just the party hack gangster folks.
Again — see the Texas Donkey White Primary cases – 1928-1932 in SCOTUS.
Again – what part of the U.S.A. Constitution says that X percent of ALL Electors-Voters have some *constitutional right* to nominate candidates – i.e. put them on general election ballots ???
Solve for X.