Again thanks to Steve Rankin.  I gave this its own thread.  The floor is yours, sir.

My initial impressions are this would be transformative for this election if upheld.  With the exception of Insurance Commish, I don’t think it will make a lot of difference is statewide races.  Even in that one, I think Dale probably eekes out the primary.

However, for some local races, this would be bad news.  Sheriff McMillan cannot like to see this.  Neither can Cecil Brown.  Both would depend heavily on crossover votes.

Alan:  The ruling does not apply to this year’s primaries.  Assuming that Judge Pepper’s ruling is upheld, the legislature will have to take action to implement it.

I’m really surprised that the judge issued his ruling this close to our 2007 primaries.  He’s bound to have known that it would cause some confusion.

Virginia’s party primaries are next Tuesday, June 12.  The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals is obviously waiting until after those primaries to hand down its ruling in the Virginia Republicans’ open-primary lawsuit.

In a June 9 post, Votelaw notes that the Mississippi legislature will have until April 2008 to implement the court’s ruling.

The Votelaw article also has a link to the PDF of Judge Pepper’s opinion.

Haley may be shrewd enough to seed the issue and somehow get it to the floor to allow the Democrats to close their primary and help them get there.

The Clarion-Ledger has posted an article on Judge Pepper’s ruling.

“Pepper said the state must adopt a system of party registration and require voters to carry a registration card and a photo ID to the polls.”

The judge absolutely did NOT say the state “must” do those things.  He suggested them as possible ways that the legislature could implement his ruling.  No court has ever ordered any state to enact party registration.

It should be noted, too, that the Democrats will be the only party that will need to have a means of controlling who votes in their primaries.  According to Gov. Barbour, the Republicans intend to keep their primaries open to ALL voters-- even if party registration is enacted.

“The courts have ruled that people cannot vote in a Democratic primary and then turn around and vote in Republican runoff, or vice versa.”

This is not true, as evidenced by our neighboring state.  Since Alabama law does not forbid it, the Republicans there invite people who vote in the Democratic first primary to cross over and vote in the Republican second (or runoff) primary.

The Clarion-Ledger has replaced its previous post with an Associated Press story that continues to say that Judge Pepper ordered certain things that he merely suggested.

For example:  “Pepper said voters must re-register and carry a party registration [card] and a photo ID to the polls in primary elections.”

Again:  The judge only suggested those things as possible ways for the legislature to carry out his ruling.

On the 10:00 news tonight, WLBT-TV repeated the above fiction.  Unfortunately in this instance, these media outlets reach a lot more people than this website does.

I fear that we’re going to wind up with mass confusion among our fellow citizens.

BTW:  Don’t forget that there’s at least a possibility that the state will appeal Judge Pepper’s ruling to the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Andy Taggart has written about Judge Pepper’s ruling on the Red/Blue blog.

Mine is the second comment.

Here’s some more good commentary on this issue.

Steve,

I’m impressed.  You’ve been all over this one and I think predicted the outcome.  Good work.

Is there a link to the decision so we can read it ourselves?  What’s the cite?

Another question—in other states that allow registration as “Independent” what percentage of voters go that route in order to maintain the ability to vote in either party’s primary?

ReadyForAChange:  Thanks for the kind words.  Judge Pepper’s opinion is at Votelaw.

I stayed up until the wee hours of Sunday morning reading the opinion.  It sounds to me like the judge is strongly suggesting party registration, voter ID, etc., as ways of implementing his ruling-- IF it is upheld.  But the bottom line is that he declared our current primary-election law unconstitutional.  If upheld, this will mean that each party will be free to determine who votes in its primaries.

I’ll be most interested to get your “take” on Pepper’s opinion, RFAC.

“... in other states that allow registration as “Independent” what percentage of voters go that route in order to maintain the ability to vote in either party’s primary?”

29 states now have party registration, and this varies from state to state.  In some states, neither party invites registered independents (aka “unaffiliated") to vote in its primaries.  In other states, only one party invites independents, while in still other states, both parties invite independents into their primaries.

In West Virginia, for example, the Republicans have been inviting independents to vote in their primaries for several years now, and the Democrats just recently decided to also invite independents into their primaries.

OK, So the Democrats think this will save them? Or, the militant blacks have tired of the moderate whites and want to drive them out? Isn’t there a danger that as the Democratic Party recedes into a few pockets that eagar office seekers will just run as Republicans without any conservative values?  Reeves-Rockefellar Republicans.

Reeves? as in Tate? What’s with that? Andy Taggart has a good take on this in this morning’s Clarion Ledger: “Democratic Dog Catches Car.”

I think I’ve figured out the endgame.  What the dems really want is the ability to sit in a precinct place and handpick voters. “I want you to vote, but I don’t want him to vote”, etc.  Folks like the White Shadow and Johnson and Johnson want that kind of power over contested elections to manage the outcome.  This, I guarantee, will be put to the test in Jackson’s next mayoral election.

It sounds like they are going to keep pressing for the seperate primary registration, but they may relax the restrictions at their option when it suits their political interests (i.e. in uncontested races - no pun intended).

What seems to get lost in all the pandering and discussion is that current Mississippi law prevents a voter from voting in one party’s primary and then voting in another’s primary runoff.  For instance, if you were to vote in the Democratic primary, you cannot then go and vote in the Republican primary runoff (assuming there was one) two weeks later.  Likewise (and here is where the Dems are pandering), a voter can’t vote in the Republican primary and then vote in the Democratic primary runoff. 

Regardless of what the parties say they are going to do to keep them closed or open, they can’t go against the standing law. 

Wait, they can.  But it would be illegal.  Whether they were caught???  Well, I guess that is for another thread and debate.

Feel free to check me on that.  I certainly do not claim to know everything about this subject.  But that is a point that needs to be clarified.  And it will never appear in the Clarion Liar!

Let me lay it all out.

There will be an open US Senate seat from Mississippi in the next 1 to 5 years.

Mike Moore has his eyes on the office but so does Bennie Thompson.  Moore postures as the heir apparent, Thompson believes he is destined to make history.

The lawsuit to bring closed primaries was the sole result of Thompson’s manipulation of his party.

Thompson has fired a huge shot across Moore’s bow to not assume he will be the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Closed primaries mean no crossover white [read racist] anti-Thompson votes for Moore.  Statewide black voter turnout for a Thompson Senate candidacy will be off the charts.

The only wild card is Haley Barbour.  If he wants to go to Washington the race will be his to lose.  Thompson will gladly step aside to watch Moore get pummelled.

The LBC will make much noise about VoterID but in the end will agree.  Advantage Thompson.

All HAIL King Bennie!.  The 2nd most powerful politico in all of Mississippi.

Sit back and watch it all go down.

Not Tate, State Senator John Reeves, the liberal republican.

Mike Moore has his eyes on the office but so does Bennie Thompson.  Moore postures as the heir apparent, Thompson believes he is destined to make history.

Bodie: Mark my words. It doesn’t matter which one of these guys becomes the Democratic nominee for that open Senate seat, it’s Chip Pickering’s to lose. Wicker’s got too much seniority on the approps committee to run. And yes, Haley’s got his sight on Washington, but not as a senator---as vp or prez.

The key thing about Judge Pepper’s opinion is that he declared Mississippi’s primary-election law unconstitutional.  If this ruling stands, each party will be free to determine who votes in its primaries.

This sentence from Laura Hipp’s story nails it:  “[The Democrats’ lawyer Ellis] Turnage said Democrats have a constitutional right to decide who votes in [their] party primaries.”

