South Carolina: Primary process splits GOP | The Greenville News

South Carolina Republicans who want to block Democrats from voting in GOP primaries have been unable to persuade state lawmakers to change election law, and they’re stalled in federal court. Now they’re turning to party rules, trying to line up enough delegates to make a big switch in GOP practice: Picking nominees through a vote of activists at a state convention in 2014 instead of through the current open primary in which anyone can vote. Favoring the change, which would have to be approved by 75 percent of delegates at a state convention, are some activists who have long complained that the current system facilitates the nomination of so-called RINOS – or Republicans in Name Only. These activists argue that non-Republicans must be kept from voting in GOP primaries if the party is going to put forward nominees who reflect the conservative values of its rank and file. But longtime Republicans who helped build the state party over the years say the current system has served the GOP well.

Editorials: Proposed Amendment Would Limit Voter Choice in California | Richard Winger/IVN

California State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Assemblyman Jeff Gorell (R-Ventura County) have introduced identical proposed state constitutional amendments that would change the top-two open primary section of the California Constitution. Lara’s bill is SCA 12 and Gorell’s is ACA 9. Article II, section 5 of the California Constitution includes the new primary rules, which say that the two candidates who get the most votes in the primary, for Congress or partisan state office, go on the November ballot. The Lara-Gorell amendment would change the language of this section to say that if the person who came in second in a primary is a write-in candidate, he or she could not be on the November ballot unless he or she received approximately 120,000 write-ins for a statewide office, 3,200 write-ins for State Senate, 1,600 write-ins for Assembly, or 2,500 write-ins for a congressional race. The specific formula is one percent of the last general election vote total for that office.

Tennessee: Vendor Gives Tennessee County Closed-Primary Pollbooks in Open Primary | Election Academy

Continuing in the vein of “there is no small stuff” in elections, here’s a story from Davidson County (Nashville), TN where voters in the August primary didn’t always get the ballot they were expecting, acording to the Tennessean. The problem, apparently, was that the county’s vendor failed to program electronic pollbooks to allow for the fact that the Volunteer State conducts “open primaries” where a voter can choose which party’s ballot to cast – as opposed to a “closed primary” where voters must register as a member of a party in order to cast a ballot in that party’s primary. Unfortunately, the mistake creates a situation where critics can claim that the vendor is either engaging in illicit activity or simply incompetent.

Test Category: Vendor Gives Tennessee County Closed-Primary Pollbooks in Open Primary | Election Academy

Continuing in the vein of “there is no small stuff” in elections, here’s a story from Davidson County (Nashville), TN where voters in the August primary didn’t always get the ballot they were expecting, acording to the Tennessean. The problem, apparently, was that the county’s vendor failed to program electronic pollbooks to allow for the fact that the Volunteer State conducts “open primaries” where a voter can choose which party’s ballot to cast – as opposed to a “closed primary” where voters must register as a member of a party in order to cast a ballot in that party’s primary. Unfortunately, the mistake creates a situation where critics can claim that the vendor is either engaging in illicit activity or simply incompetent.

Arizona: Last-ditch try in open-primary fight | Arizona Daily Star

Challengers to the state’s open primary system want another two hours to argue in court there are not enough valid signatures to put the measure on the ballot. Attorney Mike Liburdi told the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday he was “cut off” on Thursday by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Rea in the middle of his arguments. He said Rea refused to give him more time even after initiative supporters finished early. “Given the magnitude of the controversy – a proposed constitutional amendment that will fundamentally change the manner in which public officers are elected – it was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion not to provide (challengers) with more time to present their case,” Liburdi argued to the high court.

Arizona: Judge not buying arguments by foes of open primary ballot measure | East Valley Tribune

A state judge on Friday questioned efforts of foes of an open primary system to keep it from ever going to voters. The opponents contend that the proposed constitutional amendment illegally deals with too many disparate subjects. Attorney Mike Liburdi said that makes putting it on the November ballot improper. But during a hearing Friday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Brain suggested he was not buying all of Liburdi’s arguments that the measure, if approved, would change too many unrelated things. Brain also was skeptical of Liburdi’s contention that a 100-word description of the measure, included on each petition, did not comply with legal requirements that it be solely a factual description of what would change if approved. The attorney argued that proponents improperly used the description to convince people to sign. But Brain told Liburdi that under his interpretation of the law, there is no way anyone could accurately describe a ballot measure within 100 words. Liburdi started to craft an answer when Brain interjected. “They would say that it sucked,” the judge joshed.

