Posted on 03/10/2007 8:03:32 AM PST by NormsRevenge
The California Republican Party is embroiled in controversy over its refusal to allow the fastest growing voter group – independents – to vote in presidential primary elections, even though Democrats do.
The dispute pits Republicans who believe the party must preserve partisan purity at all costs against those who contend the party is undermining its long-range viability by stiffing nearly 20 percent of the state's voters when membership in both major political parties in California is at an all-time low.
“At the end of the day, this really is an issue of who it is that should be choosing a Republican nominee,” said Jon Fleischman, Southern California party vice chairman and publisher of the popular conservative blog FlashReport. “And it's pretty common sense that it would be Republicans that would do that.” Former California Republican Party Chairman Duf Sundheim is leading the charge to prevail upon the party, which he led until last month, to change its rules.
“I think a Republican candidate for president has a realistic chance to carry this state, and I believe it would be shortsighted to exclude independents,” Sundheim said. “The question is are we an inclusive party and how important is it to win elections.”
This is not a new wrinkle. But the disparity went largely unnoticed in 2004 because John Kerry had the Democratic nomination virtually sewn up by the California primary that March, and President Bush was unopposed for the Republican nomination.
This time, the stakes would seem considerably higher because there are wide-open contests for both major-party nominations.
Also, the Legislature has passed a bill Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he favors that would move the presidential primary to Feb. 5, 2008, potentially giving California more influence in the nominating process than any time in more than two decades.
Democrats say they are happy to include voters who “decline to state” a party affiliation on their voter registration in their presidential nomination on the theory that such voters will be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election and might at some point become full-fledged Democrats.
“Our feeling is if they're going to proactively ask for a Democratic ballot, they obviously share some of our ideals and our values,” said Roger Salazar, communications director for the California Democratic Party. “If we encourage them to participate in our process, that brings them one step closer to being Democrats.”
Most academic research confirms that unaffiliated voters who choose one party in a primary election do the same in the general election.
“We know from our studies that if independents come into your primary, they tend to stick,” said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California Berkeley. “This is why the Republican Party needs to think long and hard about keeping independents out.”
Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and a former Republican political operative, agreed.
“Elections are won by addition, not subtraction, and given the current condition of the Republican Party, you'd think they'd want to maximize their appeal to independents,” he said. “But logic and the California Republican Party have never been close neighbors.”
Fleischman acknowledged the dynamic but contended the principle is too important to sacrifice.
“To win the election you have to get 'decline to state' and Democrat voters to support your nominee. But that's entirely different from letting them choose your nominee,” he said. “The minute you allow just anybody to pick your candidates, then you get candidates who look nothing like Republicans.”
Voting systems for primary elections vary widely from state to state, and California's process has changed dramatically several times.
Legislation approving direct primary elections passed in 1909. The dominant Progressives of that era, seeking to weaken the influence of political parties, instituted a system of “cross-filing” where candidates could run in both primaries.
Republican Earl Warren became the last governor to win both parties' nominations in 1950. Cross-filing was repealed in 1959 in favor of closed primaries in which only registered party members could vote.
In 1996, voters approved Proposition 198, which created the “open primary,” where candidates of all parties were listed on the same ballot and voters could cross party lines at will.
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned it four years later. The Legislature responded by passing a modified open primary that allows voters to request the ballot of any party that authorizes their participation.
The Democratic Party allows independents to vote in their primary for all partisan offices, but a Republican Party bylaw restricts the selection of national convention delegates – which is actually what are chosen in presidential primaries – to registered party members.
The next opportunity for consideration of a bylaw change is the California Republican Party's statewide convention in September – three months after the deadline for state parties to submit their delegate-selection rules to the Republican National Committee.
Newly installed state party Chairman Ron Nehring has the authority to convene a meeting of the party's executive committee to consider a bylaw change, but Nehring, who says he is neutral in the dispute, won't do that.
“The reason is a change of this magnitude should be contemplated by the whole membership, not by the party's executive committee,” he said.
Besides, Nehring said, a rule change at this late date would not be considered on its merits.
“When you're already in a presidential cycle, it invariably leads to speculation of who it benefits and who it doesn't. And that overwhelms the process,” he said.
The conventional wisdom is that allowing independents to vote in the Republican primary would benefit the more moderate candidates such as former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who made a strong showing among independents in 2000 when he lost the nomination to George W. Bush.
Sundheim strongly denied speculation among conservatives that he is pursuing the rule change at the behest of the McCain campaign.
“I have not indicated my support for any presidential candidate, much less involved myself in a clandestine effort on that issue,” he said. “I favor allowing 'decline to states' to vote in the Republican primary, and the reason I do is that I believe we need to be an open party.”
The California Republican Party has already changed its presidential primary procedures in one respect. Next year, the delegates will not all go to the winner of the statewide popular vote. Rather, they will be apportioned to the winners in each of the 53 congressional districts.
In theory, this could greatly increase the level of candidate activity.
“That means more opportunities for more candidates,” said Pitney of Claremont McKenna. “With statewide winner-take-all, it would be very difficult for all but the top two or three candidates to compete. But with winner-take-all by district, it's possible to see, say, (Alpine Rep.) Duncan Hunter getting a few delegates. That means more attention from more Republican candidates.”
The winner of each congressional district would get three delegates, meaning that Republican John Campbell's district in Orange County that has 200,000 Republicans would be worth the same as Democrat Xavier Becerra's district in East Los Angeles that has only 27,000.
“You're going to see Republican candidates campaigning in places where Republican candidates don't usually spend a lot of time campaigning,” said Republican strategist Dan Schnur. “If you can get as many delegates out of downtown Berkeley or Santa Cruz as you can in northern San Diego County or Orange County, there's going to be a pretty powerful incentive for the candidates to expand the playing field.”
While the new system may impact candidate activity, it seems unlikely to affect the outcome of the nomination.
“Delegates are completely meaningless,” said Republican analyst Tony Quinn. “The national convention is a big party. They don't matter anymore.”
Thanks, Dan. Given all of the recent behind-closed-doors changes from the liberal bunch, I have become skeptical of most every move.
I sure hope this one doesn't bite us in the end.
I can only dream that Independents could vote in California primary elections. Most Independents I know are disgruntled conservatives who left the Republican Party for being too wish-washy, wimpy, spineless and buddy-buddy with the liberals. I figure the only way to get Republicans worth a damn and not liberals like Arnold Scwartzenegger is to let the right-leaning Independents vote int he primaries. But then, I think California is a lost cause anyway, doomed to a full-blown Socialst hell, so what do I know?
Just like me!!!
It means you support a particular platform, and have enough courage in your convictions to publicly declare it. This, in turn, entitles you a say in whom should be the standard bearer in the promotion of that platform.
It is not, as Duf would have it, a wishy washy, come one come all bandwagon to coronate a pop star, who then defines the platform afterward, or ignores it completely. But too many people have lost sight of the fact that the purpose of a political party is to serve the needs of its members, and not for the members to serve as mindless drones for the GOP leadership.
A court ruling, saying that Parties get to decide whom they allow to vote for Party candidacy, and not just any Tom, Dick or Jane who wants to play.
I used to live in Becerra's district. The Reps never even ran a candidate against him. That means, in an open primary, Becerra supporters were safe in voting in Rep primaries in ways that were contrary to Rep interests, because their guy was safe.
Well, I got that but why?
Well, I got that but why?
Because open primaries let the opposition sabotage your Party's selection of candidate. When they have an unopposed primary candidate, as Gore and Boxer were in 2000, the Dem operatives and faithful can safely ignore their own primary, and use their votes to saddle Reps with unrepresentative candidates, or to water down grass movement groundswells. People like Duf welcome that, because it skews the Party leftward, where he has been trying to drag it for years.
Because open primaries let the opposition sabotage your Party's selection of candidate. When they have an unopposed primary candidate, as Gore and Boxer were in 2000, the Dem operatives and faithful can safely ignore their own primary, and use their votes to saddle Reps with unrepresentative candidates, or to water down grass movement groundswells. People like Duf welcome that, because it skews the Party leftward, where he has been trying to drag it for years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.