GOP Chairman Jim Herring was quoted today as reconfirming what Gov. Barbour said last year:  the Republicans intend to keep their primaries open to all voters-- even if party registration is enacted.

The big question will be whether the Democrats will invite independents to vote in their primaries.  If they don’t, they will, as I see it, wind up consisting mainly of blacks and liberal whites.  Now there’s a winning coalition in Mississippi!

Geoff Pender has an interesting article in the Sun Herald, which is linked to an editorial.

Attorney General Hood answers the Big Question:  “... he isn’t surprised by the ruling about closed primaries. He said, ‘I don’t think either party will close its primary to unaffiliated voters. All the court did was tell the Legislature it had to set up a system where the parties, if they want to, can close their primaries to nonparty members. I don’t think the impact will be that great.’ But he said he is concerned about the voter ID requirement, and wants more clarification from the court.”

If he’s correct about the Democrats keeping their primaries open to independent (aka “unaffiliated") voters, that will mean that Democrats and independents will have the same choice of primaries as all voters have today.

Rep. Tommy Reynolds’s remarks were incredible.  Do you think he really believes all that stuff?

From the memory division, here are a few of the more active strings over the past 18 months dedicated to this topic.

Sid Salter Article

Lawsuit filed

Preliminary injunction filed

This is an opinion piece from the Democratic leader of the Idaho Senate.  He’s castigating the Idaho Republicans for passing a resolution to close GOP primaries. 

This character needs to dust off his history book.  He thinks the Founding Fathers gave us the secret ballot.

The first comment is from Richard Winger, publisher of Ballot Access News.  Mine is the fourth comment.

Louisiana has had party registration since 1916.  Except for presidential primaries, the state has not had party primaries since the 1970s.

Box 9 on the application is “Party Affiliation.” “None” means “independent” or “unaffilated.” An applicant who leaves box 9 blank is registered as “None.”

“Other” can be a party that is not ballot-qualified in Louisiana.  The lady in the secretary of state’s office told me that people write some strange things on the “other” line.

Louisiana is restoring party primaries for its congressional elections, starting in 2008.  Each party is inviting people registered as “None” or “Other” to vote in its congressional primary.

Voter Registration Application

Besides Louisiana, Florida and North Carolina are the only Southern states which have party registration.  (Kentucky and Oklahoma do too, but I don’t consider them Southern states.)

Box 12 on Florida’s application is “Party Affiliation.” The reason that the minor parties are not listed on the application is that there are 26 of them.  Some 2/3 of them have never run a candidate for office.  (Mississippi, by comparison, has six minor parties.)

None of Florida’s parties invite non-members to vote in their primaries.  On primary day, all voters may vote on issues and in nonpartisan races.

Think I’ll move to Florida and join the Surfers Party of America!

Florida Registration Application

On North Carolina’s application, “Political Party Affiliation” is the box in the lower left corner.  Note that anyone who leaves this box blank is registered as “Unaffiliated.”

The Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians all invite unaffiliated voters to vote in their primaries.  (A voter, of course, may participate in only one party’s primary.)

To get to the application, you’ll need to click on “Voting in North Carolina,” then “Voter Registration Forms,” and finally “NC English.”

North Carolina Registration Application

I’ve just learned that the Libertarians are not now ballot-qualified in North Carolina.  They are working to re-qualify in time for the 2008 elections.

Assuming that the Libertarians re-qualify, they will nominate their candidates in 2008 by convention instead of by primary.

The Republicans and Democrats are currently the only qualified parties in North Carolina.

Dan Modisett, general manager of WLBT-TV, just delivered an editorial on Judge Pepper’s ruling that was loaded with errors.  He said that Pepper ruled that everyone would have to register with a party in order to vote in that party’s primary. 

Pepper declared Mississippi’s primary election law unconstitutional.  If this ruling is upheld, each party will be free to determine who votes in its primaries.  No court can say who votes in which party’s primary.

As to the order that the state enact party registration:  No court has ever before ordered any state to enact party registration or voter ID. Those matters are the legislature’s prerogative, and I believe that that part of Pepper’s ruling will be reversed by the 5th Circuit.  (This assumes, of course, that the state appeals to the 5th Circuit, as I’m guessing it will.)

Gov. Barbour said in a Clarion-Ledger interview on March 26, 2006 that the Republicans will keep their primaries open to all voters-- even if party registration is enacted.  GOP Chairman Jim Herring re-confirmed this last week.  Last year, the Democrats’ communications director indicated that they will invite independents but exclude Republicans from Democratic primaries.  Attorney General Hood said last week that he believes the Democrats will invite independents into their primaries. 

Accordingly, Republicans would be the only voters who would have fewer choices than they have today.  In other words, Democrats and independents will have the same choices as all voters have now.

Modisett also said he doesn’t want to register with a party because he doesn’t want to be contacted by that party.  That’s already possible, sir, since each voter’s choice of party primary is publicly recorded.

If you’re curious about my track record of predictions about the Democrats’ lawsuit, Mr. Modisett, you might read my letter to The Clarion-Ledger of March 10, 2006.  You might also read what I’ve written on this website during the past 15 months.

By the time the media outlets are finished, the big majority of our fellow citizens are going to be thoroughly confused.

Here’s an article supporting the Idaho Republican Party’s move to close its primaries.

The Red Sox/Yankees analogy is interesting.

Regarding the statement that Judge Pepper’s ruling applies to both the Democratic and the Republican parties, Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, writes:

“Then the decision is clearly flawed.  If it applies to
both parties that hold primaries, then someone would
have needed to bring the Republican Party into the
case as an interested party.”

In today’s Clarion-Ledger, a letter-writer from Arizona said that when parties have closed primaries, the parties should pay for the primaries.

In 1995, a federal appeals court ruled that when a state requires parties to use primaries to nominate their candidates, the state must pay the costs of those primaries.

Here’s Richard Winger’s article that will appear in the July print edition of Ballot Access News, “Mississippi Democrats Win Against Open Primary:  Decision is Even Stronger Than Similar 2006 Virginia Decision.”

On June 8, U.S. District Court Judge Allen Pepper, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the Mississippi Democratic Party has a right to prevent outsiders from voting in its primary. Mississippi State Democratic Party v Barbour, 4:06cv29.  Mississippi has never had registration by party, so any registered voter in Mississippi has been free to vote in any party’s primary.  The state Democratic Party feels that Republicans have been voting in its primaries, and it wants to stop it, so it filed its lawsuit in February 2006, and has now won it, at least at the first level.

The decision is based almost entirely on the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 2000 called California Democratic Party v Jones.  In that case, the Supreme Court had said that if a party doesn’t like blanket primaries, it cannot be forced to use them (a blanket primary puts all candidates on the same ballot, and a voter can vote for a Democrat for one office and a Republican for another office). This is the second time that a U.S. District Court somewhere in the U.S. has ruled that open primaries are also unconstitutional, if a party objects.  The first was in Virginia, where the Republican Party partially won a similar case [Miller v. Brown] last year.  That decision is being appealed, and the Mississippi decision will also be appealed. [Note:  I’ve been guessing that the state will appeal to the 5th Circuit.  Richard is a seasoned observer of the federal courts.]

The judge did not say that the state must create a system in which voters register by party, but it is difficult to imagine how the state can comply with the decision without it.

The decision also said that future primaries must require voters to show photo ID at the polls.  The judge said this is because the party wants a list of people who choose to vote in its primary.  However, the Democratic Party objects to this, and on June 15, it asked for a rehearing in the case, on the photo ID issue.