Arizona: GOP alternative to open primary initiative falls apart; Brewer lacks votes for special session | East Valley Tribune

Plans by Republicans to craft their own alternative to an open primary initiative blew apart late Friday as some party members balked. Matthew Benson, press aide to Gov. Jan Brewer, said his boss believes there is a key weakness in the proposal submitted Thursday to go on the November ballot: It would allow candidates to run for office without disclosing their party affiliation. Benson said letting people hide their true party affiliation would allow candidates to “game” the system. He said that could give a leg up to Democrats in heavily Republican areas like Mesa — and vice versa in Tucson — as many voters cast their ballots based largely on a candidate’s party. So Brewer was prepared to call a special session for this week to offer an alternative to the initiative, one that kept the essence of the “open primary” but with the disclosure requirement. But Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, said that was not the deal sought by many fellow GOP lawmakers. So they refused to go along, leaving the Brewer-preferred modification without the votes.

Florida: Seminole County commission write-in candidate keeps non-Republicans from voting in primary | Orlando Sentinel

Kevin Gross is running for Seminole County Commission, but you won’t see his name on a ballot. He doesn’t have a campaign website, and it’s unlikely he will knock on doors looking for votes. Gross, a registered Republican from Longwood, is a write-in candidate. Yet despite his low profile, he could have a significant influence on the District 3 commission race Aug. 14. Because of a loophole in state law, his candidacy means that only registered Republicans — about 41 percent of the county’s 260,000 registered voters — will be able to vote in the race. If not for Gross, all registered voters in Seminole could vote in the Republican primary. Across Florida, Republicans and Democrats alike have used the write-in tactic to keep voters from other parties out of their primaries.

Editorials: California’s election reform flops | latimes.com

Hollywood produced “Ishtar” and, more recently, Disney’s “John Carter.” But it has never made a bomb quite like Tuesday’s California elections. Expectations were high. California’s political reformers told us that this would be the year everything changed. After a decade and a half of reform efforts, a new system of less partisan elections was finally in place, and fairly drawn legislative districts and a new top-two primary system would usher in a new era of democracy. Voters would be engaged, competition would be spurred, independents would get a boost and California would see the kind of big policy debates necessary to find solutions to the state’s persistent governance crisis. Oh, well. But give the reformers credit; they did make change. In place of our old system, we got something that preserves many of our worst political traditions — while making things a little bit worse.

California: Democrats are Largest Party in California’s 31st U.S. House District, But Top-Two Open Primary Leaves Party with No Candidate in November | Ballot Access News

California’s 31st U.S. House district ballot in November 2012 will list two Republicans, Gary G. Miller and Bob Dutton. At the June 5, 2012 primary, Miller placed first with 26.9% of the vote, and Dutton placed second, with 25.1% of the vote. However, the district has more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. The registration in the district is: Democratic 40.8%, Republican 35.3%, independent 19.3%, other parties 3.6%. The district is centered on San Bernardino County and had no incumbent running this year. Four Democrats, but only two Republicans, ran in the June 5 primary. It is virtually certain that if fewer Democrats had run, Pete Aguilar, a Democratic candidate and Mayor of Redlands, would have placed among the top two. Aguilar placed third, with 22.5% of the vote. Democrats had been expecting to win this seat in November, but now it is impossible, because no Democrat is on the November ballot.

California: Nonpartisan Primary Shows Independents to Be in Short Supply | NYTimes.com

For those who hoped that an open, nonpartisan primary in California would bring in a new wave of independent candidates and voters, Tuesday’s primary might have felt like a splash of cold water. Turnout remained stubbornly low, and the vast majority of candidates who advanced to the fall election were registered Republicans and Democrats. But the election did provide a few surprises that would not have been possible with a traditional primary. For one thing, there could be as many as eight Congressional races in which two candidates from the same party run against each other in November’s general election. In 2010, voters approved plans to create an open primary, in which voters choose candidates regardless of their political affiliation and the top two vote getters move to the general election. For those who pushed for the change, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, then the governor, the changes were meant to break partisan gridlock and encourage candidates to cater to the middle. There was certainly no revolution this year. Still, there are some signs that the changes will affect the way Congressional and legislative races are run this year.

California: New format to shake up June 5 primary | The San Luis Obispo Tribune

The June 5 primary is like any other in one regard: Voters get to pick who will face off in the November election for state legislative and congressional races. But that is where the similarities end. This time around, voters can choose anyone from the field, regardless of party affiliation. And all candidates will appear on all ballots. Gone is the day of having a one-party-only ballot. So in races for state Assembly, Senate and Congress, Republicans can vote for Democrats, and vice versa. Green Party members can back their party’s nominees — or candidates from other parties.
In this open primary, the top-two finishers qualify for the November ballot, regardless of party. If a race has only two candidates, they automatically go forward to November in what amounts to a test run. As logical as it might be for a winner to be declared in a two-candidate primary, the law requires them to also be on the ballot in November, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.

