[EL] vocabulary problems in election law

[Edward Still]

The opposite (or is it?) of an "open primary" is a "closed primary."

In Alabama, we have no party registration, but a voter can vote in only one
party's primary. A letter to the editor earlier this week was complaining
this was a "closed primary." I don't think so.

Now, to Richard's proposal. Once we (the readers of this list) determine
the true definitions of "open primary," "ballot access," and "two-party
system," how do we enforce our edicts? Perhaps we could form a SWAT team
(Special Words Are Terrific).

Edward Still
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
130 Wildwood Parkway, Suite 108, PMB 304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882 (voice & fax)
  still at votelaw.com
  www.votelaw.com/blog
  www.edwardstill.com
  www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill>


On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>wrote:

> I'm hoping members of this list can agree on a common definition of
> "ballot access".  For all my adult life, "ballot access" has meant the
> ability of a candidate or a party to appear on a ballot.  Just this year, I
> have noticed some reporters and others starting to use "ballot access" to
> refer to the ability of a voter to register to vote, or to obtain a ballot
> at the polling place.
>
> Logically, "ballot access" can refer to either a candidate or a voter, I
> agree.  But because the term has such long use as meaning a candidate or
> party, I wish and hope there can be another term for problems for voters
> being able to vote.
>
> I have seen the same vocabulary problem with "two-party system" for a long
> time.  That term first appears in print in 1911 in an article in the
> American Political Science Journal, and it meant a system in which two
> parties are far bigger than all other parties.  It was referring to the
> British party system.  But over the decades, usage has changed, so that it
> means a system in which voters and candidates are actively discouraged by
> the government from participating outside the two major parties.  And no
> one ever bothers to define the term.
>
> Another vocabulary problem recently is "open primary."  Several U.S.
> Supreme Court decisions have defined the term, and it has always matched
> the way it is defined in academic writings on political party (such as
> "Voting at the Political Fault Lines").  It means a system in which all
> parties have their own nominees and their own primary ballots, but on
> primary day any voter is free to choose any party's primary ballot.
>
> Unfortunately, most of the California press has been referring to a
> top-two system (in which parties don't have their own nominees or their own
> primary ballots) with the same term.  Washington state newspapers don't
> make this mistake; they know better, because Washington went from an open
> primary to a top-two primary in 2008, so Washington readers know the
> difference between the two systems.  A California Superior Court in 2004
> ruled that a top-two system may not be described on the ballot or in the
> voters handbook as an "open primary" (Vandermost v Shelley).  Neither Prop.
> 62 in 2004, not Prop. 14 in 2010, was on the ballot as an "open primary".
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120314/3f160ec3/attachment.html>