Marc reports that the Justice Department may have to OK the new primaries in Florida and Michigan:
Here's the reasoning: while a federal judge last year upheld the DNC's right to interpret the rules of its own primary -- even if those rules meant the technical disenfranchisement of an entire state of voters -- the ruling did not touch on the form of the election itself.
When a party decides to change its rules in midstream, five counties in Florida and two counties in Michigan must ask the Department of Justice's Voting Section to make sure that the new rules do not violate the rights of any aggreived minorities. Alternatively, they can ask a federal judge to bless the new rules, but that would take, at the very least, six months.
According to the Obama campaign, voting rights act provisions that govern pre-clearance requirements apply to primaries. So the Florida Democratic Party and the Michigan Democratic Party would be required to submit to the Justice Department their vote-by-mail procedures for close inspection.
What exactly is the logic behind the state controlling the delegate selection process of the political parties? They're not organs of the state--they're supposed to be the voice of the people. It's not clear to my why the states get to do things like set their primary dates in defiance of the party.
This sounds like libertarian quibbling, but I actually think this matters. To be sure, I think we're stuck with the two party system, but I see no reason that the state should help to institutionalize the dominance of these particular two parties. The state's job is to make sure that elections run fairly; the party's job is to nominate candidates. Getting the state involved in the latter, or the parties in the former, only leads to trouble.
So is everyone going to be allowed to vote?
I voted in the republican primary because the democratic party wasn't seating michigan delegates.
While I agree with you regarding the state's lack of interest in institutionalizing two parties as dominant, the state got involved because the parties were effectively disenfranchising voters through running primaries in a discriminatory fashion. Especially in one-party states, there is an interest in ensuring that women, minorities, etc. are not shut out of the process.
Good point, I wonder how many Florida Democrats voted for McCain in the Florida primary because they didn’t think they’d be able to vote in the Democrat one. It seems to me that Florida was generally regarded as the tipping point for McCain’s campaign and had Romney won instead, it would have changed the momentum going into Super Tuesday. A do over in Florida and Michigan would allow voters in these two States to vote twice and pick the nominees from both parties.
Hopefully the Bush administration will deny their request and let the Democrats live with the consequences of their decision to piss off the voters in two battleground States.
I agree completely. I don't understand why government resources are used for party selection processes,since political parties are private organizations (which is how they get away with some of the convoluted procedures).
Of course, I also don't understand why people who aren't party members are allowed to participate in some elections, but it's the party's perogative.
Richard, I believe you've got your history wrong. The government has acted to protect minority rights in the electoral system it has set up for general elections. That effects primaries only because the parties choose to use that electoral system for their primaries. I am not aware of any time the government has stepped in to protect minority rights on an issue limited purely to a primary. It wouldn't be good PR, but it would be pefectly legal for a party to pick its candidate in a smoke-filled back-room meeting of white men.
Getting the government to use its electoral system for their primaries saves the parties a lot of money -- as you are hearing out of Florida, it would cost $25M+ for a party to do its own primary there. It also helps to institutionalize the big parties, by making their candidate selection processes appear to be an integral part of the government-run election.
This isn't the only way that the two parties have institutionalized themselves. The laws creating many of the federal ABC agencies specify that their governing boards be made up of N representives from the second biggest party and N+1 representatives from the biggest party. This accomodation institutionalizes the two parties grip on power, making it much less subject to the vagaries the actual balance of representatives, the opinions of any third parties, or the election of the president, who is actually charged by the constitution to run the administrative branch of government.
Megan's argument is not new in American politics. One of the principal means that Jim Crow used to disenfranchise Blacks was to have the state Democratic Parties in the South limit participation to whites only. The argument made as to the legality of the white primary was precisely that made by Megan, namely, that a political party is a private entity not subject to the 14th and 15th Amendments.
What I'd like to see happen is that if a party wants to have a "closed" primary (i.e. only members of that party and perhaps independents can vote in the primary), it should either conduct the primary itself or reimburse the state for the cost of the primary. If a party is willing to have an "open" primary (anyone can vote in it), then I'm willing to let the state continue to pay for it.
Megan needs to learn more about PA. Both the Dems and Repubs voted to enact a bill that makes it tougher for third parties to get on statewide ballots. Also, it isn't the USDOJ's job to regulate political parties. They f--k up enough stuff as it is now.
The interaction between freedom-of-association rights and non-discrimination rights is a philosophically interesting and legally fuzzy zone, but in any case the government need not go so far as to donate its electoral apparatus for party primaries in order to enforce non-discrimination laws.
Basicially, the courts have ruled that your private club can discriminate until its gets big enough to be important to life outside the club. In the 1970s, many business lunch clubs excluded women, arguing that as private clubs they were free to do so. The courts ultimately ruled that they had to admit women, because so many contacts and deals occured there that the exclusion was hindering the prospects of businesswomen outside the club. Notice that the government did not have to fund and run the business lunch clubs in order to enforce these rulings.
Yes, it is libertarian quibbling.
