US Supreme Court strikes blow for political parties’ freedom of association

This US Supreme Court decision (2000) is very much on point for the Idaho lawsuit requiring party registration for Republican Primary Elections. 

(Notice it was the California Democrats who promoted the lawsuit … very interesting!)

By Tony Mauro
Special to the First Amendment Center Online
06.27.00 The Supreme Court yesterday embraced the freedom of association for political parties as it struck down California’s “blanket” primary system.

By a 7-2 majority in California Democratic Party v. Jones, the court said that parties have the right to select their own candidates without participation from voters who are members of other parties.

California’s blanket-primary system, adopted by state voters in 1996, offers primary voters a single ballot that lists all candidates from all parties — allowing a Republican, for example, to vote for a Democrat for one office and a Libertarian for another.

“Such forced association has the likely outcome… of changing the parties’ message,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. “We can think of no heavier burden on a political party’s associational freedom.”

Rep. Hagedorn: All parties should welcome this change

Rep. Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian) was the lead sponsor of legislation last session that addressed party registration/closed primaries.

Here are some excerpts from Rep. Hagedorn’s blog:

The the Republican Party voting to close their Primary Election process is exactly the same thing the Democrats have done in their national Presidential Primary process, just a few years later than the Democrats did. The Republicans also considered a “Privately Funded Caucus” to select their candidates, but that was voted down in consideration of an accepted fair and unbiased State Election process that the citizens of Idaho already pay for and trust.

Holding a type of restricted, “members only” Primary to select a party’s candidates for the General Election in the fall has been found to be a right that is afforded to that party and it’s members (regardless of who’s party) by the Supreme Court. There have been numerous changes in the ways the Parties have selected their candidates in Idaho’s history and changes will continue by all of the Parties as time goes on.

The REAL issue here is our State’s laws regarding Primary Elections are not flexible enough to accommodate these past or future changes. Those laws should be able to accommodate a selection process that will ensure a fair and just election and appropriate voter safeguards ensuring that their vote counts when they exercise that right.

Idaho Statesman: Switch parties

Excerpts from Idaho Statesman editorial: (7/15/07)

“… try to lure a couple of these popularly elected “RINO” incumbents into the Democratic Party.”

“So what Republican legislator or county commissioner — in this reddest of all red states — would switch sides and run as a Democrat?”

“Sure, a “RINO”-turned-Democrat would lose the advantages of running under the GOP banner, and a “RINO” legislator would give up the clout and committee leadership possibilities that come with belonging to the majority party.”

“Where’s Marlin Perkins when we need him?”

A real choice is always much better than an underhanded attempt

Excerpts from Mark Balzer’s Idaho State Journal blog: (7/15/07)

Many of the people opposed to the closed primary have stated that there is no evidence of the “crossover vote” claimed by the proponents of this action. However, articles by Clint Stennett and Bill Cope clearly state the truth of, and even encourage crossover voting. [...]

Now it is true that in some areas of Idaho the primary election is the de-facto general election. That is not the fault or problem of the Idaho Republican Party. If other political parties are not organized or strong enough to field viable candidates it is not incumbent upon the Republicans to allow them a voice in a Republican primary. [...]

R.I.P. George Detweiler: A patriotic man that had a passion for the constitution

George Detweiler passed away Wednesday evening.  Mr. Detweiler was one of the plaintiffs on the lawsuit to require party registration for Idaho Republican primary elections.  He was a long-time Grassroots Idaho GOP activist.  God Speed, George and our prayers to your loved ones.

The Times News reports:

TWIN FALLS - The closed primary cause in Idaho just lost one of its strongest champions.

George Detweiler, a retired private attorney and longtime active Republican in Twin Falls, died Wednesday night. He was 64.

Detweiler had passed out Wednesday evening and likely died of a heart attack, said his wife, Pamela Detweiler. That same night he attended a Twin Falls Republican Central Committee meeting and walked home, according to friends.

George Detweiler was not on the committee and never held political office, but he worked closely with its members, his wife said.

Closing primaries was important to him, said Pamela Detweiler, and he supported limiting Republican primary elections to GOP members.

“He would just go to the committee meetings,” said his wife. “Just an interested citizen - he cared a lot about that.”

Detweiler is listed as a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa seeking to close the primaries.

