At least half way. But Washington state Democrats trust the voters not at all.
This week, many voters will begin receiving their ballots for the state's Feb. 19 presidential primary election.
But here's the catch — well, actually, there are several.
Those ballots won't explain that voting for a Democrat carries only symbolic weight. To have a say in picking the Democratic nominee, voters must attend one of the party's Feb. 9 precinct-caucus meetings — 10 days before the primary.
And there's nothing on the Republican ballots that says they count for only about half the vote. The GOP is choosing roughly half of its delegates through the primary and the other half through the caucuses, also on Feb. 9.
I say "at least" because the legislators now looking for ways to reign in our initiatives are all (almost all?) Democrats. So Republicans here are willing to let voters choose half the delegates to the national convention — and are willing to let voters pass initiatives on many subjects.
In contrast, Democrats here are unwilling to let voters choose any delegates to their national convention, and are increasingly critical of citizen initiatives.
It isn't hard to see which party has more faith in Washington's voters.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(I have to wonder whether state Democratic chairman Dwight Pelz's distrust of the voters, and his preference for deciding things within the party, isn't related to his fondness for Castro's Cuba, where the voters are allowed, from time to time, to ratify the decisions made by the ruling communist party. It would be interesting if some "mainstream" reporter asked Mr. Pelz why he is so fond of that brutal dictatorship some time, but I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Those who want to know more about Pelz and Cuba can find more information in many places, for example, here, here, here, and here.
And here's an explanation of the Washington state rules on choosing delegates to the national conventions.)
I think Doug has an excellent suggestion, btw.
Posted by: Michele on January 30, 2008 05:07 PMThe primary, on the other hand, will cost the taxpayers of this state $7.2 million. Apparently that's just ducky with you lot. So don't whine to me about how fiscally conservative you are.
Posted by: ivan on January 30, 2008 05:38 PMFeel free to let them know what you think about HB 2019 and HB 2601 which will among other things require that all initiative gathers be "Licensed by the state". If that doesn't tell it all about their supreme idiocy!
hunt.sam@leg.wa.gov;
hasegawa.bob@leg.wa.gov;
hudgins.zack@leg.wa.gov;
ormsby.timm@leg.wa.gov;
chase.maralyn@leg.wa.gov; simpson.geoff@leg.wa.gov; mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov;
chopp.frank@leg.wa.gov;
brown.lisa@leg.wa.gov
Sooner than later!
Posted by: GS on January 30, 2008 05:39 PMYou seemed to stop well short of that, even though no one is FORCING democrats to participate.
I can't wait for you to begin your critique of all the wasted hundreds of millions resulting from democrat control of this state's government.
But then, I'm not really holding my breath.
And please, PLEASE come back and tell me the waste characterization isn't true.
I'm BEGGING you here.
Posted by: Hinton on January 30, 2008 06:08 PMQ5. Are there special voting instructions for this election? A. Yes, for your Presidential Primary vote to count, you must first mark a political party choice on the purple return envelope. You must only mark one party box. On the ballot, you must vote only one candidate of the political party that matches your choice on the purple return envelope.Voting more than one party or candidate will cancel the vote for the Presidential Primary section of the ballot.
Be certain to check both sides of your ballot and vote for ballot measures, if any. These votes will be counted, even if you do not vote in the Presidential Primary race.
Q8. How will the political parties use the results of the Presidential Primary? A. Political parties retain the authority to decide if they will use the Presidential Primary to allocate delegates to the national nominating conventions. The political parties may also use caucus results, or a combination of primary results and caucus results.The State Republican Party has decided that it will use the 2008 Presidential Primary to allocate 51% of its delegates. The remaining 49% of the delegates will be allocated based on caucus results.
The State Democratic Party has decided to only use caucuses to allocate delegates in 2008.
Bottom line, the Democrats make the taxpayers pay for an election that will have absolutely no effect on delegate allocation.
But then, it's not their money.....
