Open Primaries

I've been watching with interest the initiatives being considered by our neighbors regarding open primaries. So has the Eugene Register-Guard.

Voters in California and Washington state may decide next week to abolish partisan primary elections. Former Secretary of State Phil Keisling is pushing for Oregon to do the same, but Oregonians should watch how an all-comers primary works in neighboring states before deciding whether the idea represents reform or a wrecking ball. Initiatives in both states would make all primary election contests similar to the ones that Lane County holds for members of the Board of Commissioners. All candidates, regardless of party, would appear on the same primary ballot. All voters would be given the same ballot. The top two finishers would compete in a general-election runoff. The two second-round candidates could be members of any party - or no party at all.

This system is used in a number of local elections across the country, including here in Oregon. A frequent modification to the system is that if a candidate gets over 50 percent of the vote in the primary, that candidate wins the election outright. Louisiana even uses this system to select its U.S. Congressmen and Senators, governor, etc. But why are states looking at changing their primary systems at all?

Both states are considering a new way of conducting primaries because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled their old ways unconstitutional. For decades, Washington had what's called a "blanket primary," which allowed voters to choose primary candidates of either party. A 1996 initiative created a similar system in California. The Supreme Court ruled that blanket primaries infringed on the parties' First Amendment freedom of association by allowing nonmembers to choose nominees. People unwilling to accept an Oregon-style primary, in which only registered party members can participate, placed open primary initiatives on Tuesday's ballot.

Republican and Democratic Party officials oppose the initiatives, and it's easy to see why. A general election contest could be between two Democrats, or two Republicans. Worse yet, from the parties' perspective, candidates might lose interest in claiming any party affiliation - the two states' legislatures and other elective offices might be filled by people unidentified with, and not beholden to, either major party. Minor parties, for their part, worry that their candidates would never appear on general election ballots.

Let's remember what California went through in its 2002 gubernatorial elections. Governor Gray Davis was not particularly popular but was very safe in his primary. Democrats feared that he could be vulnerable to a moderate Republican...namely former LA mayor Richard Reardon. With Democrats not particularly worried about voting for Gray Davis in the primaries, a number of them voted for very conservative Republican Bill Simon, who beat out Reardon.

If the votes of Democrats swung the Republican primary, that disenfranchised moderate Republicans...at least if one presumes party members have the right to nominate their own candidate. It also penalized some independents and fiscally conservative Democrats who, with Reardon not on the ballot, ended up holding their noses and voting for Davis. Nevertheless after his victory, Davis continued to sink in popularity and was eventually recalled, with the most moderate candidate--Arnold Schwarzenegger--winning an open election to replace him.

There are ugly examples in open primaries as well. In Louisiana's 1991 gubernatorial elections, the state ended up having to choose between the corrupt Edwin Edwards and KKK member David Duke. Sometimes a couple of somewhat popular embarassments can get enough votes in the primaries that the more amenable candidates can't make it to the runoff that they could (and probably should) win. Then in 1995, Louisiana had 16 candidates run for governor, with the top two--both ideologically rather extreme--getting just 45 percent of the vote combined in the primary. One then got to be governor.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - who was elected in what amounted to an open primary following former Gov. Gray Davis' recall - supports his state's open primary initiative. Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has liberal views on such issues as gay rights and abortion, might have had trouble winning a members-only primary like Oregon's. The governor said he decided to support the open-primary initiative after party leaders in the Legislature, who seldom agree on anything, united to lobby him against it.

Oregon doesn't have a Schwarzenegger waiting in the wings, but an open primary might improve the chances of candidates who stray from party orthodoxy. Under Oregon's closed primary system, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats are often defeated in the first round - candidates must appeal to the party base in the primary. As a result, Oregon's Legislature, in particular, is more polarized politically than the electorate at large. An open primary, Keisling and others believe, would improve moderates' chances of success.

Folks claim there are structural reasons that our candidates have become more polarized, including closed primaries and gerrymandering...both make some sense. Most politicians and certainly our major political parties are very protective of their power and jealous of their opponents' power, sometimes at the expense of doing what's best for the electorate. Boy I sure hope we clearly know who won the presidential election Tuesday night.

Opening our primaries could address part of the problem, but with our gerrymandered districts and the political viewpoints necessary to gain party funding, open primaries are obviously no silver bullet.

An open primary might also be an effective response to a system in which voters increasingly find themselves in single-party districts. The art of drawing districts has reached such a stage of sophistication that few congressional seats are seriously contested, and even most legislative positions are safe for one party or the other. Republican legislative candidates in Portland are sacrificial lambs, as are Democratic candidates in Eastern Oregon. An open primary would open the possibility that voters would have a choice between two viable candidates in the general election.

Oregon's closed primary has the benefit of reinforcing party identity - the party label is usually a reliable indicator of a candidate's positions on major issues. Anyone who cares to participate in either major party's primary may do so by registering as a member. But the open primary experiments to the north and south will be worth watching. In the end, the election system should serve the interests of voters, not parties - and if a new system gives voters choices where none existed before, a change might be in order.

With more open primaries, no doubt the parties will evolve. They'll likely figure out ways that in most cases, we'll only get one viable candidate to vote for in any even slightly competitive district. That way, voters in a party won't be able to split the vote and eat their own, permitting the general election to be conducted without one of their candidates. I'm sure the parties would develop other tactics to take advantage of the open primary system as well...to promote their candidates and tube opponents. Strategies in winning elections are like an arms race.

So while I think open primaries could help a bit, I agree with the editorial that we may as well wait and observe how things go in our neighboring states, if they adopt the system. I don't see how minor parties could reasonably object to open primaries...after all, it gives them a better chance of sneaking through to the final ballot, at the expense of one of their major opponents (like with a Green candidate making it through the primaries and standing for mayor of San Francisco in their most recent open election).

I think reforming the gerrymandering system would provide a lot more progress towards moderating many of the candidates. But anything that would make the seats less secure is sure to be fought by our major parties. And a la Schwarzenegger, the harder the major parties fight against various campaign reforms, the more they seem to be good ideas.

Comments

[pat hayes]

Hi Folks...

The operative words in this issue are "...allowing nonmembers...". If parties want to have the state run partisan primary elections limited to their members then they need to pay the full cost. If they don't choose to do so they have the option of financing conventions.

[RoguePundit]

I like that thought. Of course, the only reason I've ever registered with a political party is so I can occasionally have some influence the primaries. I'd wager with open primaries, the number of independents would rise.