“I was stunned when I heard the news this morning,” said Laird Stone, a member of the State Board of Education and a longtime friend who was at Wednes-day’s meeting. “I just always enjoyed his sense of humor.”

His grandfather, J.W. Taylor, served four years as Idaho attorney general beginning in 1937.

“(George) was just a patriotic man that had a passion for the government and for the constitution,” she said. “I think his grandfather was where he got that.”

No funeral date has been set yet, said Pamela Detweiler.

Idaho Democrats: “Ready, F-I-R-E!, Aim…”

Q.  Why do Idaho Democrats even care if Idaho Republicans choose to exercise our 1^st Amendment right to free association by requiring party registration to vote in Republican primaries?

A.  Because Democrats stand to lose political favor and they like to cross-over vote in Republican primaries.

Idaho Democrats and some of their sympathizers are objecting by spreading false information.  This is not a new phenomenon.

The Democrats falsely charge that: “The lawsuit would mean an end to same day registration.” (Idaho Statesman 7/13/07)

FACT:  The remedy in the lawsuit requires when one chooses to vote in the Primary Election, that in the polling book (where you sign your name when you get your ballot) there be a check box stating you choose to vote in the Republican primary.

A voter can still walk in the door to vote, same-day register as per law, and cast a ballot.  The only difference is that if the voter chooses to vote for Republicans in the primary, they check the box.

Click here to read the section of the lawsuit that addresses this matter.  It is on page 6 of the Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.

BREAKING NEWS: Grassroots Idaho GOP’ers file suit in Federal Court

This news release just in from former Idaho State Senate Majority Leader Rod Beck:

(Links to the filed suit are below)

Grassroots GOP file suit to protect 1st Amendment right to free association by requiring party registration for Republican primaries

Contact:  Rod Beck (208) 376-9797

(BOISE)  July 11, 2007 – 71 members of the Idaho Republican Party, including a number of members of the Idaho Republican Party State Central Committee and Executive Committee filed suit in the U. S. Federal Court in Boise, Idaho to require the State of Idaho and its Chief Election Officer, Ben Ysursa, Idaho Secretary of State, to honor the Rule adopted by the Idaho Republican Party on June 2, 2007. 

Idahoans are still entitled to the basic protections and rights offered by the U.S. Constitution 220 years ago, including the right of association under the First Amendment. It is our intent to ask the court to restore those rights so that Idaho Republicans may stand together and pick their own nominees for political office, just as Idaho Democrats are allowed to stand together and pick their nominee for U.S. president.

The complete documentation including the Complaint and other corresponding documents can be found on file with the U.S Federal Court in Boise, Idaho as Beck et al V. Ysursa Case number: 1:07-cv-229.

Here are the links to the Grassroots Idaho GOP Federal suit:

• Complaint
• Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Best, quick read for info)
• Memorandum in Support for Preliminary Injunction 
• Affidavit of Rod Beck in Support of Motion
• Exhibit A — The Idaho Republican Party Platform
• Exhibit B — Idaho Republican Resolution passed June, 16, 2006
• Exhibit C — Bill Cope’s Boise Weekly article titled “Clown Control.”
• Exhibit D — Idaho Attorney General’s Opinion, March 1, 2007
• Request for Judicial Notice

Idaho Democrats require “Loyalty Oath” before state caucus

It is quite interesting that should one be inclined to participate in the Idaho Democratic State Caucus, one must sign a “loyalty oath” stating that they intend to vote Democratic in the following general election. Hummmm!?!

Idaho Statesman editor and blogger Kevin Richert writes:

Idaho Democrats have tried to get a lot of mileage out of the Republicans’ stubborn insistence to close their primary election.

Drowned out in the debate is the fact that, eight months from now, Idaho Democrats will use an in-house exercise to weed out the presidential field.

The Feb. 5 caucuses — part of a Rocky Mountain Super Tuesday say Idaho Democrats — are clearly a members-only affair. In order to participate in the process, and the horse-trading and delegate-picking that goes on, one must first sign a card declaring allegiance to the party.

Making the Idaho GOP Vibrant, again!

This blog has been created to update the Idaho Republican grassroots about the recent events surrounding party registration, whereby Republicans will select their candidates at primary elections and not have the results skewed by Democrats and others who engage in cross-over voting to influence the grassroot Republicans’ choices.

