It looks like there’s a new push underway to return to “closed” primary elections in Hawaii.
In November, Oahu Democratic Party Chairman Tony Gill appealed to the board of the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, the faculty union, to support a federal lawsuit challenging Hawaii’s open primary.
Gill, who also serves as UHPA’s legal counsel, told the board of directors the open primary “allows voters from one party to unfairly influence the outcome of another party’s primary if they so choose,” according to a report of the meeting mailed to all UH faculty.
In a closed primary, voters must declare their party preference before voting in the primary election of their designated party. Hawaii had a closed primary system until it was overturned by the 1978 Constitutional Convention, which proposed a constitutional amendment doing away with the party preference requirement. The amendment was approved by voters, and we’ve been an open primary state ever since.
According to the UHPA board report:
Mr. Gill explained that the freedom of association provision of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supports a process that allows political parties to determine who can vote in their primary and that Hawaii’s primary election law is out of compliance with the freedom of association provision in the U.S. Constitution. In order to rectify this error, a lawsuit must be filed and Mr. Gill asked UHPA to consider supporting this federal litigation.
After what was described as a “lengthy discussion,” UHPA voted to cover up to $20,000 in out-of-pocket expenses related to the legal challenge.
The Board’s motion also clarified that UHPA’s financial support would not cover actual attorney’s fees and that the Democratic Party of Hawaii, which is making the challenge, will attempt to cover any expenses on its own and will also seek other interested parties to assist in covering out-of-pocket legal expenses.
Gill and others point to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), summarized by Oyez.org.
In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that California’s blanket primary violates a political party’s First Amendment right of association. “Proposition 198 forces political parties to associate with — to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by — those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. “A single election in which the party nominee is selected by nonparty members could be enough to destroy the party.” Justice Scalia went on to state for the Court that Proposition 198 takes away a party’s “basic function” to choose its own leaders and is functionally “both severe and unnecessary.” Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. “This Court’s willingness to invalidate the primary schemes of 3 States and cast serious constitutional doubt on the schemes of 29 others at the parties’ behest is,” Justice Stevens wrote, “an extraordinary intrusion into the complex and changing election laws of the States.”
Although the 2006 Hawaii Democratic Party convention passed a resolution favoring a closed primary and authorizing legal action, internal debate scuttled previous attempts to challenge the current law.
A Honolulu Advertiser story by Derrick DePledge in December 2007 described the intra-party debate.
The Democratic Party of Hawai’i agreed to a resolution at its state convention last year supporting closed primaries to deter crossover voting. Activists have been pressuring the party’s leadership for months to file a lawsuit against the state’s chief elections officer challenging the state’s open primary system as unconstitutional.
Many of the party’s elected leaders, including U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, fear a lawsuit could be a tactical mistake and a public-relations embarrassment. The Hawai’i State AFL-CIO, one of the party’s most important political allies, has threatened to withhold financial support from the party if a suit is filed.
The rift is between some of the party’s liberal activists, who believe too many of the party’s elected leaders have drifted from the party’s platform, and pragmatists who want the party to appeal to an increasingly independent electorate.
Several Democrats declined to comment publicly and some involved had hoped the dispute could be quietly resolved internally. The party is known for its factionalism and, with its leadership aging, competing camps are positioning for future control.
Andrew Walden, writing in the Hawaii Free Press in 2009, compiled a number of previous news articles about the issue.
Democrats are not alone in opposing the current open primary. Hawaii Republicans have also targeted the law. The Hawaii County GOP adopted a resolution in 2009 urging a lawsuit to block the open primary provision of the state constitution, although the state GOP failed to follow suit.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the Democrats actually carry through, this litigation will result in the reinstitution of party-line voter registration. The resulting influx of members into all of Hawaii’s political parties will make them more reflective of and responsible to their core voters.
I don’t think so. More likely it would drive voter participation, already at record lows, even lower. You would have candidates being elected by a handful of party hacks rather than any meaningful representation of the public.