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 30, 2008 06:20 PMAs an election official, I can state that this is the key point that no one except for a few County Auditor's is publicizing, because the overwhelming majority of voters in Washington do not want to be labeled as a member of one party or another. But, if you choose a party oath, which you need to do to make your PPP vote be counted, anyone can request a list of what ballot you chose, or a list of who chose a R or D ballot.
Why you ask? It is solely for party fundraising efforts. This is a 6-10 million voter identification project held solely for the benefit of the political parties. One that the County Auditor's tried to get cancelled, during the special session in November but were unsuccessful.
That being said, if your ballot has a non-partisan issue such as a school levy or bond issue please vote it, you can vote the non-partisan piece without declaring a party and your vote for that issue will be counted.
Once those voters are identified, then the Rossi and Gregoire campaigns can unmercifully request money from them based upon lists of unsuspecting voters.
Which I would have no problem wth if the voters were made aware of this issue, if they chose to vote with full knowledge of the repercussions, that is perfectly fine. But, please let the people know about it.
Posted by: election guy on January 30, 2008 07:43 PMHB2019 requires paid signature gatherers to sign EVERY petition form with name and address. Since these are public records, this in effect makes the malcontents public record where they live. Maybe they can put a sign on your house showing that you are not happy with them. Maybe a yellow star of Washington for instance!
So paid signature gatherers can be subjected to harrassment...of course it's up to them to prove the harrassment!
HB2601 goes even further. It requires the malcontents to undergo re-education (I mean "training") and become registered. You must register for every petition that you are gathering signatures for. You will then be given a number to display that you have been properly "trained". Maybe a yellow star of Washington will suffice. In order to obtain your special permission, you must submit:
Your name and address (say "papers please")
A signature
A list of the initiatives you're gathering signatures for (a list of why you dare question the authorities).
A signed statement that you have not been convicted of a criminal offense involving fraud, forgery or ID theft and not a convicted sex offender. (makes sense)
Sign a statement that you understand the law applicable to the gathering of signatures.
Evidence that you've been properly "trained".
Show photo ID
A statement signed by the chief petitioner that makes the chief petitioner (i.e. Eyman) "LIABLE FOR VIOLATIONS OF LAW OR RULE COMMITTED BY THE PERSON OBTAINING SIGNATURES AS PROVIDED IN ..." (this is an obvious ruse to punish the Eymans of the world...have one person gather signatures illegally and Eyman is punished).
When gathering signatures, the registrant must display the evidence of registration including registration number and photograph.
A registered paid signature gatherer who submits fraudulent signatures will have their registration revoked and prohibted from obtaining future permits. (you can see where this one leads).
Funny, they won't adopt similar rules for paid voter registration drives where fraud HAS BEEN PROVEN!
They won't adopt similar rules in order to vote (show photo ID).
But if you DARE question authority...well we have ways of getting your mind right.
Pathetic...and they call Republicans facists!
Posted by: drw on January 30, 2008 07:54 PMPer Ivan, the primary costs $7.2 million.
For this price, you must swear an oath to a party to vote for a presidential candidate.
Both parties can ask for lists of the voters that voted R or D (so much for absolute ballot secrecy).
For all of this, the Republicans grant you 51% of what you voted for.
The Democrat grant you 0%.
Can I see what's behind door number two?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 30, 2008 08:12 PMAnd also for every legislator each time they put stupid crap like this into a house bill from this day forward.
If it's good for the goose, it's got to be great for the gander.
Email and call these folks - this attack on our initiative rights is insane.
HB2019 and HB2601 must not get to the floor of this pure crap legislature. If Rep Chopp allows this, he should be sent hiking.
Posted by: GS on January 30, 2008 08:18 PMThe Democrats actually tried to cancel the primary and move us entirely to caucuses, but there was too much opposition.
Beyond that there is nothing wrong with parties wanting to only let people who identify with the party vote in the primary. In fact it was both parties that brought the lawsuit bringing an end to out open primary.
And really if you don't like the parties and don;t want to be a member of one, why in gods name do you want to vote in their primary?
