Nate Persily wrote:

Perhaps someone posted this already, but I missed it.  I think this puts
a very interesting twist on the party autonomy/open primary/Cal Dem.
Party v. Jones debate.




http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/election2002/1005mckinney.html

[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 10/5/02 ]

             ELECTION 2002
             Name McKinney victor, crossover
             voting suit asks
             By BILL RANKIN              Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
             Republican voters who crossed over to help Denise
             Majette beat U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney in August's
             Democratic primary interfered with voting rights and their
             votes should be declared invalid, a lawsuit filed Friday
             contends.

             Five DeKalb County voters were named as plaintiffs in the
             suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. It says the
             "malicious" crossover voting was unconstitutional and
             violated the Voting Rights Act, and asks that McKinney be
             declared the winner.

             "The issue is that black Democratic voters in the 4th
             District had their voting rights interfered with and
violated,"
             said Atlanta lawyer J.M. Raffauf, who represents the five
             African-American plaintiffs: the Rev. E. Randel T.
Osburne,
             an official of the Southern Christian Leadership
             Conference; Linda Dubose; Brenda Lowe Clemons;
             Dorothy Perry; and Wendell Muhammad, a McKinney
             campaign official.
             Raffauf, who has represented McKinney, said the
             congresswoman supported the litigation. She could not be
             reached for comment Friday.

             The controversial five-term incumbent lost to Majette 58
             percent to 42 percent. Before the primary, leading
             Republicans and conservative commentators urged
             Republicans to vote for Majette in the Democratic primary.
             McKinåney has repeatedly blamed the crossover voting for
             her defeat, and charged that Democratic officials aided
             Majette.

             The defendants in the lawsuit are Secretary of State Cathy
             Cox, the DeKalb and Gwinnett County election
             supervisors, Majette, the DeKalb Republican Party and the
             state Democratic and Republican parties. Majette, a
             former State Court judge, faces Republican Cynthia Van
             Auken in the November general election.

             Georgia does not require voters to register by party, and
             they may choose either party's ballot in the primary. But
             the lawsuit contends that an organized attempt by
             members of one party to affect the outcome of another
             party's election is illegal.

             "Malicious crossover voting occurs when one party invades
             another party's primary to sabotage that party's choice of
             its own nominee for political office," the lawsuit says.
             Attorney General Thurbert Baker said he would "vigorously
             defend" the primary results. "Georgia law is crystal clear
             in its guarantee that a voter can walk into a polling
place
             on primary election day and choose a ballot for whichever
             political party he or she chooses," he said.
             Majette aide Jeannie Lawson said the campaign was
             reviewing the lawsuit and would "stay focused on the
             issues important to the voters of the 4th District."

             Raffauf said his suit was bolstered by a 2000 U.S.
             Supreme Court decision invalidating California's "blanket"
             primary. Under that system, each voter's ballot listed
every
             candidate, regardless of party affiliation, and allowed
             voters to choose freely among them.

             That system, however, differs from Georgia's practice of
             requiring voters to choose one party's ballot. And Justice
             Antonin Scalia, writing for a 7-2 majority in the
California
             case, made a point of noting that it did not require the
             Supreme Court "to determine the constitutionality of open
             primaries."

             -- Staff writer Bill Torpy contributed to this article.




-- Nathaniel Persily Assistant Professor University of Pennsylvania Law School 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (o) 215-898-0167 (f) 215-573-2025 npersily@law.upenn.edu http://persily.pennlaw.net/