Party Registration: The NEW Idaho GOP Rule, Platform and Resolution

The underlined text represents the new rules provision adopted on June 2, 2007 by the Idaho Republican Party State Central Committee. 

The resolution and the party platform (below) passed at the 2006 convention. 

Idaho Republican Party Rules

ARTICLE IX: CENTRAL COMMITTEE ENDORSEMENT AND REPUBLICAN PARTY REGISTRATION REQUIRED TO VOTE IN A REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ELECTION

Section 1: County Central Committees may determine the political affiliation of candidates filing or declaring an intent to file as Republican candidates for county political offices and may endorse Republican candidates for their respective positions.

Section 2: The Legislative District Central Committees may determine the political affiliation of candidates filing or declaring an intent to file as Republican Party Candidates for the State Legislature, and the Committee may endorse Republican candidates for legislative positions.

Section 3: The State Central Committee may determine the political affiliation of candidates filing or declaring intent to file as Republican Party Candidates for state political offices and U.S. Congressional offices, and may endorse Republican Party candidates for the various positions. Endorsement of Congressional District Candidates shall be by voting members from the respective Congressional Districts.

Section 4: Only persons who have registered as a Republican prior to the Primary Election will be allowed to vote on an Idaho Republican Party ballot in that Primary Election.

Idaho Republican Party Platform (Passed at 2006 Convention)

XXIV. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT

The Idaho Republican Party believes that Primary elections in the Idaho Republican Party should be open to all people who have registered as a Republican prior to the Primary election and that the Idaho Legislature should pass legislation that would provide for the same.  To allow those who have no loyalty or allegiance to the Idaho Republican Party or its’ Platform and Resolutions to select our candidates is simply not proper. 

Idaho Republican Party Resolutions

Resolution to De-Regulate the Idaho Republican Party

(Passed at 2006 Convention)

Whereas, the Idaho Republican Party is a private political party and not an agent for the state of Idaho; and

Whereas, the State of Idaho has passed certain laws to regulate and dictate to the Idaho Republican Party the rules for candidate selection and other matters; and

Whereas, The Idaho Republican Party believes the best way to achieve its’ goals and objectives as represented by the Party Platform and Party Resolutions is to have as much self-determination as possible and the least amount of state interference and regulation as practicable; and

Whereas, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings provide that state regulation of private political parties deprives such parties and their members of the rights of free speech and free association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. constitution; NOW

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Idaho Republican Party petition the Governor of the State of Idaho and members of the Idaho Legislature to repeal laws that regulate political parties and enact such laws that will provide for maximum self-determination, including, but not limited to methods of candidate selection, and access to Republican Party primary ballots.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Idaho Republican Party should use all means available to provide for such maximum self-determination.

Yeah, like we really need Fisher’s help

 By Rod Beck (former Idaho State Majority Leader)   June 17, 2007

Ultraliberal Jim Fisher is now giving advice to the Idaho Republican Party!

As amazing as it sounds, it’s true. Fisher - leftist editorial writer at the Lewiston Tribune - is dispensing election advice to the Idaho GOP.

He thinks the Idaho Republican Party should not have adopted a rule that would prevent Democrats, like him, from participating in a Republican primary.

Actually, Fisher and Bill Cope (from Boise Weekly), liberal editorial writers both, are the twin poster boys for why the Idaho GOP is on the right track in closing its leadership selection process to Democrats.

Both have bragged about and encouraged Democrats to cross over and “help” Republicans pick their candidates. They and their ilk are the reasons the Idaho GOP have said enough is enough. No more liberal Democrats participating in choosing Idaho Republican leadership.

The Idaho Republican Party’s state central committee recently voted to adopt a rule that would not allow those, like Jim Fisher, and other Democrats who want to defeat the GOP, a chance to be included in choosing Republican leaders.

What a novel approach.

It’s such a strange notion that a majority of other states in the union have been doing just that for years. Registration by political party is a requirement in a majority of the states in the nation.

You might also be surprised to know that Idaho Democrats already hold a closed nominating process. Idaho Democrats participate in a closed caucus to choose delegates pledged to certain presidential candidates to the Democratic national convention and are not open to Republicans.

Imagine that. The Democratic National Committee rules prohibit recognition of any votes in states like Idaho that allow crossover voting. When you hear Democrats moaning about the new Idaho Republican rule, think duplicity.

