This is really interesting in our local context:
A Supreme Court argument on Wednesday posed a civics question with practical implications: Is a political party's primary election basically the business of the party, or of the state?
Along with 23 other states, Oklahoma does not permit voters registered in one party to vote in another party's primary. Independent voters in Oklahoma may choose a party primary in which to vote, but those enrolled in a party may not cross party lines unless they "disaffiliate" from their party eight weeks before the election.
I should have mixed feelings about this, but to be honest I don't.
Background for the newcomers: Here in Johnson County, our courthouse offices have been Republican-free since 1988. The June primary is known, more or less, as the "real election." Local contests split not on Democratic vs. Republican lines, but rather on liberal Democratic vs. conservative Democratic lines, with the GOP aligning with the conservative Dems.
Iowa is officially a closed-primary state; you have to be registered with the party to vote in the primary. But there's a huge loophole: you can "in good faith" change party any time, including at the polls on Election Day. And including the day after Election Day.
I should be OK with this. Lets people vote for who they want, right? And I suppose I can see it for the tiny, tiny fraction of the election that's truly independent.
But I've seen too many active Republicans blatantly interfere in our local Democratic primaries. The law doesn't define "good faith," but I'm of the opinion that if you're asking "how soon can I change back to Republican" while you're voting, you're not becoming a Democrat in good faith.
(To be fair, a lot of Democrats jumped in the rare years when the GOP had more interesting races, and I oppose that just as much.)
It's perfectly legal of course. But just because they have the right to do it doesn't make it right. I like to believe that political parties mean something. Not as much as they should, but something.
The excuse is always "but the Republicans don't have any races and they never win here." But how is that the Democrat's fault? If you don't like it, recruit some good candidates and run a good campaign. Or maybe the problem is that Republican ideas are just not winning ideas around here?
Of course, some of the local Democrats blatantly campaign for these Republican votes, and I have a bigger problem with that.
Anyway, Oklahoma's eight-week deadline is worth noting. Personally, I'd like to see a deadline before the candidate filing deadline, so that any party changes are more likely to be based based on an actual change of heart, rather than the wish to support any one candidate.
If anything, unfortunately, the trend is in the opposite direction, with more states opening up the primaries more and making the parties - the key organizational institutions of our democracy - mean less and less.
Insert the Dennis Miller disclaimer here. (Aside: I've been watching the New Conservative Dennis lately. The shots are a little cheaper but I still laugh a little, and he still seems like a mismatch for the GOP and a lost opportunity for the Libertarians.)
Politics
Politics
No comments:
Post a Comment