RSS Feed MenuFor over a decade, registered independents in Arizona have been able to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. Now, however, a team of Republican Party-sponsored lawyers is feverishly looking for ways to close off the August Republican primary to registered independents. The process began in January after Arizona Republican leaders voted to look into the change.
The proposed change begs two questions: First, Is this another sign of the Republican Party’s desire for ideological “purity”? Second, will a closed Republican primary benefit Hayworth or McCain?
The Arizona Republican bid to close its non-presidential primary is almost certainly an attempt to encourage ideological purity – a popular theme among Republicans these days. Having a GOP base-only primary would ensure more conservative candidates and likely ensure less state-level success.
It would also shut out a substantial portion of Arizona voters. As of 2010, there are almost as many independents in Arizona as Republicans or Democrats. At the moment, there are 929,000 unaffiliated and independent voters in Arizona, compared to 1,035,000 Democrats and 1.1 million Republicans.
Conservatives in the Arizona Republican party are feeling the pressure of changing demographics; a change in rules would ensure that they maintain power in the GOP. As Arizona welcomes more new residents from California and other states, the state has become less and less conservative. It is has gone from red to purple. The number of independent voters in the Grand Canyon state has grown by 105,000 since just 2008.
Accordingly, a primary election of consisting of only hardcore Republicans is a potential disaster for McCain. For over a decade, conservative Arizona Republicans have been deeply dissatisfied with McCain. This year is their best chance to get rid of him in over a decade and promises to be an opportunity they will work hard to seize.
A lack of independents may mean a lack of moderates and center-left voters who would pull the lever for McCain or, at least, against Hayworth.
On the other hand, a closed primary may shut out independent Tea Party voters that would have voted for Hayworth. Tea Partiers prize their political independence. Arizona Tea Party leaders, for instance, refused to endorse either Hayworth or McCain. The national movement also refused to join CPAC and, instead, opted to hold a separate convention in Tennessee.
Hayworth’s entire election so far is based on Tea Party enthusiasm. Would he stand a chance drawing on voters from the political mainstream?
Most likely, however, Tea Partiers would register as Republicans for the year, vote for Hayworth and then re-register as independents after defeating McCain.
Stewardship // Mar 10, 2010 at 3:37 pm
A political party is a private entity which should be able to pick its nominees any way it sees fit. However, if it chooses to limit its primary elections to members only, then the party should foot the entire bill incurred by state and local governments in holding the elections. Why should taxpayers be financially responsible if every taxpayer will not have the option of participating?
sinz54 // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Stewardship: A political party is a private entity which should be able to pick its nominees any way it sees fit.
But a political party, first and foremost, has to obey the laws of the states.
And in some states, by law, some primaries must be open. (That’s the case in “first-in-the-nation” New Hampshire, for example. State law requires an open Presidential primary.)
However, if it chooses to limit its primary elections to members only, then the party should foot the entire bill incurred by state and local governments in holding the elections.
Impossible, in an age of terrorism and corrupt elections. No political party can afford to duplicate all the efforts of the local and state police, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, etc.
Carney // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm
It’s ludicrous that non-members of a party should have any say whatsoever in whom that party nominates.
PracticalGirl // Mar 10, 2010 at 7:14 pm
I have always thought that one of the privileges of party membership is the ability to actively choose your party’s candidates. As long as no state laws are broken (as sinz pointed out) closing the primary to the non-affiliated is right and proper. Fence sitting as an Independent has its perks, but choosing to either support or muckrake within a primary shouldn’t be one of them.
TerryF99 // Mar 10, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Carney // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm
“It’s ludicrous that non-members of a party should have any say whatsoever in whom that party nominates.”
Hope you called Rush Limbaugh to ask him to call off operation chaos during the Democratic primary.
Independent // Mar 10, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Stewardship: “A political party is a private entity which should be able to pick its nominees any way it sees fit. However, if it chooses to limit its primary elections to members only, then the party should foot the entire bill incurred by state and local governments in holding the elections. Why should taxpayers be financially responsible if every taxpayer will not have the option of participating?”
You’re absolutely correct, of course. In Michigan, for instance, closed primaries are the financial burden of the political party that elects to close them. Democrats have gotten around this for years by holding closed primary conventions inside UAW halls.
Many GOP groups thought that having open primaries were good because it brought independents to the polls and got people interested in GOP candidates. Problem was, in many states, that led to highjinks at the polls as Democrats –free of having to vote in their own primary– could contend they were GOPers and pick the least likely candidate for the GOP.
