Comments on: Some notes about the Fifth Circuit Democratic primary ruling

By: Sailor

Sailor — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:44:22 +0000

I stand corrected.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:35:36 +0000

#37: “The Louisiana (supposedly) open primary system is not better than Mississippi’s system.”

I agree 1000%. As I stated above, the only basic change I favor is for us to adopt that system for our local elections (see my proposed plan, which is linked to at comment #28 above). It’s a good idea for local elections, as illustrated by the fact that the big majority of US municipalities– including most big cities– already use it.

But it’s a terrible idea for state and congressional elections, as demonstrated by the fact that only Louisiana has heretofore used it for all of its state and congessional elections (and LA has this year restored party primaries for Congress).

Washington state is this year starting to use a Louisiana-style “top two” system. The first round is in August, and already there’s confusion.

My point about the national Republicans and the state GOP endorsing different candidates in Louisiana in ’91 was that that doesn’t happen when there are party primaries, since there is then an official party nominee. BTW, President Bush I, Gov. Roemer, and other Republicans endorsed the Democrat Edwards in the runoff against Duke.

“I think party primaries are a good thing”

So do I. As for party registration, it’s no big deal either way. It’s certainly not the straitjacket that a lot of people seem to fear it is. It’s merely a way of identifying voters’ party preferences. If the Democrats succeed in their suit, the only voters who will need to be identified will be Republicans, and that can be done without party registration (Louisiana, BTW, has had party registration since 1916).

The only way our current primary election law will be nullified will be if the courts do so; the legislature certainly won’t.

Chancery and circuit judges, to be sure, are chosen in nonpartisan elections.

Sailor #39 says that in a system like Louisiana’s, “… you will ALWAYS have a run-off.”

Not necessarily. David Vitter was elected US senator without a runoff in 2004, and Bobby Jindal was elected governor last year without a runoff.

By: kingfish

kingfish — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:42:36 +0000

I said there were FEWER elections. People get tired of going to the polls for the same office three or four times.

By: DeltaNative

DeltaNative — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:24:27 +0000

king 38 // That’s not quite true. See MsNExile’s comment at 9, which I totally agree with.

By: Sailor

Sailor — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:23:50 +0000

In an open primary, tho’, kf, you will ALWAYS have a run-off. Not necessarily true in party primaries. The danger of the open primary, as Researcher has eloquently pointed out, is that it can give the electorate a David Duke or an equally nutty “fringe” candidate.

By: kingfish

kingfish — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:15:35 +0000

The only advantage to the open primary system is that it keeps the electorate from being bogged down with what seems to be endless elections. First the primary, then the runoffs for the primary, then the general elections etc. just seems to go on and on.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:54:10 +0000

The Louisiana (supposedly) open primary system is not better than Mississippi’s system.
In 1991, party insiders could not block Edwards or Duke because they had large followings that were independent of the party, so they did not need the party endorsement and support.
In other elections, the parties have been quite successful at eliminating contenders by deciding the party endorsement and financial support behind the scenes without the participation of the public or party rank and file voters.
I think party primaries are a good thing. I think requiring party registration and closing primaries are not in the best interests of the public or the long-term interests of the parties.
However, all I am saying is that these are legislative issues, not legal ones. If the parties can convince the legislature to make voters register by party and allow parties to exclude some voters based on their registration, then the courts should not stop it. But the courts should not require it either.
I acknowledge your point that courts have favored parties in some rulings, but frankly, federal courts butcher election law more times than not. See Bush v. Gore. See the multiple systems for electing circuit and chancery judges in Mississippi, with different systems according to the racial demographics of the districts. That decision is bad law and bad policy, but because it was imposed by a federal court, it will be many times more difficult to amend than if it were bad legislative policy.

By: Steve Rankin

Steve Rankin — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:10:29 +0000

“The party does not pay for the primary. General taxpayers pay.”

In 1995, in an Arkansas case, a federal appeals court said that, when the state requires parties to nominate by primary, the state must pay the costs of those primaries. If left to their own devices, the parties would be very unlikely to hold primaries, due to the expense. The state will therefore continue to mandate primaries, since the voters are accustomed to them.

“… nonpartisan elections are never nonpartisan. Look at Mississippi judicial elections.”

They are nonpartisan because the parties have no way of officially nominating candidates, although, as you note, the parties frequently endorse candidates in those elections.

Our county election commissioners are also chosen in nonpartisan elections, but the party affiliations of all 410 commissioners are known.

Remember that notorious 1991 Louisiana governor’s race, in which Edwin Edwards beat David Duke in the runoff? The national Republican Party and the state GOP endorsed different candidates in the first round, and neither one made the runoff.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:28:43 +0000

JOM, I meant what I said. The party can elect its own officers any way it wants, but if they have any electoral function the process is subject to the Voting Rights Act. Nomination to public office are not party offices. They are simply party endorsements of candidates for public office. The party does not pay for the primary. General taxpayers pay. The party gets to appoint pollworkers and otherwise administer the primaries, but must do it all in accordance with state election law. That is as it should be. The state should be setting the rules for electing state and local government officials.
Steve, nonpartisan elections are never nonpartisan. Look at Mississippi judicial elections. They are more partisan since the became nonpartisan. You can not stop parties and their surrogates from taking sides in elections. Wherever there are interests there will be party politics.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:12:31 +0000

I don’t know what the state party will do. They are in the process of electing a new state committee and Dowdy is stepping down from Chair. If they cared to ask the elected officials who are Democrats, I am confident that most would tell them to leave primaries as they are and put their energy and effort into building a party organization that could be useful in general elections. But that won’t ask because the committee usually is full of people who resent the Democrats who win elections because they are not pure enough.