The Democratic Party also asked for a rehearing on the question of when the decision should go into effect.  The decision said that it would not go into effect until April 2008, but the party wants it to go into effect for the state office primary of August 2007.

The full article will be posted at Ballot Access News at the end of July.

Charlie Mitchell’s column today is about Judge Pepper’s ruling.

“... there’s no way to look at a poll book in Mississippi and tell who is a Republican and who is a Democrat.”

There is indeed, since each voter’s choice of primary is public record.  If someone consistently votes in a certain party’s primaries, it’s usually safe to assume that that voter prefers that party.  The U. S. Supreme Court has said that the act of voting in a party primary is an act of affiliation with that party. 

“The most drastic result could be a total reregistration of all voters in the state with the requirement that each person declare a party affiliation or independent status.”

Besides being able to register at the circuit clerk’s office, a citizen may register through Motor Voter.  Also, the one-page voter registration form may be downloaded and printed from the secretary of state’s website.  The registrant fills out and signs the form, addresses it to the circuit clerk, and drops it in the mail.  By return mail, the circuit clerk sends a voter card that tells the registrant where to vote.

If party registration is enacted, a “party affiliation” box would be added to the registration form.  Each voter’s affiliation would be noted on the voter card and the voter roll.

The only thing “drastic” would be if there were a short period of time for re-registration.  The most logical approach would be to start re-registration right after the 2008 primaries-- now scheduled for March.  This could continue until 30 days before the spring 2009 primaries that will be held in most municipalities.

If Judge Pepper doesn’t stay his ruling, I’m guessing that the 5th Circuit will.  This would set aside Pepper’s timeline for making changes.

“But say reregistration is ordered and a person signs up as a Republican because she wants to support a GOP candidate in a presidential primary. Two years later when she goes to the polls to support… a Democrat facing a primary challenge - the party can send her away.”

Wrong!  She would be able to change her party registration up until 30 days prior to the primaries. 

In Pennsylvania in 2004, several thousand union members changed their registrations from Democrat to Republican in order to vote for Sen. Arlen Specter in the Republican primary.

“See? Only registered Democrats would get to choose Democrats.”

The Democrats have indicated that they will invite independents to vote in their primaries.

“Republicans, who would have the power to close their primaries, have said all along they’ll keep theirs open.”

Correct.  Accordingly, Democrats and independents will have the same choices as all voters have today.  Only Republicans would be restricted to voting in their own party’s primary.

“Mixing votes - backing some Democrats and some Republicans - would continue in general elections, but that will just confuse people more.”

In any general election, all candidates are listed on a single ballot, and that’s not going to change, regardless of what happens with our party primary system. 

“But for the people, sadly, it may turn more away from the process of self-government altogether.”

The main thing that is confusing our fellow citizens is the misinformation being spread by certain media outlets.

From the get-go, I have questioned the timing of Judge Pepper’s ruling-- so close to the party primaries.  He further muddied the water by injecting the wedge issue of voter ID-- which I favor-- into the case.  This has enabled certain politicians to posture for partisan gain by focusing on voter ID.  With today’s photo op and press release, Gov. Barbour is obviously joining that crowd.

Partisanship aside, in the 20 days since the ruling was issued, I have been impressed with the attorney general’s comments.  Of course, his office is defending against the Democrats’ suit, so he has to be very careful about his public pronouncements about it.

From the governor’s press release:  “For the first time, Mississippi’s official state Election Board has gone on record supporting a requirement that Mississippi voters show some form of identification at the polls.”

The governor and Secretary Clark could have taken that action at any time in the last 3 and 1/2 years-- instead of waiting until the political campaigns are shifting into high gear to do so.

“Attorney General Jim Hood abstained from voting on Governor Barbour’s motion, saying he was representing the Mississippi Legislature in the lawsuit, although the Legislature is not a defendant in the lawsuit.”

No court has ever ordered any state to enact party registration or voter ID.  The question is not whether those are good ideas or not, but rather whose prerogatives they are.  The ruling is ambiguous as to whether it is actually ordering voter ID, which is why the AG is seeking clarification.  Gov. Barbour, a lawyer and one of the savviest politicians in the nation, surely understands that the AG is defending the legislature’s prerogatives.

Laura Hipp’s post on The Clarion-Ledger’s website says as much:  “Hood today would not join the legal motion because he filed papers with the court last week asking for clarification on whether voter ID was required. He said he represented the Legislature. ... Hood… said he could not take a different position from last week’s legal argument.”

“Barbour… said he may call a special session this year to adopt a voter ID provision.”

If that happens, and since this is an election year, that will likely be the most politically super-charged session in many years.

The water gets muddier and muddier.

On the other thread, “Just Me” writes:  “... why in the world would the AG be defending someone [the legislature] who isn’t even involved in the case???”

The legislature is indeed involved in the case.  If the part of Judge Pepper’s ruling that says our primary election law is unconstitutional is upheld-- as I believe it will be-- it will be up to the legislature to implement it.

I don’t agree with Attorney General Hood politically, but it seems to me that, so far, he and his office have handled the defense side of this case well.

I respectfully disagree.  The election commission met to vote on filing court papers asking Pepper to delay the requirements for re-registration of voters and for a closed primary system.  That’s it.  Nothing else. 

Hood should have been on board with the election commission for the vote regarding this motion.  Whether he ends up having to represent the legislature down the line or not, no problem.  But for right now the issue was filing the papers to delay the requirement.

All three on the election commission should have been on board in filing this motion.  As of right now--the legislature is not involved--not in this motion for a delay.

Some Georgians have found another use for their state-issued photo voter ID cards.

Jimmie Gates’s article on the Ike Brown case also mentions Judge Pepper’s ruling on our primary election system.

Finally, someone in the media gets it right:  “In a case filed by Democratic Party officials, U.S. District Judge Allen Pepper ruled Democratic and Republican parties could close party primaries to voters not aligned with their parties.”

In other words, in declaring the law unconstitutional, the decision, if upheld, will enable each party to say who votes in its primaries.

A few paragraphs later, however, Gates echoes what much of the rest of the media have been saying:  “His ruling came in a lawsuit the Democratic Party filed last year against the Mississippi Election Commission seeking to close primaries and allow only registered Democrats to cast ballots.”

This makes it sound as though the courts can say who can and who cannot vote in the primaries.  In fact, the question in the suit is whether the state may force the parties to open their primaries to any voter who requests their ballot.  Pepper ruled-- correctly, in my view-- that the state may not.

The Democrats have said that they will invite independents but exclude Republicans from Democratic primaries.  Gov. Barbour reiterated yesterday that the GOP will keep its primaries open to all voters.

WLBT’s June 28 story is chock-full of the fantasies that have spread since Judge Pepper issued his ruling on June 8.

In the first place, it’s not certain that Pepper actually ordered voter ID, which is why the attorney general is seeking clarification.  Second, if he indeed ordered it, there’s a good chance the 5th Circuit will remove it on appeal-- since no court has ever mandated voter ID on any state.

Pepper set April 1, 2008 as the deadline for the legislature to implement his ruling.  Either Pepper or the 5th Circuit could stay the ruling, which would set aside this deadline.  The legislature could also move the March congressional/presidential primaries to a later date.

Sen. Terry Burton and Rep. Tommy Reynolds are both negative on a special legislative session to consider voter ID later this year.  (They are the chairmen, respectively, of the Senate Elections and the House Apportionment and Elections committees.) Such a session would come in the midst of a heated political campaign.

Gov. Barbour is much too shrewd to call a special session under such circumstances.

