Party identification 101

From the Idaho Statesman this morning:

A last-minute bill in the Legislature would limit who can vote in party primary elections.

The bill, engineered by the leader of a good-government group, would prohibit registered Democrats and Republicans from casting votes in each other's primaries. It would let independents vote in any party's primary, but they would have to declare which one at the polling place.

Not sure what you are? Each of the two major parties can be summed up in a mere four words:

Republicans - The Party of Me
Democrats - The Party of We

Easy, huh? Hat tip to Chris, who first put it this succinctly here last June.

Comments

[sharon fisher]

That doesn't make sense though. I don't think Idaho has party registration, and people can already vote in any party's primary by declaring so.

[Irwin Horowitz]

Personally, I think any Democrat who wishes to vote in the Republican primary, under the obvious assumption that the winner of that election will undoubtably win in November, should declare themselves as Independent and vote in that primary.

If (or better, when) Idaho becomes a two party state with actual competitive races, then and only then should Democrats allow the Republicans carte blanche to choose their candidate.

[Julie in Boise]

Sharon, at present, primary voters get ballots listing all candidates and choose which ticket to vote within the voting booth.

The way I read this new bill, people WILL register by party. Independents can remain so (by choice or default; anyone who doesn't declare will be assumed to be I). But on primary election day, everyone will have to choose one ballot or the other.

Irwin, the closed primaries idea was first floated by the GOP just weeks after Bill Sali won the primary. That in itself speaks volumes about how GOP party leaders apparently believe that mischievous Democrats picked their candidate, and they weren't especially happy with the result! Of course, I know many other Dems voted for Sheila Sorensen as the least offensive of the pack last spring (using your philosophy), so it's impossible to pin Sali's win on us.

I still believe party registration may ultimately benefit Democrats, as it will finally give people a reason to think more deeply about which party best reflects their values. If we are ever going to bring back the two-party system, people first and foremost need to be willing to proudly assert that the Democratic Party most closely matches their world view.

Then again, you may see quite a few Democrats now change their registration to "I" so they can cross over at will, as Irwin suggests. That would be a shame.

I'd like to se the IDP do a real branding campaign to starkly delineate the differences between Rs and Ds and help people see the value in a strong two-party system. That ought to be Job 1 for the new exec director. (The job, by the way, has been advertised and applications are due April 6. Click my name.)

[The Nickel-Plated JA]

Frankly, I still believe in closed primaries: it's internal party business, it is up to the membership of a party to decide who its nominees are -- which is precisely the same stance our Democratic Party takes on the national level. In fact, why have primary elections at all? The Minnesota model (choose the Party's nominees at the State Party Convention) seems to work fairly well, even in a state significantly larger and more diverse than our own.

As far as branding goes, we have to be *very* careful what and how we brand. The electorate is a very broad multidimensional continuum: what you are looking for is any way to slice it that gets you a narrow majority -- which is, unfortunately , but to his credit, much of the Rovian genius; he took his experience with niche marketing (his business was highly-targeted commercial mailings) and applied it to modern, Riker-based political theory with highly effective results.

As Democrats, we spend WAAAY too much time focusing on things like messaging and issues and nowhere near enough effort making our candidates into electable "rock stars." If you're trying to broaden your tent, being laser-focused and on-message is not always the most effective approach. In particular, in parts of this state (Eastern Idaho and the Western Treasure Valley, specifically) we need to be looking for Dems in the Stallings/Reid model who may only agree with us 58% of the time, but will boost our caucus numbers and deny seats to the Rubs, especially their most extremist candidates.

[Irwin Horowitz]

I do believe in the benefit of a closed primary, where each party gets to put forth the person they want to be their candidate for a particular office. However, until there is true two-party rule here in Idaho, in order for my vote to count for anything, I need to make an informed decision on who runs as the Republican candidate. Yes, I did vote in the Republican primary last May, and yes, I did vote for Sheila Sorensen, based on my preference to have her represent me in DC rather than the idiot we ended up with.

