Independents v. Libertarians
---
Whoever wins, we ... win!
This is a different fact pattern, however. It's not a ballot access question, but a First Amendment question. So long as party membership is open to all before the primary is held, then there is no logic in forcing a party to accept votes from non-members on the day of the primary. There is simply no rational basis for allowing open-primary voting, and many rational bases for opposing it — as this case demonstrates.
Meanwhile, the implications at the other end of the country — New Hampshire, which also has an open-primary system — and therefore for the major-party nominating process as it currently exists, are self-apparent. And the Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in a challenge to Washington State's convoluted "top-two" system. Not exactly the same system, but the same core issues apply. Stay tuned.
(Full Disclosure: I should probably point out, yet again, that I am a small-l libertarian and registered independent; I have never been affiliated with any political party, and remain convinced that the best way to fight both the two-party system, and the party system generally, is by not being part of either.)
In a ruling that could eventually affect the statewide open-primary system, a federal judge last week barred independent voters from casting ballots in the Libertarian Party primary.Sounds about right, even though I have previously noted — and continue to emphasize — that political parties are a wholly extra-constitutional concept and have no "constitutional rights" per se.
Arizona opened its primary elections in 2002, allowing independent voters and those belonging to parties not on the ballot to choose a party at the polls. The number of registered independents and unaffiliated voters in the state has since doubled, to about 28%.
...
"Arizona's primary system has created a clear and present danger of a party's candidate being chosen by people other than party members," [a federal district judge] wrote in Arizona Libertarian Party v. Brewer (PDF - 10 pages). "A political party's right to choose its own nominees is a core associational activity and the mandatory inclusion of unaffiliated persons with the political party may seriously distort the party's decision."
This is a different fact pattern, however. It's not a ballot access question, but a First Amendment question. So long as party membership is open to all before the primary is held, then there is no logic in forcing a party to accept votes from non-members on the day of the primary. There is simply no rational basis for allowing open-primary voting, and many rational bases for opposing it — as this case demonstrates.
Meanwhile, the implications at the other end of the country — New Hampshire, which also has an open-primary system — and therefore for the major-party nominating process as it currently exists, are self-apparent. And the Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in a challenge to Washington State's convoluted "top-two" system. Not exactly the same system, but the same core issues apply. Stay tuned.
(Full Disclosure: I should probably point out, yet again, that I am a small-l libertarian and registered independent; I have never been affiliated with any political party, and remain convinced that the best way to fight both the two-party system, and the party system generally, is by not being part of either.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Independents v. Libertarians
- The Democratic Party's* Primary Tantrums
Posted by Kip on
2 October 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.