Voter participation and party membership are different issues. Right now there are about 4000 people who run the inside of the Democratic Party and a smaller number running the GOP. With party-line registration, every voter who regards him/herself as Democrat will check the Democrat box. Party membership would easily be over 100,000. That changes the internal dynamics of both parties a lot.
As for voter participation, when voters have two attractive choices there is greater interest and greater turnout. When the don’t have such great choices, or the outcome is a forgone conclusion, there is apathy. Contrary to the cynics, the party system is therefore important to promoting turnout and low turnout in Hawaii is largely because the GOP does not always offer credible candidates with a real chance of winning. Dems don’t vote because they know they are going to win and Repubs don’t vote because they don’t have a good candidate to vote for. Independents don’t vote for one of the two reasons, depending on the race.
In 30 years of voting I have never been affiliated with a political party, although I do lean a certain way toward which party usually gets my vote. But since that decision often involves holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two stinkers, not officially affiliating with a party is my small way of protesting the utter crap choices we’re often presented with at the polls.
In the two states I’ve lived in that required a party declaration I have always chosen “non-partisan,” but I missed being able to vote in the primaries. The open primary is one of very few things I like about Hawaii politics and I hope that won’t change. If it does, neither party will gain a new member in me, but one or the other will lose a legitimate and thoughtful vote in its primary.
CiCi — In Hawaii the term “Non-partisan” is actually treated on the ballot as the name of a political party; which means that if a voter chooses a “non-partisan” candidate in any particular contest, then the voter must vote ONLY among the “non-partisan” candidates in all other contests.
Here’s a well-known joke. Two people are sitting in a bar. One says, “Do you think there’s too much ignorance and apathy?” The other replies, “I don’t know and I don’t care.”
Now consider the citizen who takes the time to register and then to vote, but who leaves the ballot blank on some contests. That blank vote in any particular contest indicates either that the voter has not taken the time to learn about the candidates, or else the voter knows about the candidates but is disgusted with all of them. That voter, who invested time and effort to register and vote, is neither ignorant nor apathetic about the issues and candidates overall. But by voting blank the voter is admitting both ignorance and apathy regarding a particular contest, or else is proclaiming a rejection of all the candidates and perhaps also anger at having no candidate worthy of support. Some jurisdictions, like Nevada, offer “none of the above” as a choice to show knowledgeable rejection of all candidates; but in Hawaii we have only the blank.
I believe that if “blank” is the actual winner of a contest, then the voters have spoken and all of those candidates have been rejected by the people. In such a case the Governor should appoint someone to fill the office, but the Governor should be prohibited from appointing anyone whose name appeared on the ballot.
In both the primary and general elections of 2008, there were contests for the Board of Education where the number of blank votes was larger than the number of votes received by any of the candidates. OHA contests appear only on the general election ballot. In 2008 three of the four OHA contests had more blank votes than any of the candidates received, while the winner in the fourth contest had fewer than two percent more votes than there were blanks.
In Hawaii we’ve all been told that “blank votes count as ‘no’ votes on state Constitutional amendments.” That’s a half-truth. The Constitution is so important that we have a rule that we will not amend it unless the amendment passes by an absolute majority of “all votes cast upon the question.” The state Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that the number of “yes” votes must be larger than 50% of all the votes, where all the votes include yes, no, and blank. However contrary to common sense it may be, a blank is treated as a vote which was cast upon the issue. Therefore there must be more yeses than the combined total of noes and blanks. The practical effect is that a blank counts as though it is a no.
Blank votes are counted as votes, and already have great power when it comes to Constitutional amendments. My proposal merely extends that power to the election of candidates to office.
Blank means no. Silence is not consent. If “blank” is the winner of a contest, that means the voters were either ignorant and apathetic about the candidates or else the voters were knowledgeably and vigorously rejecting them all. Either way, the voters have said they don’t want any of those blankety-blank candidates in office. The office should be declared vacant and should be filled by the Governor appointing someone who was not on the ballot.
