Just a quick update on our suit to close the Idaho Primary elections.
Ben Ysursa has until Friday August 3, 2007 to respond to our suit. As of today we have received no response. However, it seems we might have an indication of the strategy they intend to use. That would also answer the question as to why J. Kirk Sullivan sent us the attached letter shortly after his meeting with Ben Ysursa.
Our lawyer sent Mr. Sullivan a response to his letter this week which is also attached. I’ll let you know as soon as we receive a response to our lawsuit.
“The question of standing and who should be allowed to sue is certainly at the forefront of this case,” said Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, in an interview. “I’m sure that’s what the attorney general will be pursuing.”
POSTED ON JULY 25, 2007:
By BW Staff
There are more questions than answers about the Republican lawsuit against the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office. First off, will the 70 people signed on to the suit have legal standing to sue?
On July 11, 71 activists and officers in the Idaho Republican Party filed a lawsuit arguing that Idaho’s open primary system is unconstitutional. Since then, one member of the litigating group died.
But some officials in the Idaho Attorney General’s Office, which will be defending the state against the suit if it goes to trial, are pondering the standing question. Although the Idaho Republican Party’s central committee voted in June to approve the concept of a closed primary, the party itself is not attached to the lawsuit.
“The question of standing and who should be allowed to sue is certainly at the forefront of this case,” said Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, in an interview. “I’m sure that’s what the attorney general will be pursuing.”
At least one national elections expert, Richard Winger, editor of the online publication Ballot Access News, said in an e-mail to BW that the GOP suit “would be stronger if the Idaho Republican Party itself were a co-plaintiff.”
Idaho Democrats have been quick to pounce on the issue, not least because they fear that the open primary system, which they say helps them draw Idaho’s numerous independent voters, would be changed.
But even that outcome isn’t certain, said Ysursa.
“I don’t know how it will play out,” Ysursa said.
The primary-closure move has been divisive, to say the least, among members of the Republican Party. With all of the statewide constitutional offices held by Republicans like Ysursa, the ownership of all Congressional seats, and with a solid majority in the Idaho Legislature, some of the party’s leaders have publicly wondered just what is so broken that it needs fixing.
Idaho may be overwhelmed by a national trend toward closed primaries. More than 30 states have closed primaries of some form or another.
“The pendulum is certainly swinging toward a closed primary,” Ysursa said. “That’s foreign to us, but that’s rather a common element in most states.”
Likewise, Rep. Marv Hagedorn, a Meridian Republican, wrote on his blog recently that, “it’s time to update our process like over 30 other states have done.”
Ultimately, the ball may land in the Legislature’s court. At the tail end of the 2007 session, a bill to change Idaho’s primary system fell just short of approval. The measure, which had the support of Idaho Democratic Party Chairman Richard Stallings, as well as Rod Beck, the conservative activist now leading the GOP lawsuit, would have required voters to choose a party in order to to participate in the primary. Independents would have been allowed to vote in the primary of their choice.
URL for this story: http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=245784
August 1, 2007 at 11:10 am
The bill described in the last paragraph above was unconstitutional, so it’s just as well that it did not become law.
The legislature could repeal the open primary law. It also has the options of 1) enacting party registration and 2) prohibiting the parties from inviting members of opposing parties to vote in their primaries. Otherwise, once the state-mandated open primary is gone, it’s up to each party as to who votes in its primary.
In 1986, the U. S. Supreme Court gave parties the right to invite independents to vote in their primaries. (Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut) This choice is up to each party: the state cannot force the parties to invite independents.
Utah, e.g., has party registration. The Republicans there invite independents to vote in their primaries. The Democrats, on the other hand, have open primaries: ALL voters– even registered Republicans– are invited. (A voter, of course, may vote in only one party’s primary.)
August 1, 2007 at 12:06 pm
The Constitution of the Utah Republican Party states as follows:
Article Xll Section 5
B. Only voters who are registered Republicans may vote in a Republican primary election.
http://home.utgop.org/page.php?page_id=6
That doesn’t appear to invite independents to vote in their primary elections.
I agree the bill mentioned above COULD have been challenged by a political party and may have been thrown out as it did require all voters to to register by party or indicate, “independent.” That particular aspect has not been fully adjudicated, however.
There is a large difference in a state requirement that ALL voters register by party or express no party preference as opposed to a law that provides that NO voters register by party notwithstanding the express rules of a valid political party regarding participation in that party candidate selection process.
August 1, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Senator Beck,
No. 7-C of the Utah Republican Party Bylaws says that unaffiliated voters are eligible to vote in Republican presidential primaries.
The point I was making there was that, under the U. S. Supreme Court’s 1986 ruling, each party is free to invite independent/unaffiliated voters to participate in its primaries. In West Virginia, e.g., the Republicans have been inviting registered independents into their primaries for several years now, and the Democrats recently decided to also invite independents.
Of course, when a state has an open primary law, the state is forcing parties to allow ANY voter to participate in their primaries– which is why I’m convinced that the courts will ultimately outlaw the state-mandated open primary.
The purpose of party registration is to identify voters. It’s the most practical way of identifying voters, which is why 29 states now have party registration. There is a “party affiliation” box on the voter registration form, and the applicant checks one of the parties listed or “unaffiliated.”
The reason that the bill in the 2007 Idaho legislature was unconstitutional was that it would have FORCED the parties to allow independent/unaffiliated voters into their primaries.
The bottom line is that once the state-mandated open primary is gone, each party will be free to determine who votes in its primaries.
August 3, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Today, the state filed its response to the Republicans’ lawsuit against Idaho’s open primary law.
It’s interesting that, in asking the court to dismiss the suit, the state makes no mention of Renne v. Geary. This was the 1991 case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that a bunch of political party activists and party officers didn’t have standing to challenge a California law that forbade parties from endorsing candidates in non-partisan elections.
August 7, 2007 at 9:54 am
Tyranny of the majority
August 22, 2007 at 5:33 pm
We have such a low voter turn out. As been stated by voters that decided not to vote when they were ask if they were voting “Republican” or “Democrat”. It appears to be violating our constitutional rights the way the “primaries” are held. People want to vote for the most qualified person not the party. As it now the least qualified candidates are being elected. A challenge is to have only the “general election”and a larger voter turn out would occurr. Better would be to have all elections the same year as the “President”
“A challenge “If all the names of candidates that were defeated in the primary election of August 2007 in Mississippi were to be placed on the ballott in November’s General election, you woulld see a different turn out of voters and a different selection of candidates.
This would be a great comparision to determine the most fair way for elections to be held. I would like to know when this law went into effect and compare the percentages of voters then and after the change and now, what seems to be the down fall of voter turn out.
Myrna Bourgeois
I would like to know how this can be change.
August 28, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Myrna:
You’re talking about listing all of the candidates on a single ballot for the first round of voting. Louisiana is the only state that elects all of its STATE officials that way. And Louisiana, which alone has elected its CONGRESSIONAL officials that way, is restoring party primaries for those elections, starting in 2008.
I think this article will answer most if not all of your questions.
If you would like to correspond with me, my address is linked to my blog profile.
~~ Steve Rankin
Jackson, Mississippi