Several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that said a state has no business dictating to a private political party how to choose its leaders. And the U.S. Supreme Court is right on target with that issue.

The Idaho Republican Party responded to that ruling at the June 2006 state convention by passing a platform position, a resolution and even a proposed rule regarding party registration and to prohibit non-Republicans from participating in the choosing of Republican leaders.

The Idaho Legislature followed up by introducing two bills regarding a party registration requirement. There was no vote taken on either bill even though members of the Legislature knew the Idaho Republican Party would formally adopt such a rule at the June meeting.

The Legislature had a chance to do the right thing, but failed. And Democrats like Fisher were leading the charge in opposition to the effort. They want to continue to have influence in the Republican leadership selection process.

A political party is best defined as people who join together with a common set of governing values and principles for the purpose of electing people to public office.

As the positions of a political party become known and accepted by larger groups, it becomes a franchise.

Just as you know what to expect when you obtain any franchised product, you should also know what to expect when you elect a Republican or a Democrat.

Members of the Idaho Republican Party have been disenfranchised for years. Does it not seem strange to periodically witness Republicans acting like Democrats? The Republican Party offers a franchise of less government regulation relying instead on the free market and the strength of the individual and therefore lower taxes.

Occasionally, some people run for public office as Republicans who are more interested in the accumulation of power than ascribing to Republican values of less government. These are the politicians who routinely ignore the Republican parties’ platform and corresponding resolutions.

To allow Jim Fisher, Bill Cope and other Democrats the option to join in the selection of Republican leaders is to disenfranchise all Republicans.

That is why the U.S. Supreme Court said it is wrong. The freedom of association also includes the freedom to not associate. The natural consequences of a dilution of the Republican vote in a Republican Primary election are a gradual disconnect from the governing principles of the Republican Party.

How many University of Idaho football fans would appreciate the alumni association at Boise State University being allowed to participate in choosing the quarterback and starting lineup for the University of Idaho?

Republicans don’t appreciate the likes of ultra leftist liberals like Jim Fisher, et. al, participating in the selection of our quarterback and starting lineup either.

Rod Beck is the former Republican majority leader in the Idaho State Senate.

Closed Primaries … why the issue?

By Rep. Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian) 

The Republican party voting this weekend to close their Primary is not a new surprise to many of us. My legislation this past session was to avert this vote in the party and to allow for either party to set the rules for running their spring primary. It’s unfortunate that we were not able to pass this legislation due to folks believing it was “the Republican’s trying to pull something”.

As a matter of fact, we were trying to change the Idaho code to ensure that the state’s election process for ALL parties was designed to provide for the most effective use of our states dollars used to run these primary elections.

Any party is now allowed to set it’s own rules for running their primary elections as decided by the US Supreme Court in 2000 in a case brought by the Democrats against the state of California.

Stratigic cross over voting impacts the results of a primary election, although the Executive Director of the Idaho Democratic Party touts “this is nothing but urban legend” is either not being honest or is really uninformed about his own party’s primary elections. It has so much of an impact that the National Democratic Party will not have a 2008 Presidential Primary in the State of Idaho becuase we don’t have controls regarding stratigic cross over voting. They have not had a Presidential Primary for years in this state. Saying that he is “not aware it happens in Idaho” is just a faultshood or he is not aware of what his own party is up to.

Is stratigic cross over voting happening in Idaho? It is alive and well, I have received letters and have the following links as proof:

Tuesday, I voted the straight Republican ticket
Jim Fisher, Lewiston Morning Tribune
1994-05-29
Page: 3FAs an Eagle Scout, I did my good deed last week by helping the Grand Old Party of Idaho select its general election candidates.No need to thank me, you Republicans. It was nothing really. The Democrats didn’t offer me much reason to go to the polls.Besides, I have a lot of practice at this. I’m a native Washingtonian.

Washington readers may or may not know that they and Alaskans share the distinction of conducting the nation’s only blanket primary elections. Under a blanket primary system, voters may cross from party to party on the same ballot to help choose nominees, and
as long as they don’t vote in more than one party for any one race, their ballots are perfectly acceptable.

Idaho, like several other states, has what’s called an open primary. That means you must choose which party’s primary you are going to vote in, and stick with it throughout the ballot. If you cast one vote in any other party, your ballot is thrown out.

Even though it is more restrictive than Washington’s system, an open primary still offers the ability to pick and choose depending on the election. If the Democrats offer the more interesting choices this year, you can vote in the Democratic primary. And if the Republicans offer the better array two years down the road, you can move over to their column.

Closed primary states do their best to prevent this. In those states, you must be a registered member of a particular party to vote in its primary.

Closed primary proponents, otherwise known as party regulars, say that system is best because it keeps members of other parties from crossing over and sabotaging their ticket. And I know what they mean by that. Time was when I was more mischievous than I am now.

I was a Washingtonian at that time, and that state’s ballot gave me full opportunity to help one party pick its strongest candidate when it needed my vote and to help the other party pick its weakest when I thought my vote would do some, er, bad.

And I could do both on the same ballot. If, say, I wanted to re-elect the incumbent Republican governor, as I invariably did when Dan Evans was governor, I could skip his primary, which he was assured of winning, and vote for the Democrat it would be easiest for Evans to beat. At other times, I would be rooting for a Democrat with a safe or no primary race, and would vote for the goofiest candidate on the GOP ballot.

The trouble with voting that way, aside from the fact that it drives party regulars up the wall, is that sometimes goofs get elected. That’s possible in every state, even Washington, but it’s even more likely in Idaho. So as an Idahoan, I consider it my duty to help whichever party whose primary I participate in choose its best horses.

I’ll give you an example. If I were Larry EchoHawk, the Democratic nominee for this year’s race for governor, I would rather go up against Republican Larry Eastland than Republican Phil Batt. Eastland takes more extreme positions and is easier to paint as a reckless character than Batt, who is more moderate in his approaches to issues and in his temperament.

But I’m not EchoHawk. I’m an ordinary Idahoan who will have to live with whichever candidate gets elected. And I would rather live with a Gov. Batt than a Gov. Eastland. So I cast my vote for Batt on Tuesday.

I followed that same impulse down the ballot: in the races for Larry LaRocco’s 1st District House seat, for state school superintendent, for state auditor, for lieutenant governor and for a few local offices.

The Democrats didn’t offer me anywhere near that many choices. There was the lopsided contest between EchoHawk and Ron Beitelspacher, and what I trusted (mistakenly) would be an equally lopsided race among incumbent Latah County Commissioner Dana Magnuson and two opponents, but that was about it.

So last week at least, I was a Republican. And a sincere one to boot. Come November, I might vote for some or none of the candidates I supported Tuesday. But that’s my business. It is, as they say, a free country.”

Other examples:

Cross over letter 1 from Bingham county

Cross over letter 2 from Bingham county

Boise Weekly Recommending Cross over voting from Boise

This is not about one party trying to “get one up” on the other party, it’s about closing loop holes in our state’s primary election process to allow the parties to run their primary in the way that they believe will provide them with the best representative candidates of their party for the fall election. It doesn’t matter what party… it does matter that it’s not diluted by people that don’t have that party’s best interest at heart when they cast their ballots.

Cheers,  Marv

Raul Labrador: How can Democrats cry foul when they hold closed caucuses?

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.

Head Democrat: GOP Closed Primary Threatens Voters’ Freedom and Privacy

Wednesday, June 13, 2007
(New West)By Clint Stennett
Idaho Democratic Senate Leader

As an Idaho voter, you need to know that there’s a battle going on right now inside the GOP that would take away your right to privacy. It’s happening right here in Idaho and it effects one of the most sacred places of government – the voting booth – where you make your choices behind a curtain of secrecy.

There’s a reason the secret ballot is treated with such care and reverence when you appear at your election poll. Our founding fathers had the wisdom to realize that only a secret ballot would render a true picture of the public will. If individuals had to show their marked ballot to the public, powerful politicians might use retribution or intimidation to change the outcome.
It’s hard to believe, but that’s exactly the kind of thing that’s happening in Idaho today as the right wing of the Republican Party seeks to close its primary elections by requiring party registration.

Here’s the background: Idaho currently has open primary elections. Any eligible person can vote in any primary, no matter which party they claim as their own. In fact, more than 30 percent of Idahoans say they are independent of ANY political party, according to Boise State University ’s most recent Public Policy Survey.

The new Republican proposal that’s being considered would prevent anyone who isn’t a registered member of the Republican Party from voting in the Republican primary election.
The most glaring problem with this idea is that it would make your party affiliation instantly available to anyone—your employer, your teachers, the police—even your church clergy would be able to “check up” on your voting habits.