While I admit some sympathy towards the NOTA option, I think the idea breaks down for practical reasons. If the NOTA option were to receive more votes than any candidate, one COULD propose a new election. You (wisely) do not recommend such a remedy.
Instead, you would grant the Governor the power to fill the vacancy. I cannot see how increasing autocracy serves as a useful remedy for a defect in democracy.
Let me suggest this be left to “the Market” rather than to a king? In a district where voters are either apathetic, disinterested or otherwise unmotivated by the candidates on the ballot, other candidates and/or the political parties will take notice. Heck, even an ordinary citizen, surveying the situation, can decide to challenge the unpopular incumbent. Given the advantages of incumbency, the power of special interests, etc., mine is not a perfect solution. But I suggest it is superior to increasing the power of a Governor, ANY Governor, to hand pick legislators.
Anyone who thinks this is a simple matter has not spent much time looking into it. I’ve read the Supreme Court ruling in the Davis case and STRONGLY recommend it to anyone before they commit themselves to a position on the matter.
In short, the Court finds the constitutional right to political free association is a fundamental right. Meaning the right to associate with like-minded fellow citizens to petition the government or organize for political change cannot be interfered with by the state without there being an over-riding, legitimate public purpose. And whatever interference is asserted must be narrowly tailored to serve that purpose with minimal infringement on that right.
The right of a political party to make its own decisions, whether in articulating its platform or selecting candidates to run under its banner, are central to its purpose for being. The right to associate with like-minded people for political purposes includes the right to NOT associate with people who may fundamentally oppose the purposes of the organization.
Hawaii’s open primary law forces the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Greens to allow people hostile to their purpose to participate in the selection of their candidates and therefore violates their fundamental constitutional right to political free association.
I think that argument is unassailable. Some advocates for open primaries argue they produce more “centrist” candidates and believe that is a desirable thing and is a legitimate “public purpose.” Not everyone agrees with that purpose. Advocates for “centrist” politics are free to start their own centrist political party. They can create bi-partisan (or non-partisan) groups to spread public support for centrist approaches. But they cannot infringe of the rights of more ideological people to organize among themselves based upon their own sense of a productive political strategy.
If centrists have enough strength within the Democratic or Republican parties, they are free to vote for centrist candidates in the primary. If they are a minority within the party, and are unable to convince their fellow members that centrist candidates might fare better in the general election, their favored candidates will likely lose. Going outside the party’s base in order to recruit non-members to interfere in what should be an internal decision, is not kosher.
So I agree with Tony Gill, and the US Supreme Court, on the fundamentals of the legal case for a closed or “party” primary. And Gill has won over a majority of Hawaii Democrats to his position. Not just once, but on multiple occasions.
I make that point because I have doubts about the wisdom of pushing for the closed primary in the face of continued resistance from almost all the unions, most Democratic office-holders and, in my perception, most of the general public. Gill and the Democrats pushing this, have not seen the need for selling the idea to the natural allies of the party nor to the general public.
Having reviewed what happened in California after the Supreme Court ruling, I also think Gill (and others) are overselling the alleged benefits to be derived from moving to a closed primary, even if we win the court battle, which I think we WILL win.
Anyone who knows him appreciates that Tony is intellectually brilliant. But “politics” is about more than just having a winning legal argument.
I feel obliged to bite my tongue and allow this to play out with minimal kibitzing on my part. I was on the losing side in this argument and cannot uphold the right of a party’s membership to make its own decisions while continuing to undermine the decision once it has been arrived at.
I have never belonged to any political party. During the 20 years I lived in Massachusetts, when I went to vote in the primary election the pollbook clerk would see in the pollbook that I was not a party member and would ask me which party’s ballot I wanted. I would choose one party, whereupon the clerk would hand me the appropriate ballot and put that party’s name next to my name in the pollbook and my voter registration was thereby changed to show I was (now) a member of that party. But that would mean that two years later, in the next primary election, I could only get that party’s ballot. Therefore, to keep my freedom of action, I always went to the elections office a few days later to remove my name from the party and to change my pollbook designation to unaffiliated.