In 2005, Indiana passed a law requiring state-issued photo voter ID.  The law has been under litigation, and the federal appeals court recently upheld it, 2-1.  Now the Indiana Democratic Party and the Indiana ACLU are asking the U. S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

But even in the states with the strictest voter ID laws, voters who can’t produce an ID are allowed to vote. Most allow a provisional ballot; the voter must appear at a county office within a few days after the election and prove his or her identity.

Bobby Harrison’s July 5 article on Judge Pepper’s ruling is an improvement over his previous writing on the subject.

“... a lawsuit filed by Democratic voters...”

Actually, the suit was filed by the state Democratic Executive Committee, the party’s governing body.

“Clark and Barbour are asking U.S. District Judge W. Allen Pepper to order the Mississippi Legislature to enact a voter identification requirement.”

If indeed that is what the secretary of state and the governor are requesting, it proves that Pepper is suggesting-- not ordering-- voter ID in his ruling.  This is further evidenced by the fact that Pepper orders the state to submit its plan for implementing his ruling to the Justice Department for approval (pre-clearance). 

If a federal court in fact orders something, it is not necessary for it to be pre-cleared by Justice.  In any event, if Pepper does order voter ID, the 5th Circuit will likely reverse that part of the ruling.  The same is true of party registration, which, again, I say Pepper is merely suggesting.  Such things as voter ID and party registration are the legislature’s prerogatives.

“... to ensure that a person has a party registration, Pepper has ordered a photo voter identification.”

Again, I say that Pepper has suggested-- not ordered-- photo voter ID.  And party registration and voter ID are not linked, as illustrated by the fact that, of the 29 states with party registration, 19 do not have voter ID.  And 14 states have voter ID but do not have party registration.  The purpose of voter ID is simply to prove that the voter is who he says he is.

“... the original lawsuit to close the primaries...”

There’s only been one lawsuit.  It asked the court to declare our primary election law unconstitutional-- which Pepper did-- so that each party will be able to say who votes in its primaries.

“Under a closed primary system, a political party would have the option to keep voters from another party from participating.”

Closed primary:  a party’s primary ballot is only available to that party’s members.  If a party’s primary is closed, it’s because the party closed it-- not the courts or the state.

“... 29 states have closed primaries.”

29 states have party registration, but there are variations among these states as to what types of primaries the parties have.  In Utah, for example, the Republicans invite independents to vote in their primaries, while the Democrats have open primaries:  all<i> voters-- even registered Republicans-- are invited.  (Of course, a voter may only vote in one party’s primary.)

<i>"[Gov.] Barbour called the vote of the [state] Election Commission urging Pepper to enact voter identification in a ‘timely fashion’ historic.”

“Enact” usually refers to lawmaking.  That’s the role of legislative bodies-- not courts.

The commission could have taken this “historic” vote at any time during the last three and 1/2 years-- instead of a few weeks before the primary elections.

I’ll be a guest at 7:00AM Central Time tomorrow (Tuesday) on the Gallo Show on Supertalk 97.3FM.

The show streams live at Supertalk.

On July 11, as expected, a group of Idaho Republicans filed a federal lawsuit against Idaho’s open primary law.

This is the third such suit in the U. S., following the Virginia Republicans’ and the Mississippi Democrats’ lawsuits.

Breaking... U. S. District Judge Allen Pepper has issued another ruling in the Mississippi Democrats’ lawsuit.

There will be no party registration required for the August 2007 primaries.

He is indeed ordering the legislature to enact party registration and voter ID.  However, he has moved the deadline back to August 31, 2008-- which means that we will be able to conduct our March 2008 presidential/congressional primaries under the current system.

I’ll have more to say after I’ve had time to fully analyze the ruling.

Interesting and anxious to hear more…

Richard Winger of Ballot Access News predicts that both the attorney general and the Democratic Party will appeal to the 5th Circuit.

Richard thinks that 1) the attorney general will appeal the part of the ruling that says our current primary-election law is unconstitutional, and 2) the Democrats will appeal the part requiring voter ID.

Interesting that Judge Pepper has dropped the “photo” part of “photo voter ID.”

I’ll be a guest on the Paul Gallo Show on Supertalk 97.3FM tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 7:20.

Near the middle of page three of Judge Pepper’s July 17 memorandum opinion, he misconstrues the Elections Clause of the U. S. Constitution.  Either 1) he doesn’t realize that this clause refers to U. S. senators and representatives, or 2) he’s not aware of the 1872 federal law which established the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years as federal election day.

Also, the judge is clearly not familiar with Reed v. Washington State Democratic Party (2004), which follows the precedent set in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000)-- and in which Washington state defended its primary election system by noting that, unlike California, Washington does not have party registration.  The Ninth Circuit opined that “these are distinctions without a difference.” Pepper nevertheless contends that party registration-- along with voter ID-- is necessary for a party to disassociate from nonmembers.

The notion that party registration and voter ID are conjoined is belied by the fact that 19 states have party registration but do not have voter ID.  And another 14 states have voter ID but do not have party registration.

Astonishingly, the judge admits that, when he wrote his June 8 opinion, he was not aware that Mississippi’s federal primaries were scheduled for March 2008, not to mention that some of our municipalities also have primaries slated for spring 2008.

I could make quite a list of other errors in the two rulings, but the ones above really stand out.  Pepper, in my view, does answer the Big Question correctly-- that our current primary election law is unconstitutional-- but even at that, he gives incorrect reasons for its unconstitutionality.

An individual in a black robe issues an opinion, and many people react as though the tablets just came down from Mount Sinai.

Incredible.

Steve, are you an attorney?

The Clarion-Ledger‘s July 19 editorial leaves me feeling like a mosquito in a nudist camp:  I hardly know where to start.  The editorial writer either 1) doesn’t read Yall Politics or 2) thinks that we don’t know what we’re talking about here.

“The Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee had sued to force a closed primary system...”

Closed primary:  a party’s primary ballot is only available to that party’s members.  No judge, no court can close a primary, and neither can the state.  If a party has a closed primary, it’s because that party closed it.

If our state-mandated open primary system is ultimately struck down-- as I believe it will be-- it does not automatically follow that we will have closed primaries.  What will follow will be that each party-- rather than the state-- will determine who votes in its primaries.  The Democrats have stated that they will invite independents but exclude Republicans from Democratic primaries.  (That’s a semi-closed primary.) The Republicans, in contrast, have said that they will keep their primaries open to ALL voters-- even if party registration is enacted.

Accordingly, Republicans will be the only voters who will have fewer choices than they have today.  To put it another way:  Democrats and independents will have the same choices as ALL voters have now.

“Requiring voter identification is not negotiable.”

It’s certainly not negotiable with Judge Pepper, but it is “appealable"-- to the 5th Circuit, where the likelihood is great that both the voter ID and the party registration parts of the ruling will be reversed.  Those two items are the legislature’s prerogatives.

The editorial writer alleges that Pepper’s “logic is impeccable” in ordering voter ID and party registration.  In my view, his logic is practically non-existent.  Case in point:  19 states have party registration but do not have voter ID.  In 16 of those 19 states, both major parties exclude some voters from their primaries.  In each of another two of those states, one party excludes some voters.

In the U. S. Supreme Court’s ruling in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), which is the main precedent for the Mississippi Democrats’ lawsuit, there is absolutely no mention of voter ID.

Consider this:  a state does not have to mandate that political parties nominate candidates.  But if it does, it’s up to the state to tell the parties which method(s) of nomination they may use-- primaries, conventions, caucuses, etc.  If a state cannot be ordered to mandate party primaries-- or even to require that parties nominate candidates at all-- how in the world can a state be ordered to enact voter ID and party registration?

