There are periodic efforts in some states to amend state constitutions to require political parties to “open” their primary nomination processes to non-party registrants. Bad idea. Some states have already adopted the true “open” primary requirement, while the majority have not, with a few adopting hybrid variations.
Simply, the notion that so-called “independents” and otherwise unaffiliated voters are entitled to have a voice in the nominations, policy platforms, or other internal matters of political parties they have declined to be associated with is nonsense.
There is a claim by some that non-affiliated voters are somehow disenfranchised by their exclusion from this decidedly party process. Not true. Voters are fully enfranchised and democracy is secure. Party registration is open. And party registration is not forever. It can be changed. But, if you want to have influence on or within the Democratic Party, register as a Democrat and participate. Same thing for the Republican Party, and even the Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Pacific Green Party, and other party organizations. But none of these organizations should be required to have their business influenced, driven, or manipulated by those who have – by their own deliberate decision — elected non-association.
No one is entitled to have a say in the decisions and strategies of a publicly traded (or private) business of which they are not a shareholder. If you are not a member of the UAW or SEIU, you do not get a vote on their union matters. Your local pickle ball rec league may welcome your feedback, but not until you join and participate. If you are not a member of your neighborhood’s book club, you cannot tell them what books to read. And the Portland Trail Blazers do not get to have input on the draft selections of the Los Angeles Lakers.
In her article In Defense of the Closed Primary (22 Public Interest Law Reporter Issue 1 2016), Bethany Dixon notes that the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of closed primaries. In Nader v. Schaffer the Court held that the rights of the party to keep nonparty members from participating in the closed primary outweighed the voters’ desire to participate in the party by voting in the primary. Political parties are inherently private organizations that should be able to determine the criteria for membership and eligibility for running for office and voting.
Likewise, the Supreme Court has also invalidated some forms of “open” primary requirements. In California Democratic Party v. Jones, the Court held that one form – the blanket primary — interfered with the party’s right of association by allowing non-party members to “interfere” with the party’s choice.
The fact that tax dollars often fund party primaries that unaffiliated voters can’t participate in is worth considering. But it isn’t justification to open party matters to non-affiliates. Afterall, we all pay for countless things with our tax dollars that we do not, or can not participate in. Perhaps those should be reconsidered too.
The primary is not an “election” to fill a public office. It is a selection of candidates by political parties for the upcoming elections. If an eligible voter wants a say in the primary nominations and policies of a particular pollical party, the solution is simple – register for it. (It’s free!) You don’t have to agree with everything the party prioritizes at the moment. I don’t. But participate and influence from inside. Don’t just sit on the outside, self-righteously reveling in your “independence” while lobbing bombs, taking pot-shots, and complaining that you can’t vote in their organization’s nomination process.
Let’s face it, non-affiliated voters are the deciders of general elections. But they are not in anyway entitled to have influence in the processes of a party they have deliberatly disavowed.
It is time to allow the folly of open primaries to die on the scrapheap of bad political ideas…right along with the elimination of day-light savings time.
Juggling Squirrel 