So, I’m wondering, if Hawaii moves to a closed primary, would we use that Massachusetts system which allows people to stay “independent” or “unaffiliated” until voting day and then choose a party; or would we use a system where people not already a registered member of any party would be prohibited from voting in primary elections?
Hawaii currently uses the Massachusetts system except that in Hawaii we have full privacy of party affiliation because there is no record made of which party’s ballot we choose on primary day, and the elections office does not know which party we belong to, if any. In Hawaii the voter list is posted on the wall outside the polling place, so anyone in the world can see the name and address of who is registered to vote in that precinct. If every voter has his party affiliation listed next to his name on that list, there could be nasty repercussions for voters registered in the “wrong” party (as judged by bosses and neighbors). Even if the party affiliation is excluded from what gets posted on the wall, it would still be known to elections officials, and presumably that information could be seen by anyone who goes to the elections office to look for it (think FOIA).
A truly closed primary (not the Massachusetts system) would result in much less confusion at the polls on primary day. For the past 18 years I have been a precinct elections official for every election (except one general election when I was a candidate and therefore could not be an elections official). At every primary election there is great confusion among the voters, who think they should be able to vote for their favorite Republican for one contest but also vote for their favorite Democrat (or Green or Libertarian or whatever) for a different contest. Often my job was to be a greeter at the door, where I had to explain to people that they must choose one party for that day and cast all their votes inside that one party for all contests. I told them that “It doesn’t matter what party you really belong to, or whether you belong to no party at all — for today your job is to be a loyal member of just one party and choose which candidates that party will run in the general election. So pick a party first and then stay with it for the next 30 minutes.” Lots of people screwed up anyway and had to “spoil” their ballot and try again; and some of them with low IQ or little time or little patience simply said “To heck with this” and went home without voting.
This case would not cause “Hawaii” to move to a closed primary. It would allow Hawaii Democrats to hold a closed primary from which non-Democrats are excluded. Other political parties can and likely will make different choices after Gill wins this case. For instance, since Republicans are a minority, it would be illogical for them to exclude independents from their primary.
Part of the problem is treating the entire ballot as a single entity. E.g., when there is a Constitutional issue on the ballot, it is not possible for someone who only wants to vote for his/her County Council representantive to not affect the Constitutional question.
A closed primary disenfranchises independent voters, not just “voters from another party.” Most people in Hawaii now identify themselves as independent. Is it being suggested that they don’t matter?
Should the lawsuit prevail, it will be up to the Legislature to come up with the new system. The likely result would be similar to what California adopted in the aftermath of the ruling. Each party would regain control over who gets to vote in their primary. As a practical matter, both the Democratic and Republican parties decided to allow anyone not formally affiliated with another party to vote in their primary. In exchange, each party got a list of those who chose their party’s ballot.
Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Peace & Freedom members, etc., were not able to vote in the Democratic primary. But those formally independent WERE allowed. As a practical matter, neither of the major parties have an incentive to exclude independents if the other party is willing to include them. Therefore, the realworld difference would be much less than the advocates suggest.
There is an ongoing argument over how significant “crossover voting” is in Hawaii elections. Part of the problem is in agreeing upon a definition. I grew up in a Republican leaning district and am well aware many Republicans believe they have a complete right to vote in the Democratic primary, even if they intend to vote for the Republican in the General Election. Most of these people cast “sincere” votes, meaning they vote for the Democrat they would prefer to win IF a Democrat is going to win. A smaller number vote “insincerely” or “strategically,” meaning they are voting for the candidate they think will be easier for the GOP candidate to defeat in the General. And some are doubly sincere, in that they might be voting for a Democrat they want to defeat the GOP candidate in the General.