A judge who aspires to be a legislator should put his black robe in mothballs and hit the campaign trail.

Steve, I’m not being patronizing here when I say that you should seriously sit down and write a book about this stuff.  The world needs one.

Steve, Your insight and analysis are spot on.  Great job and keep up the good work.

Thanks for the kind words, Tom and John.

Funny you should mention writing a book, Tom.  Last night I was perusing the 2005 edition of Party Politics in America, which is used as a college textbook, and found a number of errors in the descriptions of the types of party primaries.  I thought about the definite need for a more accurate book on the subject.

Many textbook authors evidently depend on assistants to do their research for them.

Lillian Shaw of Okolona had an interesting letter in today’s Clarion-Alleger.

“Yellow dog, red dog, blue dog! The correct response of the Legislature to U.S. District Judge Allen Pepper’s ruling that the state must change its primary election laws is to simply stop having state supported and sponsored primaries.”

The legislature could certainly either 1) eliminate primaries and provide other nominating option(s) or 2) not specify any nominating options for the parties at all.  Since no. 2 would leave the parties to their own devices, the parties would be very unlikely to hold primaries, as they would be unable/unwilling to bear the expense.  And since our citizens are accustomed to party primaries, the legislature will surely continue to mandate and finance primaries, regardless of the outcome of the Democrats’ lawsuit.

Another thing to remember is that some elections are decided in one party’s primary, e.g., the elections for county officials in Hinds and Rankin.  If we had, say, nominating conventions instead of primaries, grassroots voters would have no say-so in those elections.

“Let the Democrat Party and the Republican Party select the candidates they wish to place on the general ballot in the same way the Reform Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian do.”

Since 1903, Mississippi’s only nominating option has been the party primary.  If any of our seven small parties ever have more than one candidate for the same office, they will have to conduct a primary.  I think the legislature should give the small parties the option of nominating by convention, but, again, the need has not arisen, since those parties do well to come up with one candidate for an office.

By the way:  we’ll soon have two more parties, the Southern Party and Unity08.  Our state has some of the easiest requirements for new parties to register, and I hope that doesn’t change.

Wow!  If someone as knowledgable and experienced as David Bowen has some of the notions that he has, what must the rest of our citizens be thinking?

The respected former congressman says, “A federal judge has ruled… that we must register by party, Democratic, Republican or independent, and be admitted only to the party primary where we are registered.”

No judge, no court has the power to say who can vote in which party’s primary.  As I have written several times previously-- on this website and in letters to The Clarion-Ledger-- the ultimate outcome of the Democrats’ lawsuit will be that the two major parties will replace the state as the decision-makers in who votes in which primary.  Democratic and independent voters will have the same choices on primary day as ALL voters now have, while Republicans will only be able to vote in the Republican primary.

The purpose of party registration is simply to identify voters, and I’m guessing that the legislature will exercise its prerogative and enact party registration.

“... Louisiana… has a system… in which all candidates run in the same [election], with a runoff if needed to determine a majority winner. It plays down party affiliation and gives voters total access to all the candidates.”

By eliminating party primaries, it also takes away the parties’ ability to officially nominate candidates.  That’s one of the big reasons why only one state-- Louisiana-- uses that system to elect all of its state officials.

But it’s a great idea for municipal elections, as illustrated by the fact that the large majority of U. S. municipalities-- including most of the big cities-- already use it.  It would take a grassroots organization to get the Mississippi legislature to enact nonpartisan municipal elections, popularly called “open primaries.” The powers that be, of course, would fight such an effort.

I, for one, am willing to get involved in such an organization.

Here’s the latest on the lawsuit brought by a group of Idaho Republicans against that state’s open primary law.  The state has until day after tomorrow to respond to the suit.

Since the Republican Party itself is not one of the plaintiffs, it’s possible that the suit will be thrown out.

The Clarion-Ledger’s editorial says <i>”... the Legislature which convenes in January must craft a new voting system which conforms to [Judge] Pepper’s order.”

All federal district court rulings are entitled to be reviewed by a mid-level court, so the 5th Circuit will definitely hear the appeals in this case.  It’s possible that the 5th Circuit will set aside the August 31, 2008 deadline for implementing Pepper’s ruling.

“What if lawmakers did away with… separate primaries altogether?”

“In 1999, the issue arose in the secretary of state race, since it was said that having one primary [ballot] where all could vote regardless of party...”

Nick Walters, the GOP nominee, proposed that all candidates of all parties be listed on the same primary ballot, which would enable the voter to cross party lines from office to office.  But each party would still be able to have one candidate per office on the November general election ballot.

California had a primary system similar to that, which the U. S. Supreme Court struck down in its landmark 2000 ruling.  Ironically, that ruling is the main precedent for the Mississippi Democrats’ challenge of our current primary election law, which Pepper declared unconstitutional.

“Mississippi has played with the idea since 1966 and even adopted an open [elections] law in the early 1970s, but the federal government killed it under the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana then adopted the same law a few years later and it was approved.”

The paper is referring here to the system in which all candidates, including independents, run in the same election.  If no one gets 50%-plus, the top two, regardless of party, have a runoff.  That system has absolutely no chance of getting enacted for our state or congressional elections.  However, in my view, it’s a great idea for our local elections, but even that would be difficult to get adopted.

It’s worth noting that that’s the way we now elect our state and county judges and county election commissioners.  It’s also like the special elections that we hold to fill vacancies in offices.

All of this is covered in detail here.

On another thread, Frances wrote, “Is it fair to ask candidates for the House and Senate whether they are far an open or closed Primary?  Is it fair to ask that question of Eaves and Barbour?  Does anybody have any idea that it is possible to circumvent [Judge Pepper’s] order?”

I wonder how many of the people who are squawking about not being able to vote for candidates of both parties last Tuesday have ever said anything to their legislators about this issue.  This has been a recurring issue in Mississippi since the 1960s, and if the past is a guide, nobody will get excited about it again until the next election cycle.

I’m convinced that Pepper’s ruling striking down our current primary election law will be upheld on appeal.  The likelihood is great, however, that his order for voter ID will be reversed, since that’s the legislature’s prerogative.

Once the dust settles, Democrats and independents will have their choice of either party’s primary-- just as ALL voters do now.  Republicans, on the other hand, will only be able to vote in the Republican primary.

How I arrived at this is detailed here in several earlier posts on this thread.

Ballot Access News has a little piece on the appeals to the 5th Circuit of Judge Pepper’s ruling.

The state Republican Party has also appealed Judge Pepper’s ruling to the 5th Circuit.  Since the Republicans were not a party to the lawsuit, they must have been approved as intervenors in order to be able to file an appeal.

“The Mississippi Republican Party claims it was never involved in the lawsuit and should be exempt from the final ruling.”

I haven’t yet seen the Republicans’ appeal, but I don’t understand this.  If the unconstitutionality of our current primary election law is upheld on appeal-- as I believe it will be-- the new laws that are enacted will obviously apply to all political parties in the state.  Each party will then be free to say who votes in its primaries, and the Republicans have said that they will keep their primaries open to ALL voters-- even if party registration is enacted.

The purpose of party registration is to identify voters.  The Republicans have no need to identify any voters, since they are going to keep their primaries open.  However, if the legislature enacts party registration, all voters will obviously have to indicate whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or independents.

The Democrats have said that they will invite independents but exclude Republicans from their primaries.  Thus, Republicans will be the only voters who will need to be identified.  There is a way that the Democrats could identify Republicans without party registration-- which I won’t detail in this post.