In order to vote for my favorite candidate, Ron Paul, I would have to sign the statement that says that I am a Republican and will not participate in the convention or nominating process of any other party. (See the WA voters' guide, pg 6, just before Joe Biden, for the exact text.) But I am the vice-chair of the WA Libertarian Party, and must participate in my state party convention.
This would be fine, were it not for the fact that I am paying for the Democtatic and Republican Party state and national conventions, caucuses and the Washington State primary via my taxes. I am being forced to pay for the political process of parties that do not allow me to participate, and who's leading candidates do not share a large portion of my values.
It is a bit like taxation without representation.
We had a revolution back in 1776, partially over this very issue.
I think the big parties should fund their own conventions. If they accept government funding, they should allow anyone to vote in their primaries. But they can't have it both ways.
My money is being forcibly taken away from me, and used to defend values that I think are immoral. From socialized medicine (Romneycare), increasing federal involvement in education (NCLB), violating our civil liberties (PATRIOT Act, Military Com. Act), national ID cards, ever-expanding government spending, inflationary creation of unsound money, etc., there is a bipartisan asault on my values, which is being funded by my own money that has been stolen from me.
In olden days, the ultimate insult was to rip off a bit of your enemies beard and throw it back in his face. I feel like that is being done to me.
I pride myself on voting in every election, even primaries. But if there are no ballot issues in my area (and there shouldn't be; all ballott issues should be in the general election where more people vote...) I will have no choice of a non-partisan ballott. Four years ago, the WA LP had major party status, so I could take a blue, Libertarian ballott. But if there is no non-partisan ballott, I won't be able to participate at all in the primary election that I helped pay for.
This is an injustice, and I resent both big parties as a result.
By the way, I am about to "max-out" my contributions to Ron Paul at $2,300 for the primary. It is McCain's unconstitutional campaign finance legislation that is preventing me from contributing more. He has personally violated my rights to liberty, property and free speech with this stupid and liberal legislation. He has violated his own oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He has given himself a political advantage by enacting legislation that hurts his poitical competitors more than it does himself. It is realy quite disgusting.
If McCain really represents the Republican Party, then I want no part of it.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 30, 2008 09:20 PM
Re HB 2601
Hello Legislators,
Please stop the unnecessary intrusion on the initiative process. It would not be necessary to worry about initiatives if the Democrats were not afraid to make hard policy decisions. If the Democrats would lead instead of trying to be teflon pans ,you wouldn't have to worry about the initiative process. Using the medical marijuana law as an example the legislature failed to lead on the issue IN 1996,so in 1997 the initiative process had to provide the leadership where there was none. Even when the legislature decided to lead when they passed SB 6032 they failed to lead correctly. Now we have a state law that conflicts with a state law,and the democrats are too afraid to make another hard policy decision to solve the problem this session ,because they are afraid to get their hands dirty before an election. Now we need another initiative to correct the mistake of the legislature,All because the legislature failed to make a correct policy decision. Instead of looking to take out the initiative process the legislature needs to stand for something and provide leadership. It is time to quit running from leadership. It is time to quit trying to prevent the people from leading when the legislature will not. Please leave the initiative process alone and provide leadership so the people don't have to.
Thank You.
Hey R's get with it and do what it takes to win a majority so the D's can't just do what they want. Link up with fiscal conservatives and swallow some moral positives if you have to.
The moral theme stuff is not going to woerk anymore.
the fact that I am paying for the Democtatic and Republican Party state and national conventions, caucuses and the Washington State primary via my taxes
Most of that is false, from what I can tell. You are paying for the primary with your taxes, and that's it. I know of NO government money that goes for caucuses or conventions, unless you count some schools giving us the space to hold our caucuses (which would be open to the Libertarian Party as well). If I am wrong on this, please inform me what money goes to the conventions or caucuses.
And resent it all you want, but it wasn't that long ago when your taxes also paid for the Libertarian Party primary as well.
