Tag Archives: Primary Elections

Column: On closed primaries

Posted on by

Over at Nooga.com, I declare the conditions under which closed primaries would be acceptable.

Let me be clear up front: I have no problem with closed primaries….

Select from those who have been granted entrance only the purest of the pure, the mirror for bona fides, the über-partisan. Rest in the knowledge that there has been no meddling by interlopers, miscreants or rhinoceroses.

There are just two little matters that stand in the way of this dream, this heavenly state where only zealots nominate only Zeleniks.

Read on.

On taxes and primaries

Link

Andrea Zelinski lays down the facts about primary voting in Tennessee at TNReport.

Tennessee taxpayers will fork over an estimated $4.5 million this week administering elections for the two major parties.

But as a matter of state law, the decision as to who can and cannot participate in the partisan festivities is ultimately left to party officials and not the government. For that matter, there’s no guarantee the majority will get to decide the winners and losers.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE 10:46 a.m. EDT: Corrected spelling of Andrea Zelinski’s name.

Not married to the party, just Dayton

Posted on by

WRCB’s Jonquil Newland on Monday reported that there is either a coordinated crossover conspiracy in Rhea County’s state House election, or there is a coordinated effort by election workers to zealously thwart what they perceive as a stealth crossover plan.

The TBI’s findings may be interesting, but in the meantime, can we just let people vote? There is no way to tell whether or not a citizen has had a sudden—or slow-building—change of heart. We don’t need the political thought police enforcing a false sense of partisan purity. This is true in GOP primaries in Rhea County, or Democratic primaries in, say, Clarksville.

When people have a choice as to who speaks for them in government, let them make it. It’s not healthy to allow a single group to dictate a region’s representation.

Else we could close primaries and take them off the taxpayers’ bill. Let parties vet their own nominees. Or we could implement a “top two” system. There are other options.

Or maybe we could just brand people on the forehead with a ‘D’ or an ‘R’. Better yet: do it at birth.

Your ticket for Super Tuesday

Posted on by

What is on the ballot tomorrow? I’m using a Hamilton County ballot in Commission District Three for the most detail. The only sections that will be the same statewide are the presidential candidates and the GOP at-large delegates.

Beyond that, variations occur by congressional district (for GOP delegates) and by county. I know Anderson County is electing a mayor this year, and there are several judicial elections in Davidson County. Check with your county election commission. Here are the candidates: Continue reading →

Is a primary election an election?

Posted on by

A hearing was held last Tuesday in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on the federal lawsuit brought by former Sen. Rosalind Kurita over her 2008 removal from the ballot by the Executive Committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party.

As expected, the central issue being argued is whether a primary election is a binding artifact of public will, or is equal to conventions, caucuses, and other means by which political parties nominate candidates, and thus subject to the party’s control.

The Washington Examiner reported on some of the positions presented by the two sides.

Kurita’s attorney, Joe Bopp, told the judges that under state law, political parties play no role in the primary election process; instead, it is an election held so voters of each party may select a nominee.

“The primary is a substitute for a caucus or a nominating convention,” Bopp said.

vs.

Tennessee Assistant Attorney General Janet Kleinfelter said … “We don’t consider primary elections to be elections. We consider primaries to be vehicles for the parties to select nominees.

This is no secret, but I would have to side with Kurita’s attorney. Yes, the primary election is the chosen vehicle by which two parties in this state nominate their candidates; but since doing it that way means being governed by state election law; and since the elections are funded by public means; and since they are attended by the general public, and not exclusive to party members, then I argue that a winner of such an election must be recognized. The parties can’t have it both ways.

However, I would not go so far as to demand that Kurita be seated in the Senate. Due to her party’s actions, she did not run in, and therefore did not win, the general election. Senator Tim Barnes did. (I allow that it’s reasonable to assume that she’d have won; I’m just pointing out that she didn’t.) I would look to the Court of Appeals to rule that parties can’t decide to overturn elections. I realize that this is a fine line, and I welcome any and all differing opinions.

UPDATE: this post has been corrected by striking through incorrect statements in the above paragraph, and to add here that Kurita ran as a write-in candidate in the general election, but was defeated by Barnes, who ran as the Democratic Party candidate. Thanks to a kind reader who pointed out my error.

Hat tip: Ballot Access News