If that’s the case, how many voters will feel forced to join a political party purely out of peer pressure?  How many party activists will be forced to become “independents” – or unaffiliated – because they believe their political choice will not be popular with people who have influence over them?

This is why Idahoans so fiercely value their independence; and while other states might allow for closed primary elections, it’s a bad idea in Idaho.

There’s also the very real problem that would occur when a minority of voters is allowed to select representation for a majority of voters, based solely on political affiliation.

How could that happen? Consider this:  Say you live in a legislative district where three Republicans are competing against each other for the same senate seat. One candidate, a moderate, has held the office for many years. She is being challenged by a ultra-conservative Republican and a liberal Republican. There are no other challengers in the race.

Under this scenario – one which is not uncommon in Idaho—the winner of the Republican primary election in May will effectively have won the general election in November.

Yet according to the proposed change, only registered Republicans would be allowed to vote in the May election. Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, independents—all will be locked out. As a result, it’s quite possible that a minority of voters will be allowed to choose the legislative senate representation for the entire district. That’s just wrong.

The right wing of the Republican Party is pushing this issue forward, probably into the courts, in an attempt to take away your electoral privacy and perhaps render your ballot useless (unless you pass their party “purity” test).

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself one question – Just what “problem” do you think they are they trying to fix? Yours, or theirs?

Clint Stennett of Ketchum is Senate Democratic Leader in the Idaho State Legislature.

Will closed primaries hurt voters?

Excerpts from CDA Press: 

By TOM GREENE
Staff writer - Coeur d’Alene Press 

Otter, Newcomb say move would disenfranchise independent voters

COEUR d’ALENE — A courtroom showdown is brewing between the GOP and the state over whether primary elections should be closed or open.

“We now have a party rule that is in conflict with state statute,” said Rod Beck, a former state Republican senator from Boise. “The only way to resolve that conflict is to have a court declare that statute unconstitutional.”

The Idaho Republican Party Central Committee voted 88-58 in favor of closing party primaries earlier this month.

Critics — including many Democrats and Republicans from former Speaker of the House Bruce Newcomb to the GOP chairman to Gov. Butch Otter — say closing primaries will disenfranchise independent voters who will no longer be able to vote in primaries.

Supporters say it’s a no-brainer: A party has the constitutional right to chose its own candidate.

The law is seemingly on the side of Republicans who want to close the primaries.

In an opinion rendered by Attorney General Lawrence Wasden in March

at the request of House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, Wasden wrote:

“If one or more of Idaho’s qualified political parties adopts rules requiring voters to register as party members before voting in the party’s primary election, an Idaho court is likely to uphold the party’s right to do so and to declare Idaho’s open primary election system an unconstitutional infringement upon the party and its members’ First Amendment right to freely associate.”

For the law to change, the opinion states, “the Idaho state Legislature would have to amend it, or the aggrieved party or members of the political party would have to sue the state to effect change.”

There is currently no voter registration in Idaho, but a survey released earlier this year by Boise State said 32 percent of Idahoans consider themselves independent, 44 percent Republican and 18 percent Democrat.

Bev Moss, chair of the Kootenai County Democrats, said she understands the fear that there could be cross-over voting in primaries, but that has rarely, if ever occurred and “if we go to this it totally disenfranchises 30 percent of the voters, at least.”

“They don’t want to be put in a box. They want to be independent,” Moss said. “In order to do this, they will have to declare a party and I think instead of doing that they just won’t vote.”

With an overwhelming majority of Republicans holding offices in the state, Moss said, “What problem are they trying to fix?”

Ruthie Johnson, GOP state committee woman for Kootenai County, said voters will still able to vote for whoever they want in the general election, but in the primaries “Republicans ought to vote for Republicans and Democrats should vote for Democrats.”

“Because if anybody can go and pick up any ballot they want, then the Democrats can pick the Republicans’ candidate for them,” Johnson said.  [More...]

In Wasden’s opinion, he wrote that the administrative burden was not a justified reason to not open primaries and had been shot down in other courts.

Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa said a lawsuit is “probably inevitable.”

“It’s a matter of when,” said Ysursa, who would register as a Republican If Idaho made party registration mandatory. “It’s going to be a difficult task to defend our law against this rule.” [More...]