I do not at all agree that it is an injustice. We cannot have a primary for EVERY party; there needs to be some qualification. The LP no longer meets it. You may think NO parties should have thir primaries paid for, and that's fine, but a majority of citizens disagree with you.
If you want to change the law, be my guest, I don't really care either way. There's nothing, to me, right or wrong about it either way. The parties agree (well ... the Republicans, anyway :-) to allow the people to have a say in the nominating process. The people get to have a say, and the parties get more participation. Each side gets something they want.
But if you disagree and want to get rid of it, and can convince enough people to get it changed, that's fine by me too.
Finally, to claim this has ANYTHING to do with "taxation with representation" is just false. This is a private nominating proces. "Taxation without representation" would be if you didn't have a say in the actual election for office, rather than the party nomination process.
Posted by: pudge on January 30, 2008 10:09 PMBack in '92 here in Washington, I asked a D party official for a membership application, what were the membership requirements, and how much were the dues. His eyes got like sewerlids and he departed quickly without answering me. Plainly, he thought I was nuts. Unfortunately, if I were delusional this sort of thing would be easier to accept.
I belong to several organizations that require those things, including in one case a State Police background check. In every case, the leadership is elected by the members.
I'll respect the validity of the D's and R's and L's and any other political "party" when they function the same way. Most especially the overt signup and the electing of the leadership.
In the face of the persistence and the acceptance of this fraudulent "political party" nonsense, as our son says: "We're doomed."
The parties don't trust the voters. How long will it be until the Partys also clamp down farther and make it that you have to be a dues paying member. The Democrats (at least in Pierce) already have it in their platform to only nominate three names for elections due to the ranked preference in Pierce and that dues paying members need to vote for the Democratic Candidates first.
I am just waiting for the day when independents decide enough is enough and run for themselves and not with party affiliation.
Posted by: tc on January 31, 2008 08:10 AMMy "stance" is pretty much basic fact: you don't pay for anything but the primary; the reason you do that is because of state law, which you can try to change; the parties have a right to determine for themselves how their nominees will be chosen.
Which part do you disagree with?
The parties don't trust the voters.
I don't see why that matters, to the extent it is true. The party owns the party, including the nomination of the party, and if they want to choose on their own, so what?
Further, it is quite obvious that the GOP does have a lot to fear from voters. Since the Dems reject the primary altogether, if the GOP chose to allocate all delegates via the primary, it would attract Democrats and other liberals to sabotage our nomination. Let's not pretend this wouldn't happen.
How long will it be until the Partys also clamp down farther and make it that you have to be a dues paying member.
It won't happen, ever. Not in the GOP. No one has ever proposed this, and it completely goes against the whole purpose of the caucus system. I've heard about requiring dues from PCOs, but not from caucus-goers. (Also, it would violate state law to require it for the primary.)
I am just waiting for the day when independents decide enough is enough and run for themselves and not with party affiliation.
Nothing's stopping them. And many of them do it now.
Posted by: pudge on January 31, 2008 09:39 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: HB 2601
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:30:20 -0800
From: Chase.Maralyn@leg.wa.gov
Dear
Thank you for sharing your views on HB 2601 and 2019.
We all talk a great deal about transparency, accountability and responsibility of government. Our democracy cannot operate for all the people unless we know what is going on, who is doing it, and that they are held accountable and responsible to the rule of law. I also subscribe to an element of justice and fairness which cannot be separated from our legislative responsibilities.
Our state constitution provides for, (what I call,) the fourth branch of government: the people exercising their constitutional right to petition the government for action of one sort or another.
Like the other three branches of government, I believe the fourth branch of government must act responsibly and be held accountable for their actions. There is nothing wrong, and indeed, everything right, with holding this important component of our government accountable for their actions.
I believe HB 2601 and HB 2019 are steps in the responsible direction.
