The Glade 4.0

But the open/closed/semi-open thing is a STATE decision, isn't it, RD?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

RangerDave:

Except, the issue isn't the closed primaries themselves; it's the fact that the States no longer have any say in the Presidential election process. It is an end-run on the Constitution made final by his lawyers from day one. Too bad you're trying to argue a point of minutiae on primaries when the real problem is that:

a) Stare Decisis means there's no going back from closed primaries

b) Current Case Law means that the states has 0 say and 0 voice in the Presidential election

A is only part of the problem. That A exists we've known. It's the new development of B that's problematic.

Welcome to America. We're no longer the United States of anything ...

_________________

It's no longer a State decision; it's now a Party decision through and through. The Eligibility Question gave the Parties the last piece of the puzzle: the States no longer have ANY voice in the Union.

_________________

Yes and no. States pass their own election laws (subject to certain federal Constitutional requirements), but many states' laws give parties themselves the authority to decide whether to hold open or closed primaries.

Well, if that were the case, then why the shenanigans with renaming the poll in AZ, Khross?

Clearly, there's concern that the state *might* still have some voice (enough to say "No, you can't change to a closed primary without our permission"), but I do get what you're saying.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Ok, let's back up a bit. Can you please point out (a) which decision you're referring to and (b) where in that decision you think this change was made?

Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and one other state collectively sued the President to provide an actual long form birth record from the hospital of record. The President refused to do so; his lawyers had the case dismissed on lack of standing. It gets bounced around. The Supreme Court picks up an appeal and remands it back to the lower Court for reconsideration. The lower Court finds the same way: the States lack standing because it's the responsibility of the Parties to vet their Candidates.

_________________

Remove funding for the primaries of the major parties - make all primaries closed.

Win-Win.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Doesn't change the fact that the States have no avenue of producing their own candidates under current case law.

_________________

I think you're conflating the birther lawsuits and the anti-Obamacare lawsuits. I don't believe there were any lawsuits by states with respect to Obama's eligibility for office, but if I missed something, let me know. In any event, even if the USSC did rule that states lack standing to challenge, in federal court, a candidate's Constitutional eligibility, that wouldn't mean the states lack the authority to pass state-level election laws with respect to primaries.

This isn't an Obamacare thing; 5 states sued for the long form and lost on standing. And, yes, actually it does mean the states can't do anything about the primaries, because the outcome is ultimately decided by someone they can't bind to the voters.

_________________

Can you point me to the case? My Google-fu is failing me.

I'll dig it up; I know I made a post on the forums about it, because my issue has always been the standing tack giving too much power to the Parties, which it does. Only the nominating party retains standing to challenge their eligibility; and the parties control who is on the ballots, not the States now. (Both Arizona and Georgia just got smacked around for laws requiring proof of citizenship to be on the ballot).

_________________

Guys, it's a republican party. If you want an invite, either join the club, or start banging a republican so you can be someone's +1.

Except that's not what this is about ...

Maybe you should read the thread: the GOP just unilaterally excluded 35% of Arizona's population from their actual chance to vote for President.

_________________

Primaries are taxpayer funded. They are not Republican-only parties.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Well, they are whatever the State says they are, not whatever the Party says they are.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

While the tactics of the GOP in changing the rules at the last second are certainly underhanded, it isn't the responsibility of political parties to allow non-members to vote just because the other party has only one candidate.

Frankly. I don't think any state should be permitting anyone to vote in any party primary where they are not a member of the party, unless that political party wants them to.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Frankly, if you think the primary process belongs to the parties instead of the individual States themselves, you've already lost sight of the entire electoral structure of this country. But, that's all I have to say on this matter. I know how you feel about what the Constitution says, language, and procedural utilitarianism.

_________________

That's nice.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The primary should be open ballots, with no party distinction on them, other then maybe an acknowledgement that this candidate chooses to affiliate with a party of their choosing.
There is no requirement in in the federal Constitution or Arizona constitution, that you must be a member of a party to take part in public funded electoral processes.
Now if they want to have their own little private elections funded, staffed using their own resources, with no public funds that's up to them.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

I agree. They shouldn't be publicly funded. However, there doesn't need to be a Constitutional requirement in order for the state to make it that way.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The primary should be closed to the individual parties who receive no public funding in the operation of their primaries. The general should not group candidates by party - I'd live to see a R Pres and a D VP someday.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville