[EL] question for those interested in primary types & law
Thomas J. Cares
Tom at TomCares.com
Mon Apr 16 20:18:33 PDT 2012
Orchids don't have first amendment rights of association. That would be the
key distinction.
Republicans are entitled to control who is to be the standard-bearer of
their party; in your hypothetical, one would be "the republican candidate"
rather than "a candidate who happens to prefer the republican party." How
would you defend that as not violating Republicans' rights of association?
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>wrote:
> I don't see why a "voter-nominated system" can't provide that all the
> voters can't nominate their favorite Republican, their favorite Democrat,
> their favorite Green, their favorite Libertarian.
>
> The whole phrase "voter-nominated" is a new phrase, without clear
> definition or roots.
>
> If it were a flower show, why couldn't the judges "nominate" their
> favorite rose, and their favorite orchid, and their favorite poppy, and
> send them into the last round of the flower show?
>
> Or a dog show, why couldn't the judges nominate the best poodle, the best
> terrier, the best hound, and then send those into the final round?
>
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On *Mon, 4/16/12, Scarberry, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>*wrote:
>
>
> From: Scarberry, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] question for those interested in primary types & law
> To: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Date: Monday, April 16, 2012, 5:58 PM
>
>
> If the process puts forward candidates based on their affiliations or
> claimed affiliations as in Richard's hypo (in which one person identified
> with each party goes forward to the general election), then the system is a
> party nominating system.
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
> Malibu, CA 90263
> (310)506-4667
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@department-lists.uci.edu>[mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@department-lists.uci.edu>]
> On Behalf Of Lowenstein, Daniel
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 5:39 PM
> To: richardwinger at yahoo.com <http://mc/compose?to=richardwinger@yahoo.com>;
> law-election at uci.edu <http://mc/compose?to=law-election@uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] question for those interested in primary types & law
>
> The underlying question is whether the system entails party
> nominations. If so, the party has an associational right to control its
> nominating process. If not, the party has nothing to say about it.
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel H. Lowenstein
> Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions
> (CLAFI)
> UCLA Law School
> 405 Hilgard
> Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
> 310-825-5148
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@department-lists.uci.edu>[
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@department-lists.uci.edu>]
> On Behalf Of Richard Winger [richardwinger at yahoo.com<http://mc/compose?to=richardwinger@yahoo.com>
> ]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 1:08 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu <http://mc/compose?to=law-election@uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] question for those interested in primary types & law
>
> In 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled in Cal. Dem. Party v Jones, 530 US
> 567, that blanket primaries are unconstitutional as applied to political
> parties that don't want to participate in blanket primaries.
>
> In 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled in Washington Stage Grange v
> Washington State Republican Party, 552 US 442, that top-two primaries are
> not unconstitutional on their face, at least as applied to freedom of
> association.
>
> There are two differences between the California system invalidated, and
> the Washington state system that was upheld on its face, at least as to
> freedom of association: (1) in California, parties had nominees whereas in
> Washington the ballot language tells voters that parties don't have
> nominees and the party labels are preceded by "I prefer the (whatever)
> party."; (2) in the California system invalidated in 2000, the top
> vote-getter from the ranks of each party advanced to the general election
> whereas in Washington only the top two vote-getters advance to the general
> election.
>
> My question is, suppose a state establishes blanket primaries and prints
> ballots and other official campaign material that tell the voters that
> parties don't have nominees. This hypothetical state law provides that
> party labels on the ballot are preceded by "I am registered in the
> (whatever) party." Furthermore, this hypothetical law also provides that
> the top-vote getter from the ranks of candidates registered in each
> particular party advance to the November ballot. Would that system be
> constitutional?
>
> In other words, Washington state escaped the fate of California' blanket
> primary by using the magic words, "I prefer (whatever) party" on the
> ballot. Could Washington state return to the blanket primary if it used
> the "I prefer" language and all the other verbiage on ballots saying
> parties don't have nominees?
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120416/f35f2d9a/attachment.html>
View list directory