Very truly yours,
Maralyn Chase
State Representative - 32nd District
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:46 PM
To: Appleton, Rep. Sherry; Chase, Rep. Maralyn; Hasegawa, Rep. Bob; Hudgins, Rep. Zack; Hunt, Rep. Sam; Ormsby, Rep. Timm; Simpson, Rep. Geoff; Jacobsen, Sen. Ken
Subject: HB 2601
Re HB 2601
Hello Legislators,
Please stop the unnecessary intrusion on the initiative process. It would not be necessary to worry about initiatives if the Democrats were not afraid to make hard policy decisions. If the Democrats would lead instead of trying to be teflon pans ,you wouldn't have to worry about the initiative process. Using the medical marijuana law as an example the legislature failed to lead on the issue IN 1996,so in 1997 the initiative process had to provide the leadership where there was none. Even when the legislature decided to lead when they passed SB 6032 they failed to lead correctly. Now we have a state law that conflicts with a state law,and the democrats are too afraid to make another hard policy decision to solve the problem this session ,because they are afraid to get their hands dirty before an election. Now we need another initiative to correct the mistake of the legislature,All because the legislature failed to make a correct policy decision. Instead of looking to take out the initiative process the legislature needs to stand for something and provide leadership. It is time to quit running from leadership. It is time to quit trying to prevent the people from leading when the legislature will not. Please leave the initiative process alone and provide leadership so the people don't have to.
Thank You.
The problem with this stand is that it closes off non-party members from full participation from elections. We who don't wish to affiliated with a party are closed off having our voice heard. I would have no problem with the parties having primaries where an individual had to choose a single party ballot. The issue I have is I have to swear my allegiance to the Republican Party if I want to vote in the upcoming primary. My objection is to the parties wording. I also object to the Democrats not allowing our vote to contribute to their determination, and for the county parties deciding what choices go on the ballot (i.e., only three Democrats of the county party's choosing can go on the ballot).
I feel it is only a matter of time where the state's parties will restrict the nomination process further to only dues paying members.
I preferred the old primary method, period.
Posted by: tc on January 31, 2008 10:34 AMThat means you Guthrie. If you don't want to declare any party membership, then too bad, you're out. Go build your party of Paulbearers on your own. The Democrats and Republicans owe you absolutely ZERO.
The old primary was unconstitutional, period, and court after court affirmed that it was. Wishing won't bring it back.
If people want to have a presidential primary, fine. Throw your money down the rathole, because that's what you're doing. I'm guessing the parties might drop their opposition to it if we could have partisan registration here, like they do damn near everywhere else.
There are tradeoffs in life, as you conservatives keep telling me, and sometimes you just have to suck it up and accept them. None of us can have it all our way, every day and in every way. This is one example of that.
I would agree with Pudge's and your argument if the Parties represented more of the state's population, but they don't. They are both practically minorities in the state. Why should they restrict the ballot access?
Posted by: tc on January 31, 2008 12:38 PMI think you're conflating a few different things.
I don't recall what the State Supreme Court said on anything related to such a decision. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the parties have a RIGHT to nominate people HOWEVER THEY WISH. And of course, I support that. It's freedom of association. I don't think Bruce disagrees with it, either.
And so yes, I support the right of the party to nominate as they wish. That doesn't mean I support everything they do to that end, just their right to do it. For example, I disagree with the statement that Bruce complained about first: that you have to state you are a member of the Republican Party. However, I do agree with the restriction on only participating in the nominating process of ONE party per cycle.
I don't think that's too much to ask: all we'd be saying is that in order to help nominate the GOP candidate, that you can't also help nominate the candidate for any other party. If you think that's too much to ask, I don't know what to tell you.
The problem with this stand is that it closes off non-party members from full participation from elections. We who don't wish to affiliated with a party are closed off having our voice heard.
But participating in the party's nominating process IS, BY DEFINITION, affiliating yourself with that party.
Now, again, I have no problem with you saying you don't want to declare yourself a MEMBER of the party -- and I agree -- but to me, membership and affiliation are not the same thing. Any time you choose a pick-a-party ballot in the primary, you are affiliating yourself with that party, albeit loosely, because you are choosing to help that party pick its nominee.
The issue I have is I have to swear my allegiance to the Republican Party if I want to vote in the upcoming primary.
I also do not consider a promise to not participate in the nomination process of another party a swearing of allegiance, for what it's worth. But the party believes, and I agree, that it is an inherent conflict of interest for someone to participate in the nomination of opposing parties' candidates.
My objection is to the parties wording.
And I too, as mentioned above, have a similar objection.
I also object to the Democrats not allowing our vote to contribute to their determination
Again, though, it is absolutely their right to do so. The presidential preference primary was not the wish of the parties, it was forced on them by state law 20 years ago. So while you can think they should accept the primary result, it is not fair to attack them (not that you are doing so, just saying for anyone who might be thinking it :-) for the existence of the useless primary. That is required by state law.
and for the county parties deciding what choices go on the ballot (i.e., only three Democrats of the county party's choosing can go on the ballot).
I am unfamiliar with this, but it is not true in Snohomish County: there are eight candidates on the ballot for both GOP and Dem.
That said, again, freedom of association means the party gets to choose who is even up for the nomination. Let's say Alan Keyes wanted to get on the Democratic ballot, and got enough signatures to satsify state law, but the Democratic Party said, "no, he is no Democrat, and we will not have him appear on our ballot as a Democrat." They have every right to do that.
Something similar happened recently in South Carolina, where the Democratic Party rejected Stephen Colbert's bid to be on the ballot there. They didn't need to, and they didn't give any reason other than "we don't think you would well-represent our party by being on the ballot." It's a free country, and in a free country, you can make your own private organizations like political parties, and choose who does and doesn't belong, or who does and doesn't represent you.
I feel it is only a matter of time where the state's parties will restrict the nomination process further to only dues paying members.
It will not happen in the GOP. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this will happen.
I preferred the old primary method, period.
There never was one, as best I can tell, so you're referring to an imaginary past. The Democratic delegates have NEVER been allocated by primary in WA. EVER. And for the GOP, they have only been allocated entirely by primary once, in 1992. In 1996 it was half, and in 2000 it was a third. Before 1992, it was all via caucus for both parties.
You're conflating the presidential nomination process with the other primary, which happens later in the year. And prefer the old "blanket" primary all you like, but it clearly violated the right of association of the members of the party, and it is not coming back. You cannot tell a private organization who they have to choose as their leaders, unless they voluntarily allow you to participate in that way.
In the Presidential election in this state no ones vote counts for anything.
Posted by: Harvey on January 31, 2008 02:06 PMOverall, I agree with Newt that there does need to be a change in the overall primary process, to include something along the lines of Regional Primaries. The one thing I would like, would be for the candidates to have to perform more retail politics in the other states like they did in the early states. I think everyone should have a chance to meet the candidates and get to know them better in person.
Posted by: tc on January 31, 2008 02:32 PMWhat Rep Chase doesn't understand is that BY THE VERY NATURE OF PAID SIGNATURE GATHERERS...THEY ARE BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE! If the initiative doesn't gather enough signatures or doesn't pass, it was all money spent for nothing. Furthermore, if they REALLY want accountability, include voter registration drives which have been proven to a fraud problem in this very state (as opposed to say petition signature drives).
Posted by: drw on January 31, 2008 04:54 PMIf the parties want to assert their right to pick their own candidates, which I totally support, that is just fine, but they can't do it on the taxpayers' dime. They can't have it both ways.
I say it's time to get the Republican Party off the dole.
I am building my own party. And the Libertarian Party does not stoop to accepting subsidies from the government.
The Republican Party has made it a plank to reduce welfare payments. I think that they should start at home, by refusing them.
The Democrats are often opposed to corporate welfare. Well, the Democratic Party is a big corporation. I think they should refuse the corporate welfare that funds their primaries.
Right now, both big parties look pretty hypocritical to me.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 31, 2008 05:33 PMI admit that I am not sure about local caucuses, but I would not be surprised if they were, somehow. If they take place in government schools, I think that qualifies, even if all parties (or just major parties) could take advantage of it.
