I have been amused by Idaho Democrats running around decrying closed primaries when they hold closed caucuses to choose their presidential candidates. Yet, I have not seen a single Idaho Democrat criticize the party’s closed caucus system. Instead, Idaho Democratic Party spokesman Chuck Oxley and others either defend these closed caucuses or claim they are meaningless. As a Republican, I do not have a problem with the Democrats’ closed caucuses because I do not have a right, or desire, to influence their candidate selection process.
Let me make this clear, again. The only political party that currently holds a closed candidate-selection process in the state of Idaho is the Idaho Democratic Party. The Democratic Party excludes members of any party, including all independents, when it holds its presidential caucuses in Idaho. In fact, the Democratic National Committee rules prohibit recognition of presidential primary votes in states like Idaho that allow crossover voting. Ironically, they do not want Republicans interfering with their presidential nomination process, but want to influence the statewide Republican nomination process. Is this hypocrisy and a double standard? You be the judge.
The reality is that the only reason the Democrats do not demand a closed primary system in Idaho is because they are not yet competitive in statewide races and many legislative races. In fact, Sen. Clint Stennett, D-Ketchum, admitted so in his editorial. He is worried about being locked out of the Republican primary process because his party cannot field strong candidates in several legislative districts. In other words, Idaho Democrats want to have a right to influence Republican primary elections.
Just wait, though: If Idaho Democrats ever become competitive or dominant again, they will be demanding and suing the state for a closed primary like the Democrats did in California in the case of California Democratic Party v. Jones. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially found that open primaries are unconstitutional. The state of California, through the initiative process, had changed its closed primary system to a blanket primary system that allowed the voters to vote for either Republicans or Democrats in the primaries. The California Democratic Party (yes, the Democrats) sued California’s secretary of state because the party felt that its right of free association was being violated.
The state of California argued that the blanket primary system was valid and offered seven reasons why blanket primaries should be upheld. These reasons are very similar to the ones presented by Oxley and Sen. Stennett in their editorials for opposing closed primaries. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected all seven claims and found that the state of California cannot force “political parties to associate with those who do not share their beliefs.” In short, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that voters do not have the right to vote in a primary of a party to which they do not belong.
It is telling that Idaho Democrats, including Oxley and Stennett, want to have the right to influence Republican primary results because they cannot field strong candidates in all state races. A party primary is the process where members of a political party choose their strongest candidate. It should not be used to make up for your own party’s weaknesses.
Rep. Raul R. Labrador, R-Eagle, is a freshman legislator representing District 14.
