On The Wall

COURT SAYS CALIFORNIA'S BLANKET PRIMARY THREATENS POLITICAL PARTY IDENTITY

Jun. 26, 2000 | 10:03 p.m.

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court invalidated California's blanket primary Monday, calling it a ``stark repudiation of freedom of political association'' that stripped political parties of the ability to control their own nominating process and define their identity.

Under the California system, an extreme version of the more common open primary, all voters, regardless of their party membership, get a single ballot from which they can select among candidates of any party affiliation: a Republican for governor, for example, and a Libertarian for the state Assembly. Alaska and Washington are the only other states with such a system.

The 7-2 decision cast doubt on the more common open primary, used in more than half the states, in which any registered voter can request a particular party's primary ballot. In some states, the crossover privilege is limited to independent voters and does not extend to members of a different party.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion Monday, said that ``this case does not require us to determine the constitutionality of open primaries.''

But Justice John Paul Stevens, who voted in dissent along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the decision ``cast serious constitutional doubt'' on those approaches as well.

The case was an appeal by four California political parties, the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom parties. They opposed the blanket primary when it was adopted as a voter initiative in 1996 and then challenged it in court on the ground that it violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association.

The underlying question for the court was how to characterize a political primary: as the public's business or as the party's essentially private affair. The private view prevailed. ``In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee,'' Scalia said.

The dissenters viewed the entire issue through the opposite end of the analytical telescope, emphasizing the public, rather than private, function of a political primary.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Ginsburg, Stevens said that while a party's internal governance was its own business, ``an election, unlike a convention or caucus, is a public affair.'' The dissent added that ``in an era of dramatically declining voter participation, states should be free to experiment with reforms designed to make the democratic process more robust by involving the entire electorate in the process of selecting those who will serve as government officials.''

NYT-06-26-00 2245EDT

I see this as a travesty of American politics. I concur with the dissenters. They are basically eliminating the ability of the American people to freely choose the best candidate for a particular office. I think California was going in the right direction in allowing not only an open primary but an open ballot as well. Now the Supreme Court has struck it down and what will happen next will only validate an antiquated system of electoral rules and regulations run by big money politics. Personally, I think that the primary system itself should be ruled unconstitutional, if they are in the business of ruling on anything related to political parties. The current system as it exists is not a fair and open democratic system. It forces voters to choose from a limited list of candidates and to align themselves with a political party. Independent voters have no recourse except to boycott the primaries. I would like to see an open ballot in August like the primaries, then have a general run-off in November to determine the top two vote-getters on the ballot. Under this system, we would be harking back to the founders of this country who felt that would be the best way to do it. But, the advent of political parties, which George Washington warned about, i.e. the civil war, caused the President to be elected and the VP to be appointed by the winning party. Under the original system, the Pres might be from one party, and the VP from another. So what? We could have a pluralistic election process without actually having a pluralistic government. It would be more fair, and more appealing to an already apathetic voting constituency, and would empower voters to make sound decisions based on information, research, debates, etc. instead of relying on 30 second TV and radio spots. The Supreme Court ruling can either validate the movement in the direction of an eventual overhaul of the electoral system, or can be seen as a move in the opposite direction for support of the current debilitating system. What do you think??

Frank Fenn

825 Bel Air Circle

Griffin, GA 30224

770-229-8985