|
Vote:
The only commodity that is peddlable without a
license” –Mark Twain
A
lawsuit that seeks to landscape our political
system in Virginia continues to make its way
through the federal court system. If it survives
the legal gauntlet, the lawsuit could effectively
ban members of other political parties from
participating in Republican primary elections.
As
reported in this column previously (see “Political
Landscaping,” May 30, 2006), the case was
heard by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit on May 23 after being dismissed
by the lower court earlier in the year. The
three-judge panel appeared sympathetic to the
arguments put forth by the plaintiffs.
Virginia
is one of 22 states that does not allow for voter
registration by party. Accordingly, primary
elections are open to all registered voters. This
means that Republicans can vote in Democrat
primaries and vice versa.
This
practice has been a bone of contention, mostly for
conservative Republicans who believe that a number
of RINO (Republicans In Name Only) politicians
continue to get re-elected only because they
appeal to Democrat and Independent voters who
cross party lines. (See “RINO
Hunting,” May 23, 2005.)
The
U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on a similar matter,
a lawsuit filed by the political parties in
California, which had enjoyed closed party
elections for years. In a strongly worded decision
the Supremes spoke clearly to a political
party’s first amendment right of association:
“Such
forced association has the likely outcome –
indeed, in this case the intended outcome – of
changing the parties’ message. We can think of
no heavier burden on a political party’s
associational freedom.”
In
a unanimous decision, the three Virginia judges
agreed with the plaintiffs. They found the
district court erred in its judgment that they
lacked standing to have the federal courts
adjudicate the matter or that the case lacked
ripeness, because it was filed way too early
before the scheduled 2007 state elections.
Accordingly,
the case was remanded to the district court for
consideration of the merits.
The
judges readily concluded that having to associate
with members of the other party during their
candidate-selection processes pleads a
constitutional injury. They also opined that a
causal connection undoubtedly exists between the
open primary law itself and the plaintiffs'
alleged injuries.
On
November 16, 2006, the district court heard oral
arguments on the case. State Sen. Kenneth T.
Cuccinelli, R-Centreville, an attorney
representing the plaintiffs, argued that the open
primary law is unconstitutional, because it
infringes on a party's right to freely associate
with like-minded party members and allows
non-party members to have a say in the selection
of party candidates.
Cuccinelli
contended that the open primary law forces the
plaintiffs to accept Democrats into their
nomination process, which violates their
constitutional right of free association.
"The right to associate includes the right
not to associate, which means right to exclude
opponents" said Cuccinelli.
In
response, the Attorney General's Office,
representing the Virginia State Board of
Elections, said the law is constitutional because
a party can choose from different nominating
processes. The elections board is also concerned
that closed primaries would necessitate party
registration statewide.
Not
all Republicans agree on this question. For
example, Del. Dave Albo, R-Fairfax, believes that
only allowing party regulars to participate in
primary elections is the worst idea he has heard.
“This is a way to make sure the partisan
politics will be on steroids,” he said (as
quoted in the Washington Times).
Albo,
a practicing attorney, should know better. His
response completely disregards the legal
precedents on a political party’s first
amendment right of associational freedom. His
interpretation is clearly based on a political
view, which calls for obfuscating and watering
down the will of party insiders by allowing
non-party members to have a say in the selection
of party candidates.
It
is this policy that has allowed the RINOs to
control the State Senate, where most Senate
Republicans have time-and-time again sided with
the Democrats in calling for or enacting tax
increases and have refused to go along with the
House of Delegates, controlled by more
conservative Republicans, in solving the state’s
transportation crisis.
The
current open primary system has permitted RINO
incumbents to deflect primary challenges by urging
non-Republicans to vote for them in primary
elections. Time and time again, Democrat or other
liberal organized constituencies like the state
and local government employee unions have
campaigned in favor of the RINOs, thereby ensuring
their re-election.
No
wonder RINOs are unhappy with the direction this
case is taking. They had hoped that the courts
would have killed the legal challenge to the open
primary system. They now have to consider that the
courts may end their long-standing political
strategy for getting re-elected when facing
intra-party challenges.
--
November 20, 2006
|