In private contracts, the State intervenes to make sure each is enforced.
In neighbor v. neighbor disputes, the State intervenes to ward off self-help (violent feuding).
When conflict arises, and one of the parties appeals to the State, the State intervenes. Its not as if State intervention is natural or required, it has been requested.
What exactly is the logic behind the state controlling the delegate selection process of the political parties? They're not organs of the state--they're supposed to be the voice of the people. It's not clear to [me] why the states get to do things like set their primary dates in defiance of the party.
The US Constitution gives states almost exclusive control over the mechanics of presidential elections. Article II, section 1, provides:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
Presidential primary elections are conducted under the same state laws that govern any other state election, and are often scheduled to coincide with other state elections, thereby reducing their cost. (They are also paid for by the states.)
That said, if the Democratic Party wanted to have a purely private election, held on private property, run by private citizens, and paid for by private persons, there is probably nothing a state could do to prevent this (without violating the First Amendment). However, in practice, there has never been a privately run primary election.
"What exactly is the logic behind the state controlling the delegate selection process of the political parties?"
The answer--as others have already said--is to be found in /Smith v. Allwright/ (1944).
"What exactly is the logic behind the state controlling the delegate selection process of the political parties?"
The answer--as others have already said--is to be found in /Smith v. Allwright/ (1944).
in practice, there has never been a privately run primary election.
New Mexico's Democratic Party ran a private primary election in February. It was widely reported as a caucus, but it was run as a primary.
Michigan's Democratic Party proposes to run a private primary election next month to allocate delegates.
Utah's Democratic Party ran a private primary in 2004 after the 75% Republican Utah legislature canceled the public primary (they knew who their candidate would be).
States are allowed to set the primaries the state is willing to fund for whenever they wish, and the parties can take advantage of them or not as they choose. It is arguable that the states shouldn't be holding primaries for parties at all, but it would be ridiculous to give a private organization the power to tell a state government when and how a state's public funds will be spent. The problem we're seeing this year is that the parties are federal in structure, and thus the state and national parties can disagree on whether to take the state up on the date it offers or to hold a private event in accordance with a nationally determined schedule to select delegates.
The Justice Department involvement is somewhat separate; it is the result of the interaction of Smith v. Allwright's effort to fix a specific case and the eternal renewals of "temporary" provisions of the 1965 Civil Rights Act. Whether the state funds the primaries/caucuses or not, the Justice Department has to vet the system to make sure it's not being used to support Jim Crow. The theory is that this is just an emergency measure to overcome the effects of state-sponsored discrimination.
I have to agree with Megan. It struck me as odd how involved the federal and state governments are involved in the selection of the leader of a 'private' party.
By funding these primaries, states effectively shut third parties out of the process (I'm assuming that the Liberatarian part, for example, would have a very difficult time getting the state to pay for its primary).
I'm not a constitutional expert, but doesn't this system violate disenfranchisement laws? The constitution certainly doesn't limit the number of parties to 2, but by funding only the 2 major parties, they have effectively doneso. It would seem like the role of the federal government in all this would be to ensure that states do not discriminate against any political party, but they are clearly doing so.
Has this ever been challenged?
That's some great criticism, Megan! Let's elect a libertarian dude, and reform the system. Or no, even better; let's elect a socialist demagogue, so that we can all shake and jive for four years.
Dear President Carter and Vice President Gore:
This following is an email I sent to the DNC. I sincerely wish each of you would get involved with this situation.
If the democratic party doesn’t understand why votes count, in Florida no less, then we are truly, truly lost. Do we need Jimmy Carter to come and oversee elections in THIS country now? What the hell!?!
I don’t care what Florida’s republican politicians did to tick off the DNC. I don't care what any politicians did to tick off the DNC. Voters deserve to have their votes counted. That's the cornerstone of democracy. And what a pathetic way to rationalize giving Obama an advantage - not counting votes in Florida. Where have I heard this before?!? This is voter suppression, and I don't care who is suppressing it or what their excuses are - IT IS WRONG, and we all know it.
I wish Al Gore would jump in and take charge of this issue. He may be the only person with the credibility and neutrality to resolve this situation.
Besides, do you think voters in Florida and Michigan are going to be fine with being disenfranchised and vote for either democrat in November? Can we PLEASE stop shooting ourselves in the foot and savaging our own party and principles?!?
When democrats start playing fast and loose with votes so openly, something has gone very wrong. I think Howard Dean is being a complete ass about this. He should be more concerned with making sure voters are heard than shutting them out with stupid rules. It's NOT the voters fault all this BS went down the way it did. They showed up in good faith and VOTED.
I’m starting to think McCain deserves to win if Democrats are this hopelessly stupid and lost.
Respectfully,
Teri B . . .
You can email Carter and Gore at: carterweb@emory.edu and info@carthagegroup.com
No matter which side you're on in the battle, if you're a Democrat, you know better than this. Seriously, have we lost our souls?
Respectfully,
Teri Beaugez