“In June, Pepper… mandated a closed primary system...”

UGH.  Closed primary:  a party’s primary ballot is only available to that party’s members.  No judge, no court can close a primary, and neither can the state.  If a party’s primary is closed, it’s because that party closed it.

Here’s the Associated Press story on the Republican Party’s appeal.

There’s nothing here claiming that Judge Pepper “ordered” or “mandated” closed primaries.

Ballot Access News has commented on the Mississippi Republicans’ appeal to the 5th Circuit of Judge Pepper’s ruling.

Louisiana is the only state that has nonpartisan elections for all of its state officials:  all candidates run in the same election.  The state, which alone has also used that system for its congressional elections, is restoring party primaries for those elections, starting in 2008.

Louisiana’s Republicans are allowing only Republicans to vote in GOP congressional primaries.  Louisiana Democrats have not yet said whether they will invite independents to vote in Democratic congressional primaries.

“... the Legislature allowed the political parties to determine whether they would allow independent voters to participate in the closed party primary.”

The legislature had no choice, since, in 1986, the U. S. Supreme Court gave parties the right to invite independents to vote in their primaries.

Mississippi Republicans say that they will keep ALL GOP primaries open to ALL voters-- regardless of the outcome of the Democrats’ lawsuit.  The Democrats, in contrast, have indicated that they will invite independents but block Republicans from voting in Democratic primaries.

Louisiana has had party registration since 1916.

Steve, Do you have knowledge of how the parties in Louisana certify candidates.  Are known Democrats allowed to run as Republicans and vice versa as they are in Mississippi.

“Do you have knowledge of how the parties in Louisiana certify candidates?  Are known Democrats allowed to run as Republicans and vice versa as they are in Mississippi?”

For offices other than president, candidates in Louisiana have not had to qualify with their parties.  With the return to congressional party primaries, I’m assuming that party-affiliated congressional candidates will now have to qualify with their parties.

You recall that the Republicans repudiated David Duke, but he was still able to run under the GOP label in 1990, 1991, and later.  Also, in 1995, Mike Foster, age 65 and a lifelong Democrat, changed his registration to Republican and was elected governor a month or so later.  Sort of like joining the church one Sunday and then getting elected chairman of the board of deacons the next Sunday.

Oh yes… Buddy Roemer was elected governor as a Democrat in 1987 and changed his registration to Republican during his term of office.

Memo to Frances:  I’ve just learned that all Louisiana congressional candidates will continue to have the same two options for qualifying to run:  (1) Get signatures on a petition OR (2) pay a qualifying fee to the government.

So Louisiana’s parties will continue to be left out of the qualifying process for candidates for federal, state, and local offices.

Here’s another dispatch from the echo chamber, this one bearing the imprint of Sidney Salter:  “When [Ike] Brown and Ellis Turnage went to court seeking to close Mississippi’s open primary system, they did so on the basis that they didn’t want Republicans… having any influence over the outcome of Democratic primaries and the choices made by Democratic voters in those primaries.”

This lawsuit was authorized by the state Democratic Executive Committee, the party’s governing body, of which Ike Brown is just one member.  Attorney Turnage is representing the party pro bono in this case.  If the suit had been improperly filed, Judge Pepper would have dismissed it. 

If the courts ultimately strike down our state-mandated open primary system-- as I believe they will-- the state will no longer determine who votes in which party primary.  Rather, each party will decide that.  The Republicans have said that they will keep open GOP primaries:  ALL voters will be invited.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have indicated that they will have semi-closed primaries:  independents will be invited, but Republicans will be excluded from Democratic primaries.

“... it’s disengenuous (sic) for Democrats who have sat back and let [Ike] Brown and others… file lawsuits to force a more partisan electoral process in the state...”

Once the final ruling has been issued in the Democrats’ suit, Mississippi will likely have what some 28 states already have-- a primary election system in which the state does not force the parties to let non-members vote in their primaries, their candidate-selection process.  When a state has two competitive parties, there is bound to be partisanship.

“As the two-party system matures in Mississippi, partisanship will supercede (sic) race as the lowest common denominator in state politics.”

I wonder if Sidney means this literally.  Some of our greatest leaders-- Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Reagan, e.g.-- have been quite partisan.  If you want to see partisanship, take a look at the Thomas Jefferson-John Adams presidential races of 1796 and 1800.

An expanded version of this commentary will be posted at Free Citizen.

Certain media outlets have been saying that, if party registration is enacted, ALL voters will automatically be forced to re-register.  That’s not true.

The legislature is free to start a system of registration by party in which all voters already on the rolls are considered to be independents.  The only voters who would need to re-register would be those who wanted to affiliate with a party. 

If our current primary election law is ultimately struck down-- as I believe it will be-- independent voters will continue to have their choice of either the Democratic or the Republican primary, since both parties have said that they will invite independents.  Democrats will also have their choice of either party’s primary, while Republicans will only be able to vote in the Republican primary. 

Both Rhode Island and Utah have fairly recently begun a system of registration by party in which old voter registrants are deemed to be independents.  Consequently, the largest group of voters in both states is registered independents.

This just in… A federal district judge in Georgia has dismissed the lawsuit challenging that state’s photo voter ID law.

It remains to be seen (1) whether the Georgia case will be appealed, and (2) whether the U. S. Supreme Court will agree to hear the appeal of the ruling which upheld Indiana’s photo voter ID law.

These, of course, are rulings on existing voter ID laws, whereas Judge Allen Pepper’s ruling ordered the Mississippi legislature to enact voter ID.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked the California Republican Party to change its rules and allow registered independents to vote in the party’s February 2008 presidential primary.  The GOP currently is only inviting independents to vote in its June 2008 primary for offices other than president.

California’s Democrats have already invited registered independents to vote in ALL Democratic primaries.

The full story is here.

Certain Mississippi Democrats might take note of the quote from Gov. Ronald Reagan’s 1967 “Big Tent” speech.

The California Republicans adjourned their state convention today without changing the rule that blocks registered independents from voting in the GOP presidential primary. 

The California Republicans are the only major state party in the nation that allows independents to vote in its state and congressional primaries-- and yet excludes independents from its presidential primary.

Thus, come February 2008, California’s registered independents will have no option other than the Democratic presidential primary.

This Wall Street Journal editorial mistakenly includes Mississippi in a list of states whose photo voter ID laws have been upheld by courts.

The Mississippi legislature, of course, has never enacted voter ID, despite efforts going back to 1995.

U. S. District Judge Allen Pepper, in declaring our state-mandated open primary unconstitutional, also ordered voter ID and party registration.  This is the first time a court has ordered a state to enact voter ID or party registration, and both items are among the four appeals to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans.

23 Georgia counties are holding elections today, and voters are required to show photo ID.  The Georgia legislature passed photo voter ID in 2006, but litigation has delayed its implementation until this election cycle.

The government furnishes a free photo ID for any voter who doesn’t have one.  The government-issued ID has “For Voting Only,” printed on it, but some Georgians have used these IDs for check-cashing purposes anyway.

The U. S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the Indiana photo voter ID case at its conference next Monday, September 24.

Looks like Georgia’s elections requiring voters to show a photo ID went off without a hitch.

“Secretary of State Karen Handel said Georgia poll workers have been trained to allow those without photo IDs to cast a provisional ballot. They would then have 48 hours to present a valid ID in order for their vote to count.”

The losers in the court case involving Georgia’s photo voter ID law have not yet said whether they will appeal.  They may be waiting to see whether the U. S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the Indiana photo voter ID case.