In recent years, particularly under Lingle’s influence, the GOP has encouraged its members to stay in the GOP primary. One of the reasons has been that Lingle has recognized Ed Case as a lifelong rival to her career plans and wants to keep him from winning enough Republican crossover votes to win the Democratic nomination and remain politically viable. She, like a lot of “machine Democrats,” wants Ed’s political career to crash and burn.
Finally, “independents” who do not want to join one of the political parties, would still “matter” even in the unlikely event they were to be excluded from a party’s INTERNAL choice of candidates by having the final say in the General Election.
Forcing a party to allow non-members to help pick their candidates disenfranchises party members. Folks wanting a say in electing a candidate have to find another avenue than hijacking the decision-making process of their fellow citizens who have created their own political parties in pursuit of THEIR political strategies.
In the coming general election for U.S. Senate the Dems are very afraid Lingle might win. But with our open primaries, there’s a way the Dems could knock out Lingle; namely, vote for Carroll in the Republican primary. If indeed crossing over to vote in the primary is truly a realistic possibility that could decide the winner of the opposite party’s primary, then 2012 is the time for Dems to cross over and vote for Carroll in order to knock out Lingle. The number of Republicans voting Republican in the primary will be small enough that the Dems could easily overwhelm them and put Carroll on the ballot as the Republican in the general election. If Dems fail to cross over in sufficient numbers in 2012 to accomplish that mission, then I think that’s pretty good evidence that crossover voting for strategic defeat of the strongest “enemy” will never really happen and should therefore not be an acceptable argument in the debate over whether to have closed primaries. Strategic crossover would appear to be a straw-man argument, and all the talk about the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association would then be seen as merely an “academic” issue with no practical effect in the real world.
Ken,
You will see in my comments I have not claimed “strategic” crossover voting has been successful. Most voters believe crossover voting WITH THIS MOTIVATION is a form of cheating and are reluctant to engage in it. It also makes calculations a bit complicated. “What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Politics is complicated enough without people “trying to be clever” in malicious ways above their pay grade.
But the constitutional right to political free association is not only violated by the blatant cheaters. A significant number of people who normally vote Republican in the General take a Democratic ballot in order to vote for the more “Republican-like” candidate among the Democrats. Both the Mufi and Case campaigns in recent years have made explicit appeals to Republican voters to take a Democratic ballot. During the 2010 Governor’s race, there was open debate among Republicans and religious conservatives over participating in the Democratic primary. You may remember the Aiona forces arguing Mufi was not “righteous” enough to merit support from religious conservatives. Some Aiona supporters wanted to vote for Hannemann to ensure both party’s candidates would be religious conservatives. Aiona’s people, blinded by the social conservatism, thought it would be easier to defeat Abercrombie in the general and used their stronger connections with conservative ministers to keep the flock from straying. Mufi employed Ken Wong and Dennis Arakaki to encourage religious crossover.
(Google Hannemann and “crossover” to find news accounts. Heck, Google “Ed Case” and “crossover”, too, if you doubt the phenomenon is taken seriously by Hawaii political campaigns).
You say if we cannot construct a test to prove malicious “strategic crossover voting” is a significant factor, then:
“Constitutional guarantee of freedom of association would then be seen as merely an ‘academic’ issue with no practical effect in the real world.”
Er, no.
The right to political free association is a FUNDAMENTAL right under our Constitution. It is not only infringed upon by conscious and malicious strategic crossover, motivated by a plan to nominate the opposite party’s weaker candidate.
In some states, dominated by Republicans, it is Democrats who cross over, realizing the eventual winner will probably be a Republican, so they resign themselves to trying to pick a more moderate Republican in the primary. That HAS BEEN effective and conservative Republican activists in those states support a closed primary. The Idaho Republicans underwent an internal debate over the matter in ways which closely paralleled the debate Hawaii Democrats have had the last several years. The more moderate, “establishment” party leadership with strong ties to GOP legislators, opposed the push for a closed primary, bringing them into conflict with the more conservative, activist base of the party.