That is like FDR's argument in bringing us welfare and social security: if all may participate in it, then it is not a violation of individual rights. The problem is that individual private organizations and individuals SHOULD NOT be subsidized by the govenrment. They are all special interests, and giving them money or the free use of government buildings is a special interest subsidy, and therefore NOT in the general welfare.
Republicans have forgotten that they used to oppose this kind of thing on principle. I think this is one more witness to the fact that the Republican Party has been taken over by liberals.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 31, 2008 05:50 PM
I believe HB 2601 and HB 2019 are massive mistakes in a very irresponsible direction.
Very truly yours,
Taxpayer, Initaitive backer, and Voter - 32nd District
Once you get to the point where the tax dollars are being spent on an election, rather than being paid for by the parties, it changes everything and I don't believe state law would trump constitutional law on the matter. Hence my belief is that the right of the individual to participate without signing an oath is greater than the right to association - only because the action is paid for and the process set by the State.
I guess we could try to find analogies and see how they fit.
If the KKK had free use of a public facility, sidewalk, whatever, would they be allowed to prohibit someone who was not a member from using that facility at the same time?
If they paid to rent a school facility for an event, then do they have the ability to prohibit someone who is not a member from being there?
Are those answers different?...I know voting is different, what about....
If the KKK was freely using a school facility for a meeting, and a non-member wanted to speak in the meeting, but in order to do so would have to go through a demeaning ritual then and there to prove he is loyal enough to speak on that subject, would the KKK have the right to keep him from speaking until he did that?
Same question but instead they rented the use of the facility?
Are those two answers different?
This is just one aspect, but I'd like to know opinions on this because I don't know the answers.
I'd say if the KKK pays fair market rental on the space, they get to discriminate in any way about who speaks at their meeting. If the Rotary club rents a room, they get to say who can attend and speak. But no private individual or organization should get free rental on meeting spaces in government buildings. There is no free lunch, and there should be no special interest subsidies from taxpayers. Offering free meeting space competes unfairly with private meeting halls.
By the way, I should add that I think that racism is disgusting, even as I defend the rights of others to be that way in private, or in their private organizations. There must be no racism, sexism or homophobia in government, though, because all of our individual rights are equal. The best way for us to fight these evils in the private sphere is not through laws, but through boycots, public speech, and other social pressures. (There is so much slinging of racism slurs these days, one needs a disclaimer like this one when the issue comes up!)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 31, 2008 11:06 PMI'll never set foot in the Augusta National Golf Club until they change their policy on having women as full members. Have they changed this policy yet?
But the government may NOT discriminate on the basis of ideology. The private sphere works if we let it. Society is so much more than the government, and there are forces in society that can work to make the world better and be much more effective at it than the blunt force of the law. Politicians just pass laws like these AFTER society has already changed, and they know they can get elected by promoting the issue. They do not lead social change, they follow it and exploit it.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 31, 2008 11:14 PMIs there an equal protection issue in the case of a primary or caucus paid for by tax dollars and not reimbursed by the parties?
What I mean is that the parties say they have a right to association, which I totally agree with, at least in the context of them paying for the election as well as the canvassing location. In that case I can see them having the right to limit whose votes they count as it would be a quasi-private matter. However...
When it is paid for publicly, does the attendee of a caucus or primary have some equal protection rights? The party's right to association and claim that they can decide the method to see whose vote counts - say by prior signing of an oath - then may become an equal protection issue. In the public sense (more so if the state dictated the method of voting, rather than the party doing it) the individual has a right of free speech that in the end the party will attempt to use to deny his vote while allowing another's (equal protection).
That same free speech right would definitely not exist in the private setting, but in the public venue, paid for by state dollars, I'd have to believe it to still be there. That is why I think the state law could be in violation of US Constitution on different grounds that were argued and that even the state lawmakers cannot be able to simply make a law saying the state will pay for the primary or caucus.
Posted by: Doug on February 1, 2008 12:36 AMI remember back in the 80's (I believe) we went to the Presidential primary and got to choose one parties ballot or the other.
