The United States Supreme Court struck down California's "blanket primary" law on June 26, ruling that political parties have a constitutional right to choose their nominees for the general election ballot. The ruling restores California’s closed primary system. The win for parties’ rights was a blow to voter participation. An extra 1.5 million of them went to the polls this year for the state's March primary election, due in large part to the increased turnout of independent voters, who traditionally were shut out of the party nominating process.
There are four types of primaries in the United States. In a traditional "closed" primary, a voter must register in advance as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or other party member and on primary day can choose only from among candidates listed on that party’s ballot. Independent or "decline to state" voters are shut out of the process.
In a "blanket primary," a voter, regardless of registration, may vote for any candidate of any party. The theory is that more moderate candidates will be nominated. The ruling invalidates California’s law and presumably does the same for nearly identical systems in Alaska and Washington.
"Open primary" laws are on the books in 29 states. There, voters can decide on primary election day whether they want to vote for Republicans, Democrats or nominees of other parties. However, they must vote for the candidates of only one party. These laws should survive the Court’s ruling.
Finally, Louisiana has a "nonpartisan" primary, in which the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, move on to the general election, if neither receives a majority in the first round. This is the same method used to elect most local candidates in California. The Court signaled that this type of law is permissible. If such a law were to pass, the very parties that won the case in the Supreme Court could be pushed out of the nominating process altogether.
In Democratic Party v. Jones (The California Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of California, and the Peace and Freedom Party joined in the suit as plaintiffs), the Court faced the unenviable task of balancing the State’s right to run its elections and encourage voter turnout, against the parties’ claim that their associational rights were severely infringed by Proposition 198. The two lower courts had upheld the law, finding that the effect of the law was to produce elected officials who better represent the electorate, expand candidate debate, ensure that disenfranchised persons enjoy the right to an effective vote, promote fairness, afford voters greater choice, and increase voter participation. The lower courts felt that these benefits outweighed the parties’ right to choose their own nominees. The State also pointed out that a majority of the members of both parties had voted in favor of Proposition 198.
The Supreme Court agreed with the parties and struck down the law. It held that the processes by which political parties select their nominees are not entirely public affairs that States may regulate freely. The Court concluded that Proposition 198 forces petitioners to adulterate their candidate-selection process – a political party’s basic function – by opening it up to persons wholly unaffiliated with the party, who may have different views from the party.
Other fallout from the ruling is expected. On June 30, the California Republican Party took steps to try to replace two Orange County GOP Assembly nominees. Huntington Beach’s Tom Harman and Brea’s Lynn Daucher beat out establishment-endorsed candidates in the March GOP primary, using independent and Democratic voters to gain the margin of victory. The establishment candidates, Jim Righeimer and Bruce Matthias, won among Republican voters.
A GOP letter to Secretary of State Bill Jones sent Friday asks that Righeimer and Matthias be the party nominees, citing the Supreme Court ruling. The Secretary of State’s office said that it did not have the authority to change the March results. The whole mess is expected to wind up in court.
The number of independent voters in California, at 14 percent, is large and growing faster than any party membership. Candidates realize that they must appeal to this large bloc of potential supporters, or risk losing the general election. With this in mind, both the state Republican and Democratic Parties are expected to open up their primaries to independent voters on a voluntary basis. This probably will not be enough to appease the proponents of Proposition 198, who are expected to place a nonpartisan primary law on the 2002 statewide ballot
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.