Here are two editorials on voter ID.  The first one is from the Rome (GA) News-Tribune, and the second from the Hattiesburg American.

The Georgia editorial is especially thought-provoking.

Voter ID still stinks

Voter ID will have limited impact

The Hattiesburg American’s editorial says: 

“U.S. District Judge Allen Pepper has ordered the state to enact a voter ID law next year.”

Four groups have filed appeals with the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.  Two of these groups-- the Mississippi Democratic Party and the state NAACP-- are appealing Pepper’s order for voter ID.  The likelihood is great that the order for voter ID will be reversed, since that falls within the legislature’s province.

Furthermore, it won’t be surprising if the 5th Circuit first sets aside Pepper’s deadline of August 31, 2008 for his entire ruling, which will take the pressure off the legislature next year.

“The second part of Pepper’s controversial ruling, a statewide re-registration, will do a whole lot more to curb cheating than voter ID will.”

The order for party registration is being appealed by the state Republican Party.  There’s a good chance this part of Pepper’s ruling will also be reversed, since, again, voter registration is the legislature’s prerogative.

I believe that Pepper’s order striking down our current primary election law-- which is being appealed by the state-- will be upheld.  As I’ve noted in earlier posts on this thread, (1) neither voter ID nor party registration is necessary to implement this part of the ruling, and (2) the legislature is free to start a system of registration in which voters already registered are deemed to be independents.  The only voters who would need to re-register would be those who wanted to affiliate with a party.

This just in… The U. S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Indiana photo voter ID case.

In this op-ed, Rick Hasen, a nationally-respected expert in election law, last week gave the reasons that he thought the high court should review the case.

The 4th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond has upheld the district court’s ruling on Virginia’s open primary law.  This case is similar to the Mississippi Democrats’ suit against our open primary law.  The Virginia ruling says that there is a circumstance in which the party, not the state, may decide who votes in a primary election.

The state of Virginia will likely appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court.  Since the Republicans who brought the suit did not get everything they wanted, they may appeal as well.  The Supreme Court will likely decide the case no earlier than the fall of 2008.

The Mississippi Democrats, of course, will be able to cite the 4th Circuit’s ruling in opposing the state’s appeal to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans.

Here’s an article on the Virginia ruling. There are some good comments at the bottom of the page.

The U. S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Indiana photo voter ID case.  This article is about the effects of the ID law in Indiana.  Everywhere that this has been an issue, the arguments are essentially the same.

In Indiana, anyone who qualifies to vote absentee is not required to show ID.

There are several ways to circumvent Georgia’s photo voter ID law.  The state furnishes a photo ID free to anyone who needs it.  The voter can get this ID by simply showing his or her registration application, for which no ID is required.

Also, Georgia has “on demand” absentee voting, for which no ID is needed.

This Kansas news story is about how the Indiana photo voter ID case before the U. S. Supreme Court may affect the rest of the states.  This year the Kansas Senate passed voter ID, but the House blocked it.  (Sound familiar?)

This brief editorial on voter ID from North Dakota is especially interesting, since North Dakota does not have any voter registration whatsoever.

Here’s an article about photo voter ID in Michigan.  That state enacted photo voter ID in 1996; however, it has been tied up in litigation, and the Michigan Supreme Court just recently upheld the law.  The state will use voter ID for the first time in next month’s elections.

Here’s an interesting situation with voter ID.  Canada’s Parliament passed an amendment requiring each voter to show proof of identity and residential address.

It turns out that a million-plus rural Canadians do not have addresses complete with street names and numbers.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) has introduced a bill in Congress to ban the photo ID as a requirement for voting in federal elections.

Ellison happens to be a Muslim.

Here’s a link to the story about Rep. Ellison and photo ID that does not require registration.

Jim Cameron presented this voter ID editorial on WDAM-TV on Wednesday.

Michigan used photo voter ID for the first time on Tuesday.  Other than from the NAACP, there were few complaints.

Sen. Ken Cuccinelli is the lawyer who brought the suit for the Virginia Republicans against that state’s primary election law.  This is similar to the Mississippi Democrats’ lawsuit here.  In its ruling last month, the 4th Circuit in Richmond gave “The Cooch” most of what he had asked for. 

In Cuccinelli’s bid for re-election last Tuesday, he led the final count by 91 votes.  His Democratic opponent requested a recount, and the canvass showed Cuccinelli ahead by 92 votes.

In the photo voter ID case before the U. S. Supreme Court, no less than 23 “friend of the court” briefs have been filed in behalf of those who are challenging the Indiana law.

The high court will hear arguments in the case early next year and will likely rule in June.

In a lawsuit similar to that of the Mississippi Democrats, a group of 72 Idaho Republicans is challenging that state’s primary election law.  There was a hearing today in Boise on the state’s motion to dismiss the suit.

Since the Republican Party itself did not file the suit, it won’t be surprising if the federal district court does dismiss it.

In Virginia, which has voter ID, the ACLU is asking the 134 local voter registrars for materials on voter ID.  This relates to complaints the ACLU says it received from last week’s elections.

Virginia law allows voters who are not carrying an ID to sign an “affirmation of identity” form.

Judge Allen Pepper (Trent Lott’s college friend) has refused to delay his order for Mississippi to adopt voter ID and voter registration by party in time for our 2009 municipal primary elections.

It now appears that the 5th Circuit in New Orleans will hear the four appeals in the case next March or April.  At that time, the names of the three judges who will hear the case will be revealed.  As I understand it, the 5th Circuit also has the power to move back Pepper’s August 31, 2008 deadline for the state to enact the changes he has ordered.

I continue to believe that the likelihood is great that Pepper’s order for voter ID and party registration will be reversed on appeal, as those matters are in the legislature’s province.

The 5th Circuit indeed has the power to issue a stay of Judge Pepper’s ruling.  If the court intends to do that, it should happen quite soon, since the legislature meets in January.

A federal judge in Idaho has dismissed the lawsuit that was brought by 71 Republicans seeking the right to block non-members from voting in Republican primaries.  This suit was similar to the Mississippi Democrats’ suit here.

The reason the suit was thrown out was that it was not brought by the Idaho Republican Party itself.  The advocates of closing the Republican primary say that they will now try to get the state legislature to change the primary process and enact party registration.  Judging from past attempts, this won’t succeed.  In my view, the smartest approach would be for the Republican Party to file suit against Idaho’s primary election law.  The problem there, however, is that the state Republican chairman likes the status quo and strongly opposes such a lawsuit.

Here’s a good article on the events in Idaho.  Mine is comment #8.

From The Clarion-Ledger:

“The Mississippi Democratic Party, the Mississippi Republican Party, the state of Mississippi and the Mississippi NAACP have filed motions with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans asking for a stay [of Judge Allen Pepper’s ruling] while their appeals are pending.”

There would seem to be a good chance that this stay will be granted, since all four appellants are requesting it.  Suppose the 2008 legislature enacts the measures that the judge has ordered, and then all or part of his ruling is reversed on appeal.  That would create lots of unnecessary confusion and red tape.  Besides, there’s not a lot of folderol involved in issuing a stay.  This would move back Pepper’s August 31, 2008 deadline and likely exempt our spring 2009 municipal primaries from the ruling.

“Democrats would welcome independents in their primaries, Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Dowdy said.”

If there was any doubt, this removes it.  Once the the dust has settled, independents will have the same choices on primary day that ALL voters have in the present setup, i.e., independents will be able to vote in either the Democratic or the Republican primary.