Additionally, as we found in the 2008 race, the right candidate for the nomination failed to secure it. John McCain got it because, largely, people who aren’t even GOP had the unlimited opportunity to influence the decision of the Party. I’m sure there were more than a few PUMAs and Obami playing games in Michigan’s GOP primary –luckily, they didn’t steal the vote and Romney won.
Parties should be able to nominate those people they think represents the party. The canard that state law has to be followed is just that –a canard. In every state, state parties have been able to write the legislation they’ve wanted as long as it wasn’t so egregious to trigger a lawsuit. Some states have closed primaries where the voters have to attest to being GOP or Dem… and that’s not a bad a thing.
Unfortunately, since the general election includes independents and unaligned voters, removing them from the decision making process means the Party regulars must consider that aspect in order to choose wisely.
ProfNickD // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:14 pm
The entire point of the article is disingenuous, probably deliberately so — no AZ Republican is arguing that moderates shouldn’t be allowed to vote in Republican primaries. The argument is that non-Republicans shouldn’t be allowed to vote in Republican primaries.
If independents (and, for that matter Democrats or 3rd-party voters) want to influence who the Republican candidate is then they should register as Republicans. But you should pick the horse you want to ride, as we say here in Arizona: you get to influence one party’s nominee, not all of them.
BoolaBoola // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:30 pm
The question is not whether or not the GOP SHOULD stop alienating moderates.
The question is whether or not the GOP CAN do this.
Independent // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Actually boolaboola, it’s neither. Once again, it’s a false choice laid out by a highly prejudicial and biased observer –you.
The choice is whether or not the GOP will follow the long standing practice of many Democrat and liberal party groups; namely, operate within the context of a closed primary so that the Party regulars can select who they want to be the nominee and not diminish the power of their selection by allowing non-Party voters an opportunity to engage in the process.
We have excellent polls that can closely gauge what unaligned, non-GOP voters think… moderate or independent or socially conservative or libertarian. GOP voters in a primary can take that into consideration. We don’t need to allow them the option to influence the selection process with a vote.
We elect precint delegates and appoint Electoral College members based on their Party identification and past contributions to the Party… I don’t know why picking the Prez nominee should be any different.
andydp // Mar 11, 2010 at 8:00 am
I agree that parties should have the final say on which candadate they select to run. “Open” primaries sound like a contradiction.
BUT if the “opposition” is well organized they could simply change their party affiliation and vote in the primary anyway. I’m not sure if there is a time limit on changing parties in AZ, but if the GOP is concerned that’s something they need to correct.
As for the “purity” factor; once again the GOP will be shooting itself in the foot. They will select a person that will turn off a large majority of voters before even starting a campaign. Ultimately making sure the Democrats win. As an example: one wrong blab about immigration and the GOP will lose most supporters within the legal Latino population. Heck, just get Rep Tancredo to endorse the GOP candidate.
sinz54 // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:13 am
Independent: The canard that state law has to be followed is just that –a canard. In every state, state parties have been able to write the legislation they’ve wanted
Of course the state laws could be changed.
But right now, in New Hampshire next door to where I live, state law requires open primaries.
DFL // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:17 am
Carney is right. If Arizona Republicans prefer a Convention, so shall it be.
sinz54 // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:27 am
Ironically, the hard Left and the hard Right are on the same side favoring closed primaries.
And for the same identical two reasons: Each extreme faction thinks that by eliminating moderate voters, it can capture its own party, while driving the other party into the hands of the other extreme faction. And each faction thinks that’s a good thing. But it isn’t a good thing for America.
Hence, the hard Left dreams of nominating Dem candidates as far to the left as Kucinich is now, while forcing the GOP to nominate hard-right Tea Party candidates as far to the right as DeMint. The hard Right has the identical dream: Let’s get the GOP to nominate Tea Party candidates, while forcing the Dems to nominate hard-left candidates.
Today, Independents like me are often a larger voting bloc than either party. (That’s true in MA where I live, for example.)
By freezing out Independents like me from voting in party primaries, the effect will be to increase the power of the extremists in both parties, since those extremists tend to be activists who will turn out to vote in primaries in large numbers.
That’s why I don’t favor it. I don’t want DailyKOS to nominate all the Dem candidates, while Focus on the Family nominates all the GOP candidates. I want moderates who are equally disgusted with the extremism on both sides to continue to have a major voice.