When voters who generally vote Republican in the general, indeed, who plan to vote for the GOP candidate in the general, vote in the Democratic primary, they are violating the constitutional right of Democrats to choose their own candidates without interference from people opposed to the party. Hawaii’s open primary law obscures the fundamental constitutional nature –and the UNETHICAL nature– of that interference.
When the Hebrews and the Philistines lined up to do battle, the Hebrews did not get an opportunity to choose who should be the Philistine’s champion. They wouldn’t have voted for Goliath. They would’ve picked some puny little guy. And the Philistines didn’t have the option of voting who should be the champion for the Hebrews. Each side picked their own champion. And that is the function of the primary. Republicans, and those they allow into their decision-making process, huddle and pick their favored champion. The Dems huddle and pick their champion. Within the huddle, some advocate for the candidate who is most aligned with the party’s principles. Some argue who has the best chance of winning in the general. But it is THEIR decision to make, not those who hope their champion is going to be defeated.
I suppose a closed primary would be something like a caucus? Some states have them, and while
I’m not so sure they’re the way to go, possible abuses in a more of less anarchist primary might be minimized.
After all, folks we’re not talking about the general election, right?
Does the state have a legal obligation to conduct the party primaries? Could that responsibility be shifted back the political parties?
I cannot answer that legal question.
My sense of the history is that the move to the primary system was part of the Populist and Progressive reforms which swept the country at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th. When the choice of candidates was left entirely to the parties, decisions were made in party caucuses and conventions, “behind closed doors,” “in smoke-filled rooms,” etc.
The reform was to force onto the parties transparency and fairness. The state would pay for the primaries, but they had to be conducted according to set standards and under government supervision. There was enough of a compelling public purpose behind the reform that government would take over and pay for it.
Could the parties–or just one of them(?) opt to abandon the primary system and revert to caucuses, conventions or backroom dealmaking? I dunno, but I do not think that would be progress.
What I have not said and what Tony Gill has not mentioned is that the Court held states have the option of totally eliminating the partisan nature of the primary system and move to nonpartisan elections without infringing on the political rights of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, etc.. Those who think “centrism” is preferable have that option.
It could be if changes were made to HRS and possibly the constitution …but… it would not be desirable because the State Elections Commission gives far better protections of the electoral process than either party org ever could.
HOWEVER… There is one way that Gill’s litigation could be rendered null and void, and that would be the introduction of the Louisianna style “Jungle Primary” in Hawaii. And Calvin Say did introduce a bill last session “by request” which would do exactly that.
The reason the Jungle Primary would bypass Gill’s Freedom of Association issue is that the Jungle Primary is a winnowing process, not a party selection process. It therefore does not impose a nominee on a party against the wishes of the party to have a different type of primary.
AND … if the Jungle Primary came about, the only way parties could name a party nominee would be through a process they devise themselves.
The Jungle Primary is the wonderful system which gave LA the 1991 Ed Edwards vs KKKer David Duke contest. Slogan: “Vote for the crook, it matters.”
That’s my main objection to closed primaries, especially if they require party membership. I don’t want to underwrite an election in which I can’t participate. If the Dems want to choose their own candidate, they can pay for their own election.
I would also hope that party candidates who didn’t make it out of such private electtions would have the option of running as unaffiliated candidates in the general election.
“Hawaii had a closed primary system until it was overturned by the 1978 Constitutional Convention, which proposed a constitutional amendment doing away with the party preference requirement.”
Perhaps the next time we have the opportunity to have a Constitutional Convention, the democrat machine here will support instead of fight it.
I won’t comment on the substance of a potential lawsuit or the wisdom of the open-vs-closed primary, only the possible motive, since lawsuits by political parties rarely happen without a political reason, often grounded in the next election.
So while the Scalia opinion would seem to make the Democrat argument quite strong, one must ask what political reason compels a lawsuit *now,* as opposed to the last election, or the one before that. After all, the “problem” of an unconstitutional open primary has been in existence since the 1978 con con, and has certainly been more glaring since the Supreme Court’s decision in 2000.