California: Broad test for California’s “top two” primary | oregonlive.com

In the first broad test of California’s new “top-two” election system, many candidates in heated races for Congress and the state Legislature have been campaigning earlier, spending more money and downplaying their party affiliation as they try to widen their appeal. Gone are the party primaries, except in the presidential race. Now all state candidates appear on a single ballot. Only those who come in first or second on June 5 will move on to the November general election, in which no write-in or other added candidates will be allowed. The new rules, approved by California voters in 2010, further empower voters who don’t belong to a political party _ already the fastest-growing category in California, accounting for more than 21 percent of the state’s registration.

California: Independent candidates to highlight California’a new top-two election system | latimes.com

Some of California’s newly minted political independents are gathering in San Diego on Thursday to tout the state’s new open primary system and the growing importance of voters who are not affiliated with a state-recognized party. The ranks of so-called “decline to state” voters have grown quickly in recent years and they now make up about 21% of the state’s registration. (Democrats account for almost 44% and Republicans about 30%.) Independent voters have the opportunity for additional clout in the June 5 primary, in which every voter gets the same ballot listing all the candidates and from which the top two finishers, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the November general election.

Idaho: Election officials challenged by May primary | KBOI 2

Idaho’s May 15 primary election is fast approaching and because of some big changes, election officials around the state are expecting a challenging time. In the May primary, voters must pick their political party and vote only that ballot. “A lot of people are not going to want to declare a party choice,” said Ada County Clerk Chris Rich. “We know this from experience.” And, according to the Idaho Secretary of State’s office, 649,645 registered voters have yet to declare a party choice. But under a new idaho law, voters must declare their political affiliation unless the party says otherwise.

Idaho: One party state: The closing of Idaho’s Republican primary | State of Elections

Recently, Idaho Democrats reaffirmed their commitment to an open primary, which allows any elector to choose that party’s ballot (and only that party’s ballot) in the primary election. Any voter in Idaho may choose to participate in the Democratic Party’s primary. This means that Democrats and unaffiliateds may vote in the primary, because a Republican choosing to vote in the Democratic primary would forego their right to participate in the Republican primary under Idaho law. The Democratic Party’s commitment to an open primary is significant, because it means that Idaho has both a closed and an open primary. The transition to this semi-open primary system has been rocky in the Gem State. It began in 2008 with a coup in the Idaho Republican Party. A plank was included in the platform that called for primaries to be closed. A closed primary, however, would require changes to Idaho law, which up until this summer had no provision for recording partisan registration. In order to force the state to make this change, the Idaho Republican Party sued the Republican Secretary of State, arguing that Idaho’s open primary laws violated the Constitution in an as-applied challenge.

Oregon: Taxpayers stuck with bill for a cumbersome ‘open primary’ that features just one candidate | OregonLive.com

Oregon taxpayers have to spend $200,000 on a cumbersome elections process that will ask the state’s nearly 440,000 unaffiliated voters if they want a Republican primary ballot that features just one candidate. Republican and Democratic Party officials are each accusing the other of wasting taxpayer money while in pursuit of a partisan advantage. About the only thing that’s clear is that only one Republican has even signed up to run for the three statewide seats that the GOP opened to voters who don’t register in any political party. That’s left everybody feeling a little frustrated. “There’s not much benefit,” fumed Rob Kremer, treasurer of the Oregon Republican Party, “in taxpayer money being spent to no purpose.”

California: Appeals court upholds Washington state’s open primary system | latimes.com

In a decision that could foreshadow survival of California’s new “top two” primary system, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a similar Washington state ballot initiative that changed the way voters choose candidates in primaries. Both states’ voters approved measures allowing the top two vote-getters in a primary to advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. The format replaced closed primaries, in which each party chose a candidate for the general election.

Editorials: Is ‘open primary’ system for Mississippi? | Desoto Times Tribune

Once again, Mississippi voters, frustrated by not being able to cross party lines to cast ballots for their favorite candidates, are excited about installing an “open primary” election system that neighboring Louisiana has had since 1975.

Not that the Legislature hasn’t tried to scrap the state’s traditional closed primary system. In fact, four times since 1966, lawmakers have passed legislation to put candidates for all parties (and independents) on the same primary ballot without party designation and require a runoff between the two highest finishers.

For various reasons, none of the bills have become law. Mostly it’s been the Justice Department disapproved Mississippi’s proposed changes under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Blacks objected it would block them running as independents in general elections after being historically shut out of the closed Democratic primaries.