Skip to content
Subscribe

A Bipartisan Effort to Gain Control and Disenfranchise Voters?

A Bipartisan Effort to Gain Control and Disenfranchise Voters?
Published:

As reported on IVN this week, the Supreme Court will be considering two legal efforts to shut out voters from publicly-funded primaries: Ravalli County Republican Party v McCulloch and Democratic Party of Hawaii v Nago. McCulloch and Nago are the respective secretaries of state for their particular states, but the lawsuits might as well be called the Two Major Parties v The People.Hawaii and Montana are by all means two very different states. Hawaii is basically a one-party state, where the Democratic party has control of all levels of government, from school boards to the Governor’s seat, while Montana is a ‘purple state’ or in the

words of the mayor of one of its municipalities, “a jelly doughnut, with the center being blue and the doughnut part being red,” referring to the Democratic urban centers and Republican rural outskirts. Democrats currently have control of the governor’s seat but Republicans have ample control the State Senate and Legislature.

But today, the two states have a common bond: the two major parties are making a power play, at the highest federal court level, to take control of the elections. They want to accomplish this by repealing the states’ open primary system, which allows voters to cast their ballot for whomever they like, regardless of their party registration.

In both lawsuits, the parties’ argument is essentially identical, and relies on precedent that recognized the political parties’ First Amendment right to not associate with voters who are not members of their party, obviously omitting the fact that those voters are in fact taxpayers who help fund ‘their’ elections.

In both cases the other party simply shrugged their shoulders and basically said “it’s their right to close their primary, we’re open though” with the Republican party of Hawaii taking it a bit further and basically accusing the Democratic party of trying to “protect the interests of their party bosses, machine politics, and their far left base.”

It’s hard to disagree with that statement, but why don’t they call their fellow Republicans in Montana and tell them the same thing?

But the most surprising aspect is the level of cooperation that can be found in the legal cert petitions in Hawaii and Montana where one quotes the other, and each party submitted to the Supreme Court, on the same day, December 21.

It seems we’ve finally found something on which the two parties can actually work together. A Bipartisan effort! Its mission: to consolidate electoral power in ‘their’ states, at the expense of democracy and the voters.

Image Source: RedDaxLuma / shutterstock.com

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

A Bipartisan Effort to Gain Control and Disenfranchise Voters?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us