After all, if we couldn't get Larry Grant to beat him, what hope do we as Democrats have here in the near future?

[Irwin Horowitz]

In addition, I find it embarrassing that there were Democrats who voted for Sali based on a foolish hope that he'd be defeated last November. To any of you who may be reading this, I blame you in part for the mess we're currently in with regards to our congressional representation.

[sharon fisher]

Ah, hadn't realized that the bill would also require registering by party.

It's going to make it pretty difficult for Democrats, for sure. Idaho has a lot of people who identify as independents anyway, and if registering as Democrat would mean that people had no say in their representatives...well...

Agreed that the best solution would be to have better Democratic candidates and campaigning, but we campaign with the candidates we have, as it were.

[MountainGoat]

It's no secret what my thoughts are on this issue...it's spelled out in several of my posts since the first bill was introduced.

I'm having a hard time understanding how they convinced Ysursa to go along with this after he opposed it so vocally before. The bill doesn't sound like it's much different than the second bill they had drafted although it sounds like they are now funding it...with taxpayer dollars I'm assuming.

I'm also wondering why Stallings thinks this is a good idea. Hoping to add to the voter list, I'm guessing, but is anyone really going to register as a Democrat for a primary election that for many local races, rarely sees ANY Democratic candidate, let alone two to choose from.

I fail to see how this benefits anyone but the GOP party loyalists who want to tighten their control on Idaho politics.

My 2 cents...or so.

[David Erin Anthony]

Talk about your imtimidation factor here folks....think about this...if you declare your party its on RECORD. Who can see that? Who is gonig to call or knock on your door to discuss what party you affiliated with and why? In addition, if the Republican primary does so well in overall numbers, many voters up in the air may question if its even worth voting for a Democrat. The only way this would work in the Democrats favor is if the numbers who vote in the primary is high. Democrats, and I include myself in this group...need to quick living in fear in this state. I was amazed how many people I would talk to around town and when they heard I was BSU Democrat they were quick to let me know they were Democrats as well. But they were also quick to add, we are so few. I keep telling everyone. There are more of us out there than what everyone thinks....We are just so intimidated by the tradition of this state. I'm with Larocco. Lets turn this state purple!

[David Erin Anthony]

Oh and Secretary of State Ben Ysursa got about 250,000 reasons in the budget for turning his back on the voters of Idaho. Thanks!

[The Nickel-Plated JA]

Who's intimidated?

The most liberal US Senator of the last century represented Idaho for 24 years. The most teflon-clad political figure in the history of the state is a 5-term Democratic governor. Our current state party chairman spent four terms in the House representing what many view as the most "hopeless" congressional district in the country.

Get up in THEIR grill. Snarl. Pick fights. Make it perfectly clear that we're "mad as Hell and [we're] not going to take it anymore."

If you're afraid of registering as a Democrat, you probably don't deserve the right to be voting for *anybody*. Earn it. Own it. Live it. There are plenty of states with far-more power-crazed, redneck Rub machines (think Texas as a great example) that have had semi-closed primaries (by voting in a party's primary, you publicly "register" as a member of that party for the ensuing 2 years) for quite some time.

Partisan registration is a legal requirement (not doing so violates the civil rights of parties themselves -- read the court cases related to it) and a GREAT tool: how many Democrats get overlooked because they aren't otherwise volunteers or donors? Talk about making people self-identify.

If we want to *WIN* races, we need to stop acting like the party of hopeless Woody Allens, and start fighting the suburban trench warfare that is required to get the job done. Democratic votes in Boise are easy... parading around bars in Eagle and Meridian and convincing the patrons that Wasden and his friends would just as soon close the places down permanently, on the other hand, takes political cohones.

[sharon fisher]

I thought the court cases only specified that people had to choose one party for a primary election, and couldn't pick and choose candidates from multiple parties in different races.