I have frequently proposed ways to reduce the polarization we see in Washington now. Closing primaries will make that polarization even worse.
And since Independents are now often a larger voting bloc than either party, freezing them out of the process is profoundly undemocratic. The fact that there are so many Independents would suggest that a third party is needed–but our political system makes that nearly impossible. So the existing two parties must continue to find ways to give Independents a voice.
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:29 am
sinz54, it isn’t a question of “could” be changed –every state that I’m aware of in the last 35 years where a change in the nomination process was proposed by the state Party, the changes occured in the year the state Party leaders proposed them.
Canard was what it was; canard is what it is.
Michigan had open GOP primaries for years. One year the Democrats played political pixies with it and gave the GOP a dog of a candidate. The next year it was changed to mandate closed elections where the voter, in order to vote, had to declare party preference.
Most of the MSM and many voters were outraged at the declaration requirement, a backlash of Tea Party proportions ensued, the state Party leaders relented and had legislation enacted that changed it back –all in a single legislative session in 2002.
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:41 am
sinz54, as an independent, I don’t expect you to be able to understand how political parties work and what motivates parties to advance candidates. By your comments in #12 and elsewhere (esp about the “GOP base”), you clearly don’t have a clue.
Party loyalists are both moderates and fringe. Party loyalists and those who should be picking the Party’s nominees to represent the Party are people who are, first and foremost, interested in selecting candidates who can win by representing the Party’s core principles. In the selection of McCain in ‘08, many party loyalists inside the GOP knew that a standard, rip from the shelf GOPer couldn’t win. We needed a GOPer who was a non-GOPer, a maverick, etc.
You say that freezing out independents like you will cause either party to shift further right or left. Bunk. That presupposes that the voters who are rightly picking their Party’s nominee can’t calculate what is best for the Party and –as hard as this seems to be for you to grasp– political parties are all about winning elections. Period.
That you don’t get that point and struggle to defend your position that independents and unaligned voters who have zero interest in the Party’s viability should be allowed to pick the Party’s nominee is as much a lunatic’s position as the fringe elements you rebel against inside the Party.
And it seriously underestimates the adverse influence that non-Party voters can have on the selection of nominees.
kevin47 // Mar 11, 2010 at 10:47 am
I thought this was interesting. From the article (which wasn’t very good):
“The woman told me that she is interested in voting in the Republican primary race between McCain and Hayworth… She wouldn’t tell me which of the two candidates she prefers. Hayworth spokesman Jason Rose believes that such voters tilt toward his guy.”
The woman is a Democrat frustrated that Republicans essentially elect the next senator in their primaries. This is exactly the sort of voter Republicans don’t want at their primaries. Switching party affiliation is sufficiently inconvenient that voters won’t do it en masse, but Dems registered as independents can easily vote their interests.
Also, thought the author dismisses it outright, the claim that it will encourage independents to register as Republicans seems entirely valid.
I really don’t understand the complaint.
Independent // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:22 am
kevin47, you don’t understand the complaint because the complaint isn’t defensible.
Of course, we all know that “republicans run for the hills” spun stories are the ones that sell the best at FF. What better to argue than the GOP is trying to close out independents and pick just a fringe candidate that will inevitably lose the General?
For instance, PaulCraft claims: “Tea Partiers prize their political independence. Arizona Tea Party leaders, for instance, refused to endorse either Hayworth or McCain.” What Paul fails to understand is that by refusing to endorse, TP leaders effectively blunted the best possible endorsement for Hayworth and actually picked a side by doing nothing: McCain’s side. No endorsement is a loss for Hayworth; a big one. As much as it would be for McCain to have GOP US Senators endorse Hayworth. For PaulCraft to miss that and try to spin it as the TP leaders were just prizing their independence to engage in intellectually dishonest spin.
Independents in America are a growing segment because both behavioral Democrats and Republicans are sick of the partisanship –as Bob Teeter use to say: scratch an independent and you’ll likely uncover a behavioral GOPer. There aren’t issues that unite “Independents” –they’re independent because they’re against Party A and B. Or maybe they’re independent because they’d like to think “they vote for the man” not the Party label.
But what isn’t true is that a state party organization in Arizona or any state trying to limit those who nominate their standard bearer to party supporters are trying to “cut out” independents or narrow the party’s perspective. Parties are about winning, not losing; and that’s where PaulCraft’s and the arguments of other’s here fall short.