Is it constitutional for states for force political parties to hold open primaries?...

[PoliticAverse]

SCOTUS Hints Partisan Open Primaries May Be Unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court might be headed toward a major decision regarding partisan open primary elections. In two court cases, the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, have challenged the constitutionality of partisan open primaries.

Rest of the article at:
https://ivn.us/2017/03/01/scotus-hints-partisan-open-primaries-may-unconstitutional/

[longship]

1. I would not have it any other way.

Closed primaries are impossible in the majority of states who do not have party voter registration.

Open primaries everywhere are the only solution.

PERIOD!

I cannot fucking believe that we'd be fighting this bullshit argument yet again. Open primaries are the only solution when the majority of the states have no partisan voter registration.

When are people going to learn this?

As to the US Constitution, people should read it once in a while. It leaves voting laws up to the states.

[stopbush]

2. Lifelong D here -closed primaries are the only way to go.

Fuck open primaries. Bigly.

BTW - you need to read case law to know how voting laws work. I suggest you start with California v Jones.

[BlueMTexpat]

7. + a million or so! eom

[MichMan]

3. Totally opposed to open primaries

Too easy when an unchallenged incumbent is running for voters from that party to cross over to cause mischief

[msongs]

4. parties can have any kind they want if they are paying for it without state help nt

[littlemissmartypants]

5. I had forgotten about this.

I completely agree with longship.

Thanks for the reminder PoliticAverse.

But, I think the timing on this is problematic.

[jmowreader]

6. I can see one case where an open primary would be beneficial

In the State of Idaho (and, certainly, other states as well) many of the races on the primary ballot are contested only by members of one party. In Idaho, of course, it's the GOP. If there are no Democrats running for dogcatcher and only one person from the GOP primary advances to the general, the effect is to disenfranchise everyone who isn't a registered member of that party because the election is decided in May and you didn't get to vote.

There are two solutions to this problem.

The first is to put the races that only have one party's candidates, and ONLY those races, on all three ballots - Democratic, Republican and Unaffiliated.

The better choice would be to advance the top two vote-getters in single-party races to the general.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. Possibly the best

solution would be to encourage Dem candidates to run in these elections, which could also have the effect of building the Dem party from the bottom-up.

Having been raised in a small town in neighboring Montana, I know the situation you describe somewhat. My own father was elected Clerk of Court - and re-elected - to serve a total of 37 years until his retirement. He was a Dem and ran unopposed all that time. His Deputy, also a Dem, was elected - and re-elected - until her own retirement. Now her daughter, also a Dem, serves in that position and her re-election is a foregone conclusion. No one in the county seems too bothered about it.

Although MT is generally considered to be a "red" state, there are some surprising pockets of "blue." If anything, family name and connections trump (sorry for the expression) party loyalty so long as the job is being done to the satisfaction of those in the county.