[Idagreen]

Idaho voters will NOT like closed primaries and registering by party. Having been a poll worker for some time, I know that most voters do not strongly affiliate with any party, but are more motivated by individual candidates and issues, and that's what brings independent voters in to vote in the primary. Democrats will not draw more people into a closed primary unless they present candidates! MG shows the numbers on his site, and it doesn't look too good.

I don't vote in the R primary, because I want to show my numerical support for the Ds. However, I understand the rationale for voting in the R primary. I don't agree with it, but I understand. I also don't believe there is statistically significant, malicious, crossover voting to pick the worst R, they can do that all by themselves.

[john gannon]

Party registration is an infringement on our right to privacy. These public records will be available to marketers and firms such as Choicepoint to further collect data on individuals.

Even more important, party registration should concern public employees. Ada County for example is moving toward an "at will" employment policy. Will R's do better? Conversely, do you get further in Boise City by being a D? Under present leadership neither the City nor County would do this I an sure, but there may be a more zealous leader in the future.

Political parties and politicians should focus on the people and not "which candidate" or "which party" will do better. The people of this State have a right to expect all elected officials to do their best to maintain privacy and neutrality in employment decisions and to maintain open elections.

[The Nickel-Plated JA]

Sharon, first of all, I'm no lawyer, but a quick read of California Democratic Party v. Jones suggests there's more to it than simply that 'blanket primaries are unconstitutional.' To borrow from the Scalia+5 opinion (the case was 7-2, Kennedy filed a concurring opinion, Stevens and Ginsburg dissented), "...the processes by which political parties select their nominees are not wholly public affairs that States may regulate freely. To the contrary, States must act within limits imposed by the Constitution when regulating parties' internal processes."

In particular, the decision is compelling when it comes to prior case law, "...which held not that party affairs are public affairs, free of First Amendment protections, ... but only that, when a State prescribes an election process that gives a special role to political parties, the parties' discriminatory action becomes state action under the Fifteenth Amendment." Pay particular attention to that: if and only if a party plays a "special role" in the process (which would be hard to establish in Idaho, since independent candidates can run virutally unfettered), can a party even be viewed as a state actor with regard to 15th amendment (racial discrimination) actions.

They go on further (and further indicting open primaries), "In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in its candidate-selection process. That process often determines the party's positions on significant public policy issues, and it is the nominee who is the party's ambassador charged with winning the general electorate over to its views. The First Amendment reserves a special place, and accords a special protection, for that process...." "Because there is no heavier burden on a political party's associational freedom, [it] is unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." This is becoming an increasingly hard-sell -- hence the overwhelming need in the Statehouse to see the law changed rather than pay to defend it against the promised forthcoming court challenge by the Republicans (which in all likelihood, the Democratic Party would join, much as the California Republicans and Libertarians joined in Jones).

Even more compelling is that any of the Progressive-era-reforms (even though Prob. 198 was a Century later!) as justifications were explicitly shut down by the Court: "None of respondents' seven proffered state interests-producing elected officials who better represent the electorate, expanding candidate debate beyond the scope of partisan concerns, ensuring that disenfranchised persons enjoy the right to an effective vote, promoting fairness, affording voters greater choice, increasing voter participation, and protecting privacy-is a compelling interest justifying California's intrusion into the parties' associational rights."

[MountainGoat]

I think that most Idahoans consider the designations R and D to be ideological references rather than affiliations and will resent being required to register. My opinion is that we'll see less voter turnout at the primary among independents and Democrats.

It certainly appears that the only beneficiaries of this are the Republican party loyalists who will have large voter files and tighter control on Idaho politics. Basically the Republicans are saying, for many of these districts that have had no Democratic candidates, you must join our party in order to vote for your legislators. 34% of the legislative races last election had no Democratic candidate, 20% of the Districts had no Democrats in any of the three legislative races. (click my name for the links.)

Democrats certainly have to offer voters more than last election and despite the threat of lawsuits, I think the Democratic party is passing up a huge opportunity by not opposing this.

Again, just my 2 cents....