Not the 80s, the 90s. And yes, you still can. But -- as the law has stated since it was written -- the parties can require an oath. And so they do. (Why the Democrats have an oath of any kind when the results won't even be used is an exercise for the reader!) Whether they were used before I don't know, but I imagine so. So even still, as the law remains the same, the primary is the same as it has always been since it's existed, which hasn't been for very long.
Bruce:
My point was not that I resent not being able to vote in the primary. My point was that I resented being FORCED to pay for it, when I can't participate in it.
Yes, but Greenies were in the same boat in previous elections when the LP primary was paid for, and I doubt many L's complained then. I am not sure why you claim the LP doesn't "stoop" to accepting such "subsidies," since they did precisely that when they got enough of the vote to qualify for it.
If the parties want to assert their right to pick their own candidates, which I totally support, that is just fine, but they can't do it on the taxpayers' dime. They can't have it both ways.
Again, this is missing the point that it is the choice of the PEOPLE to do it this way. It's not that the parties are "having" it both ways, it is that the party and the people compromise. The people want to participate, and the party says, OK, as long as you abide by a few rules we set up, and since the parties CANNOT pay for the people to participate, the people do it.
The Republican Party has made it a plank to reduce welfare payments. I think that they should start at home, by refusing them.
To lay this on the parties is unfair: it's the people who choose to do it. It wasn't the parties who passed the law REQUIRING a presidential preference primary be held! The GOP cannot prevent the primary from taking place. State law mandates it.
I admit that I am not sure about local caucuses
I am.
but I would not be surprised if they were, somehow.
They aren't.
giving them money or the free use of government buildings is a special interest subsidy
First, most of them don't get it for free, so even if it were true that this is a "subsidy," it would not apply to most of the caucuses, and certainly, does not apply to the county or state caucuses and conventions at all.
Second, calling it a subsidy is a stretch. The local school district is controlled by the local citizens, and they agree to share a building they run to gather together to help nominate a candidate. Saying this is a matter of principle is silly.
Doug:
the right of the individual to participate without signing an oath is greater than the right to association - only because the action is paid for and the process set by the State
Doesn't matter. You are thinking that because the state paid for it, that you have a right to participate in it. That is never how government has ever worked in this country. MOST things the government pays for, I don't have a right to participate in, whether it is a school or the military or the Congress/Executive/Judicial official proceedings ... at most I may have a very limited or qualified right to participate, but more likely, only a very limited or qualified right to just be present.
Further, taking your statement literally means the state can take control of any private organization by funding some part of it against its will. If you mean "well, only if the party agrees to it," fine, except now you're in a catch-22: you want to force your way in to participate, but if the state allows you to, against the will of the party, then the party will simply reject the primary, and then you don't get to participate ANYWAY.
If the KKK had free use of a public facility, sidewalk, whatever, would they be allowed to prohibit someone who was not a member from using that facility at the same time?
This is not about sharing facilities, it is about being a participant. Bad analogy. Under NO circumstances could the KKK be forced to allow anyone to participate with their group, whether the facility was offered for free, or not. Absolutely.
Is there an equal protection issue in the case of a primary or caucus paid for by tax dollars and not reimbursed by the parties?
No, there's not. It doesn't matter what the venue is.
I don't think the subsidy analogy is a good one, but fine, for the sake of argument, call it a subsidy. When the government subsidizes a corn farmer, does that give you the right to trespass in his corn fields? Of course not. There's no prohibition on government money going to private organizations, and the private organizations do not give up their rights when that happens.
It's not about speech, it is about participation. You have no right to participate in the official activities of a private organization. Period. End of story. And nothing at all can ever possibly change that.
Bottom line:
* If your goal is participation against the will of the party, stop wasting your time: you cannot have it.
* If your goal is to stop the government from paying for the primary, then work to get the law changed (and the courts won't do it for you, because they have no reason to think that it is unconstitutional, so don't waste your time on that, either).
Posted by: pudge on February 1, 2008 01:28 AM