Dissin' The Decline-To-State Folks
Who could resist a headline that boldly proclaims "Why GOP selectively restricts its voters"? Certainly not me. It headed an article in today's Sacramento Bee.
First, in the interest of fairness and to provide some backstory, keep the following in mind. Last Tuesday there was a justified outcry about the ballot given to independents who wanted to vote in the Democratic presidential primary. In order for their ballots to be counted, the voters had to fill in one additional "bubble," but the instructions on the ballot weren't all that clear. As a result, many of those votes weren't tabulated, at least not yet. However, the Democrats do allow independents to vote in all of the primaries, at least those with excellent vision and a penchant for reading all of the fine print.
The Republicans, on the other hand, do not allow anyone but registered Republicans to vote in the presidential primary, but they do allow independents to vote in non-presidential primaries.
OK, now, on to the story which does provide a useful bit of history on all of this.
Much was made of the state Republican Party closing its primary to independent voters. So it may come as a surprise that the party is welcoming "decline-to-state" voters in the statewide primary coming up on June 3.
In fact, the party's dual system has been in place since 2000 - it's just that the inconsistency between presidential and other primaries did not become apparent until this year. ...
Confusion over primary voting has a long pedigree. Before 1996, the state's primaries were closed – only registered members of the parties could take part.
An initiative approved in 1996 gave the state a "blanket" primary. All voters were given the same ballot from which they could choose any candidate, regardless of their affiliation.
The state Democratic and Republican parties fought the initiative, and ultimately prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2000 that it violated the two parties' freedom of association.
Around the same time, the Legislature passed a bill that let independent voters participate in primaries if the parties allowed it. ...
As noted above, the state Democratic Party decided to allow independent voters to participate, but the state Republican Party decided to limit such participation to non-presidential primaries.
...the 1,600-member central committee chose to close the presidential primary. The difference was that delegates selected to go to the national convention would have a hand in making party rules and policies and should truly represent its core values.
"There was a feeling that a distinction needed to be drawn," said Jon Fleischman, then the party's executive director and now a conservative blogger and one of several vice-chairmen of the party.
Fair enough. I think that a pretty reasonable rationale for the state party's decision, but Mr. Fleischman should have stopped there. Unfortunately for the GOP, he didn't.
Will voters be flummoxed? Probably not, Fleischman said. Few of the races for Congress and the Legislature are seriously contested, and most voters will probably be hard-core party loyalists on both sides.
As for independents, he said, "They will be able to vote if they remember there's an election." [Emphasis added]
So-o-o, according to a GOP official, independents can't be counted on to vote for anything but president, and besides, they can't be trusted to remember there's an election coming up. How's that for the philosophy of "the Big Tent Party"?
First, in the interest of fairness and to provide some backstory, keep the following in mind. Last Tuesday there was a justified outcry about the ballot given to independents who wanted to vote in the Democratic presidential primary. In order for their ballots to be counted, the voters had to fill in one additional "bubble," but the instructions on the ballot weren't all that clear. As a result, many of those votes weren't tabulated, at least not yet. However, the Democrats do allow independents to vote in all of the primaries, at least those with excellent vision and a penchant for reading all of the fine print.
The Republicans, on the other hand, do not allow anyone but registered Republicans to vote in the presidential primary, but they do allow independents to vote in non-presidential primaries.
OK, now, on to the story which does provide a useful bit of history on all of this.
Much was made of the state Republican Party closing its primary to independent voters. So it may come as a surprise that the party is welcoming "decline-to-state" voters in the statewide primary coming up on June 3.
In fact, the party's dual system has been in place since 2000 - it's just that the inconsistency between presidential and other primaries did not become apparent until this year. ...
Confusion over primary voting has a long pedigree. Before 1996, the state's primaries were closed – only registered members of the parties could take part.
An initiative approved in 1996 gave the state a "blanket" primary. All voters were given the same ballot from which they could choose any candidate, regardless of their affiliation.
The state Democratic and Republican parties fought the initiative, and ultimately prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2000 that it violated the two parties' freedom of association.
Around the same time, the Legislature passed a bill that let independent voters participate in primaries if the parties allowed it. ...
As noted above, the state Democratic Party decided to allow independent voters to participate, but the state Republican Party decided to limit such participation to non-presidential primaries.
...the 1,600-member central committee chose to close the presidential primary. The difference was that delegates selected to go to the national convention would have a hand in making party rules and policies and should truly represent its core values.
"There was a feeling that a distinction needed to be drawn," said Jon Fleischman, then the party's executive director and now a conservative blogger and one of several vice-chairmen of the party.
Fair enough. I think that a pretty reasonable rationale for the state party's decision, but Mr. Fleischman should have stopped there. Unfortunately for the GOP, he didn't.
Will voters be flummoxed? Probably not, Fleischman said. Few of the races for Congress and the Legislature are seriously contested, and most voters will probably be hard-core party loyalists on both sides.
As for independents, he said, "They will be able to vote if they remember there's an election." [Emphasis added]
So-o-o, according to a GOP official, independents can't be counted on to vote for anything but president, and besides, they can't be trusted to remember there's an election coming up. How's that for the philosophy of "the Big Tent Party"?
Labels: California, Election 2008
posted by Diane at 1:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home