|
In the midst of this microscopically scrutinized primary campaign, there have been lots of stories about the impact “independent voters” have had on contests in states that have “open primaries,” in which unaffiliated voters (and sometimes members of another party) are allowed to cast a ballot. Barack Obama is said to have won more of the independent vote; John McCain was said to have been helped in some states that had “open primaries” because of his appeal to independents, and hurt in others because of voters’ enthusiasm for Obama. And there were complaints about “cross over” voting in the Ohio Democratic primary , with some accusing Republicans of surreptitiously infiltrating the Democratic primaries. (A majority of states have closed primaries, but a great many are open and others fall somewhere in between.)
But what does the issue of “open” vs. “closed” primaries mean for voting rights and access?
Independent voters in some states have been surprised and angered at times to learn that they could not participate in these historic contests. And now Pennsylvanians, which is next up in the process, and the campaigns have gotten wise: they’re registering in the Democratic Party (there no longer is a Republican contest) in droves. (There are about 1 million independents in Pennsylvania, and nearly 100,000 in Philadelphia alone.)
The Supreme Court has ruled that the state parties are fairly free to dictate what type of primary they want to have, and there are competing values at stake in making such a decision. On the one hand are the values of increasing overall turnout in the primaries – which allowing independents to participate in the primary of their choice may do -- and allowing voters the greatest choice of candidates from which to choose. These are important democratic values. On the other hand are the rights of the parties to determine how their nominees are to be chosen, to insist that voters in the nominating process demonstrate allegiance to the principles and goals of the party, and the rights of party members who vote to have the predominant voice in who the nominee of the party will be, rather than that being subject to influence from outsiders who may not have the same level of commitment. Closed primaries are also, as the Pennsylvania situation demonstrates, an effective way to build party membership -- a legitimate and important party goal. The rights of parties should also not be underestimated as a democratic value that is protected by the constitutional right to free association.
So what is the answer? There may be no single solution and it is therefore appropriate for each state to make its own determination as to what values it wishes to make preeminent. Other hybrid alternatives might also be explored, such as the one Ohio has, at least on its books. In Ohio, any voter can vote in any primary, but voters are supposed to sign a pledge of party loyalty if they register with a new party at the polls. Unfortunately, this was not effectively enforced this year, leading to complaints. Other states allow only unaffiliated voters to vote in any primary, but members of one party cannot vote in that of another. States with Election Day registration allow voters to register for the first time on the day of the election and allow voters to switch their party registration on election day and vote in that party’s primary. “EDR” states also experience the highest turnout rates in the country, another factor that ought to go into a state party’s determination of what kind of primary it wants to have.
In primaries past, issues of closed and open primaries would have been seen as technical debates of interest only to party insiders and election lawyers. This year’s extraordinary close race has made issues like these front-page news, giving state parties the opportunity to recognize the competing values at stake and requiring them to look anew at which ones they deem most important.
Tova Andrea Wang is a Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation. |