So why this lawsuit, and why now? Why would the Democrats want to prohibit crossover GOP voters from the next Democratic primary?
The timing tells me the motive for this is to take down Ed Case, who seems like the Democratic candidate most likely to appeal to GOP voters who decide to vote the Democrat ballot in an open primary. Not saying this isn’t a legitimate goal of a lawsuit, it just seems to me to be the actual motive, though unspoken.
Actually, the timing of the suit, if filed, will be the result of internal developments within the party rather than its impact on the 2012 election. The party formally adopted support for such a lawsuit several years ago, but a string of party chairs refused to sign off on it. There has been very strong opposition to such a suit, coming especially from the Senator Inouye, influential unions and most elected officials.
While running for state chair in 2010, Dante Carpenter committed to supporting such a suit. Such a commitment, plus Gill’s availability have combined to create an opening. After the May 2012 state convention, there may be a new chair, not as supportive of the suit.
While the suit is NOT being triggered by Ed Case’s 2012 campaign, I think it is true that Ed’s repeated public calls for Republicans to cross into the Democratic primary has angered a lot of party members and helped motivate the push. Other party members believe Mike Gabbard would be hurt by shutting off crossover voting. But they are just two of the more obvious examples of relatively conservative Democrats who benefit from crossover and who are out of step with the views of most party activists. As a general statement, activists of both parties are unhappy with the RINOs and DINOs running under their party’s label.
The litigation is far too late to effect the 2012 election. 2014 is the earliest.
Perhaps, it would also be useful to look at how the current scheme makes it very difficult for a non-partisan candidate to get on the ballot. I would prefer to select a candidate that does not affiliate with a party. As I find political parties to be obnoxious marketing schemes that more often than not insult my intelligence.
I do not want to be forced to choose a party to vote for the candidate of my choice. I want to pick up a ballot with all candidates for the office present. I will make my informed choice as to who is the best according to my values.
Me too. Voters must have the right to choose whoever they want. I don’t even like it when I’m forced to vote for one party candidate or another.
How about open elections? All candidates who qualify (x number of names on a petition) appear on the primary ballot…which can be won outright with 50% plus….or, moves on to the general with a run off of the top two vote-getters. Like the city mayoral election.
Candidates can claim and appeal to whatever party affiliation they want, or run as independent.
This would empower the voters rather than shift leverage back to party insiders.
If we look at the City Council (or county councils on the other islands) for evidence of the superiority of a non-partisan system, I just don’t see it.
I offer for your evaluation our incumbent governor as an example of how the current system is performing.
You sidestepped my point. If non-partisan elections are superior to partisan-based ones, it should result in higher quality elected officials. I do not see it from ANY of the non-partisan elections currently used in Hawaii: county councils, mayors, OHA and, formerly, BOE.
You are not a “party insider.” But you have been a different kind of insider under the non-partisan system. It was not “the voters” who gained power under non-partisan elections, but insiders like yourself.
In both partisan and non-partisan elections, it is special interests and political operatives, often tied to those special interests, who are the most influential. Your use of the term “party insiders” is extremely vague and reinforces confusion. In both major parties, there are people who develop influence as “party” activists, sometimes divorced from any relationship with special interests. In fact, party involvement is a good way for an ordinary citizen to develop the knowledge and relationships to affect policy relatively independently from the normal special interests.
Not surprisingly, such activists in BOTH parties are viewed with suspicion by most elected officials and special interests. We can understand what motivates a special interest. After all, they are clearly motivated by their rational self-interest, looking for some favorable treatment. Because it is understandable, it ahs come to be treated as normal or healthy.
Citizens who become active in a political party as a means of engaging in civic involvement separate from “special interest” considerations, personal ambition, or to help an elected official with whom they are friends or relatives, are viewed as “ideological.”
