For those Californians who are Independent or Decline-to-State

[Le Taz Hot]

Just and FYI. I received a pamphlet with the following:

"What if independent Voters like us . . .

. . . had a voice?

. . .could vote in the primary election for the best candidate regardless of party?

. . . could help break the political gridlock."

The first clue that this was from the Republicans was the second item. Further reading and going to their website (www.caivn.org) confirmed that this is Republican backed.

In essence, they're pushing the "Elections. Primaries. Greater Participation in Elections" ballot initiative which is the same old open primaries they've been hawking for years. It's on the 2010 ballot. Again.

[Iggo]

1. I thought we voted for open primaries already, and that...

...it was the Repubs who decided they didn't like that and that only Repubs could vote in their primary.

Am I misremembering? (Wouldn't be the first time...lol.)

[Xithras]

2. There's a war in the California Republican party over this. It's a moot point for Democrats

First off, DTS voters can already request a Democratic ballot during primary elections, so this doesn't impact us one way or the other. I know this for a fact because I'm a DTS voter (as are a huge portion of Californian's...DTS is the third largest "political group" in the state).

Californians passed a referendum requiring open primaries about a decade ago, but the initiative was overturned by the USSC because it violated the parties' right to free association. In response, California implemented an opt-in system. Parties that want to participate in open primaries may do so, while those who do not want to participate may remain closed. The Democratic Party chose to participate.

The Republican Party in this state is seriously divided over the issue and has, thus far, opted out. The hardliners claim that DTS'ers are mostly moderate middle of the road voters (aka communist liberals in their worldview), and they don't want to give moderate voters any voice in their party. Another huge wing of the party is pointing to Republican voter registration numbers in this state, which are in a free-fall, and are arguing that the party is doomed to irrelevance if they DON'T allow those "moderate" DTS voters a voice in their party. They're probably right about that.

It's a fight between Republican moderates and Republican hardliners. Because the hardliners control the party, the moderates want to make another attempt at opening ALL primaries for ALL parties, to end-run those hardliners. Because Democratic primaries are already open to DTS voters, the point is moot for us.

Personally, if this does make it to the ballot, I'm torn on whether I'd vote for it. On one hand, the state would be a lot better off if the hardline Republicans were replaced with moderate Republicans. On the other hand, if the primaries stay closed, registration numbers indicate that many of those Republican seats will eventually become Democratic anyway. Moderating those seats will extend the Republican hold on them as more palatable candidates take them over. It's really a question of time. It will probably take another 20 years for Republican registration numbers to fall low enough to really push them into irrelevance, but open primaries could moderate them and make them more "acceptable" in only a couple of election cycles. Do we suffer longer in the hopes of getting rid of them forever? Or do we make them more friendly now, knowing that we'll be dealing with them forever as a consequence?