3 ms·

Why was this downvoted? Yes, it's likely you would need at least one amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose open primaries on

by ccleve 9y ago

Why was this downvoted? Yes, it's likely you would need at least one amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose open primaries on the political parties. See California Democratic Party vs. Jones: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401 This decision has been affirmed more than once, and it makes sense.

donarb 9y ago
Although in 2008 the SC upheld Washington state's modified primary system, called the top-two primary. In the top-two primary the two candidates who receive the most votes go head to head in the general election. Candidates no longer are listed on the ballot by party, the candidate states what their party preference is, regardless whether the candidate is the official party candidate or not. The parties are still free to choose a candidate and place them on the ballot, but the ballot does not state that the candidate is the one chosen by the party. The candidate or party can advertise that in campaign literature if they want. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-state-top-two-primary/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules...
maxerickson 9y ago
It's not so bad, states can just tell the parties to go eat dirt and have the same requirements for anyone to get on the ballot. In such a system private groups would still be free to endorse a particular candidate. Won't happen, but the problem isn't that primaries are closed, it's that they impact the names that end up on the ballot.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
anarazel 9y ago
I think you're right that this probably couldn't be done without an amendment, but I don't see how California Democratic Party vs. Jones actually is a strong argument for that. That seems to largely have been a first amendment case, if I understand the opinion correctly. The basic argument being that blanked primary systems forced parties to associate with candidates, which'd in turn be forced speech ("freedom of association"). Isn't the issue more around Article 1 enumerated powers?
dragonwriter 9y ago
This isn't imposing open primaries, or doing anything comparable Constitutionally. AFAICT, it's a fairly straightforward application of Congress plenary power to regulate House elections (Art. I, Sec. 4, para. 1.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by ccleve 9y ago

donarb 9y ago

Although in 2008 the SC upheld Washington state's modified primary system, called the top-two primary. In the top-two primary the two candidates who receive the most votes go head to head in the general election. Candidates no longer are listed on the ballot by party, the candidate states what their party preference is, regardless whether the candidate is the official party candidate or not. The parties are still free to choose a candidate and place them on the ballot, but the ballot does not state that the candidate is the one chosen by the party. The candidate or party can advertise that in campaign literature if they want. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-washington-state-top-two-primary/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/supreme-court-rules...

maxerickson 9y ago

It's not so bad, states can just tell the parties to go eat dirt and have the same requirements for anyone to get on the ballot. In such a system private groups would still be free to endorse a particular candidate. Won't happen, but the problem isn't that primaries are closed, it's that they impact the names that end up on the ballot.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

anarazel 9y ago

I think you're right that this probably couldn't be done without an amendment, but I don't see how California Democratic Party vs. Jones actually is a strong argument for that. That seems to largely have been a first amendment case, if I understand the opinion correctly. The basic argument being that blanked primary systems forced parties to associate with candidates, which'd in turn be forced speech ("freedom of association"). Isn't the issue more around Article 1 enumerated powers?

dragonwriter 9y ago

This isn't imposing open primaries, or doing anything comparable Constitutionally. AFAICT, it's a fairly straightforward application of Congress plenary power to regulate House elections (Art. I, Sec. 4, para. 1.)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]