Both the Democratic Party and the GOP are populated by people who believe political activity with like-minded people is a means of improving their society. I say that even as I disagree strongly with many of the “ideologues” (what a convenient word) in the other party. It is the civic-minded volunteers within the two parties who tend to support closed primaries. Not the professional politicians, not the elected officials who prefer to gain support from the “rational self-interested” special interests and personal friends than from the activist base of their party.
Removing “partisan” influences in elections does not result in the election of better candidates, as the non-partisan elections I offer for your consideration show. Whether strengthening partisan influences in the selection of candidates will improve the candidates remains unproven. At least to me.
The BIG reform would be to minimize special interest financial subsidies for politicians, either through public financing or through some sort of voucher system. The influence of party activists pales in comparison with the influence of private campaign financing, in my view.
Borrowed from a comment in Civil Beat (seemed appropriate):
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
— James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
I favor non-partisan elections also.
I don’t seen any evidence of superiority of a partisan system looking at our state legislature.
What I don’t see a lot in C&C Council discussions is blatantly party-line posturing.
As a matter of fact, a serious effort is underway in Arizona to have an initiative placed on the November ballot that would allow voters to amend the state constitution to do away with the party primary system in that state. So far, they have received 70,000 of the 259,213 signatures of qualified voters required to have the initiative added to the ballot. They have until July to collect the rest of the signatures.
Here’s their website:
http://azopengov.org/
And here’s how they explain the purpose of the initiative:
“Open Elections/Open Government will fundamentally change and reform our election process by implementing an open primary system where the top two vote getters, regardless of political party, will advance to a run-off election.”
“This will encourage more qualified and independent-minded candidates to seek elected office – candidates guided by common sense instead of extreme ideology from either side of the political spectrum. Even more important, Open Elections/Open Government will open our election process up to more VOTERS.”
(Ted Downing, an anthropologist, who served two terms in the Arizona House of Representatives as a progressive Democrat, is a strong backer of this effort.)
I hope this passes. It would be interesting to see how it works out for Arizona.
That AZ proposition is exactly the Louisianna Jungle Primary. WA did the same thing. Rollman is against this because he is a Hannemann operative and Hannemann would be finished in the Democratic party if there was a closed primary. He would have to join the GOP or quit politics.
I’m opposed to it because I think it polarizes and disenfranchises people.
The “Hannemann Operative” business is getting a little old and is factually incorrect.
How is the electoral system evolving in the United States?
Here is a summary of the history of the primary system from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#History
What this history of the growing importance of primary elections over national conventions overlooks is the fact that the conventions themselves were an innovation of the 1820s; the prior system consisted of having Congressmen choose candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_nominating_convention#History
From another article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Convention#History
“What this history of the growing importance of primary elections over national conventions overlooks is the fact that the conventions themselves were an innovation of the 1820”.
——————————————-
This is erroneous.
What I meant to write was:
“As the first paragraph of the above text notes, this history of the growing importance of primary elections over national conventions is fascinating for the fact that the conventions themselves were an innovation of the 1820s”.
I just want to point out that I know that I am kind of an idiot.
Not only was there a shift from Congressional caucuses toward conventions and then toward primaries, but in the 1960s primaries became even more entrenched and important.
The first great example of the new power of the primary system was the nomination of Jimmy Carter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#1976_presidential_campaign
This strategy was engineered by Jody Powell, Carter’s brilliant campaign strategist. Central to this strategy was the fabrication of Carter as a “peanut farmer”, a man of the people. What this self-presentation elided was that James Earle Carter, Jr. had a PhD in nuclear physics and was the captain of a nuclear submarine. What this image helped him to do was win in the South, which was still the core and foundation of the Democratic Party, economically in need of government support and culturally and socially conservative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1976.svg
The primary system also helped other outsiders become president since Carter. This includes Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barak Obama. Party insiders would never endorse such people because either the elite knew too much about the candidate’s flaws that the public did not know of (Clinton), or the elites would not know enough (Obama) – or both too much insider knowledge of a candidates flaws and not enough sense that the candidate was a known entity (Bush).