Here is my view of the scenario that will unfold:  Pepper’s ruling that Mississippi’s primary election law is unconstitutional will be upheld on appeal.  His orders for voter ID and party registration will be reversed, however, as those two matters are in the legislature’s domain.

“Requirements that would dramatically change Mississippi’s voting system...”

The main change will be that Democrats will be able to block Republicans from voting in Democratic primaries-- which was the Democrats’ purpose in bringing the lawsuit.  Since the Republicans have said that they will keep their primaries open to ALL voters, Democratic voters will also continue to have their choice of either party’s primary.  In other words, Republicans will be the only voters who will have fewer choices on primary day than they have now.

Virginia, like Mississippi, does not have party registration.  The Virginia Republican Party had said that it would require anyone voting in its Feb. 12 presidential primary to sign this oath:  “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for President.” But the GOP caught so much flack about it that it has dropped the oath requirement.  (The pledge was unenforceable anyway, since it’s a secret ballot.)

This oath is similar to Mississippi’s 1987 primary “challenge” law, which has seldom been enforced.

Unity08 has become Mississippi’s tenth ballot-qualified party, and the state chairman is (dum-de-dum!) SHAWN O’HARA.  I understand one of the platform planks will be a proposal for snow cone stands at rest stops.

I keep wondering when Shawn is going to try the Libertarians.

Last month, in the biggest test to date of Georgia’s photo voter ID law, 92 of the 159 counties held elections.  Reports thus far are that at least 57 voters lacked valid IDs and cast provisional ballots.  Anyone voting a provisional ballot has 48 hours to reappear with valid ID.

With the statewide presidential primaries set for Feb. 5, the secretary of state estimates that some 200,000 Georgia voters lack valid IDs.

The U. S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument next month in the case involving Indiana’s similar voter ID law.

BTW:  It’s my understanding that provisional ballots are only counted when they will make a difference in the outcome of an election.

The Hawaii Democratic Party may file suit for the right to decide who votes in Democratic primaries.  The state convention has approved such a suit, and there may be another vote on the matter at next month’s meeting of the party’s state central committee.

Similar lawsuits brought by Virginia Republicans and the Mississippi Democratic Party are pending in the federal courts.  A federal suit filed by a group of 71 Idaho Republicans was recently dismissed on a technicality, and a resolution calling for a new lawsuit will be presented at the January meeting of the state GOP central committee.

There is also a movement among South Carolina Republicans for a closed primary.

The number of states requiring some type of voter ID has risen from 11 in 2000 to 25 in 2007.  A forum on voter ID was recently held in Chicago.

The U. S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the suit challenging Indiana’s photo voter ID law on January 9.  Some 23 “friend of the court” briefs have been submitted, which I understand is a record number.  The high court’s ruling in that case is expected to have ramifications for the other states as well.

Steve, I hate to break your string here, but, dang man, you must feel like the Maytag repair man.

A federal judge has ordered Florida to stop enforcing its two-year-old “no match” voter registration law.  This law requires a citizen’s name on the registration form to be matched with either a Social Security number or a driver’s license number.  As a result, some 14,000 people have not been able to register to vote.

Here’s the article.

Here’s a good USA Today piece on the tough new voter ID laws in some states.

The U. S. Supreme Court today heard the Indiana photo voter ID case.  Most of the justices seemed reluctant to strike down the law.  The court is expected to rule in June.

Here’s John Fund’s latest take on the issue.

It turns out that one of the people that the plaintiffs say would be inconvenienced by the voter ID law is registered to vote in two different states.

Hosemann claimed he was going to get Voter I.D. passed.  I hope he comes through.  Go Gilbert !!!

(not gonna happen though...)

Here’s Rick Hasen’s commentary on today’s Supreme Court hearing in the photo voter ID case.  Rick is one of the nation’s top experts on election law.  He says it may be a 5-4 decision, and it could well spawn a great deal of election law litigation.

The 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has not set a specific date for oral argument in the Mississippi Democrats’ lawsuit, but it will be during the week of March 3.  The Democrats are challenging our primary election law, as they want to be able to block Republicans from voting in Democratic primaries.

Last June, U. S. District Judge Allen Pepper declared the law unconstitutional.  I believe that this part of his ruling will be upheld on appeal.  The judge went further and also ordered the state to enact voter ID and party registration.  I believe that that part will be reversed, as those two items are the legislature’s prerogatives.

On December 21, the 5th Circuit stayed Pepper’s ruling and set aside his August 31, 2008 deadline for its implementation.  This means that we will presumably be able to conduct our spring 2009 municipal primaries just as we always have.  Significantly, the 5th Circuit also ordered that the case be expedited.

On December 21, I posted two comments on this thread, which are apparently now orbiting through cyberspace.

Ballot Access News has a brief post on our special U. S. Senate election, which also mentions the Mississippi Democrats’ lawsuit that is now in the 5th Circuit.

The U. S. Supreme Court today handed down a ruling that bodes well for the Mississippi Democrats in their efforts to block Republicans from voting in Democratic primaries.  This ruling involves the method that New York’s political parties use to nominate candidates for trial judge.

From Justice Scalia’s opinion:  “A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.”

I got a kick out of this quote from the late Justice Thurgood Marshall:  “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.”

Hawaii’s Democrats last week backed away from filing a lawsuit against that state’s primary election law.

The state central committee-- the party’s governing body-- rescinded a resolution that the 2006 state convention had passed calling for such a lawsuit.  The central committee fears that a suit would be bad PR for the party.

Hawaii’s primary system is like Mississippi’s-- except that no record is made of the voter’s choice of party.  Each voter picks a party in the privacy of the voting booth.

The 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans will hear the Mississippi Democrats’ suit against our primary election law on Thursday, March 6.  The Democrats, of course, want to be able to block Republicans from Democratic primaries, but the Democrats say that they will invite independents to vote in their primaries.

Since the court has expedited the case, there may be a ruling as soon as April or May.

The 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has changed the date for oral argument in the Mississippi Democrats’ lawsuit against our primary election law to Wednesday, March 5.

The three-member panel hearing the case will consist of Chief Judge Edith H. Jones and Judges W. Eugene Davis and Emilio M. Garza.

There is news from Virginia that increases the likelihood that the Mississippi Democrats’ lawsuit against our primary election law will prompt a landmark ruling from the U. S. Supreme Court-- one which will potentially affect 22 states.

Ballot Access News has a post today on the oral argument March 5 in the 5th Circuit in New Orleans.

Steve - Thanks, but please splain (boil it down a bit).

Looks like Kansas is on the verge of enacting photo voter ID.

It’s part of the Republicans’ agenda to fight illegal immigration.

The U. S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling on an election system that is nearly identical to one that Mississippians have clamored for, off and on, since the 1960s.

Nonpartisan elections are popularly called “open primaries”...Read more>>>

Idaho’s Republicans are again challenging their state’s primary election law.  Their lawsuit is similar to the one brought by the Mississippi Democrats, and the Idaho GOP will be able to cite Judge Allen Pepper’s 2007 ruling that our state primary election law is unconstitutional.

Read all about it here.

With all that’s been happening recently, an event from March 5 probably escaped many people’s attention. The 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard argument in the Mississippi Democratic Party’s lawsuit against our state-mandated open primaries… Read more>>>

BREAKING... The 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has REVERSED Judge Allen Pepper’s ruling in the Mississippi Democratic Party’s suit against our primary election law. 

Pepper had last year (1) declared the law unconstitutional, and (2) ordered Mississippi to enact voter ID and voter registration by party.

The 5th Circuit’s ruling may, of course, be appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court.

More to follow…