Fed court ruling making voters register by party may cause further racial divide in Mississippi.

[AtomicKitten]

In Mississippi, Ruling Is Seen as Racial Split
Kate Medley for The New York Times

By ADAM NOSSITER
Published: July 18, 2007

JACKSON, Miss., July 13 — A federal court ruling in June that forces voters to register by party could return Mississippi to the days of racially polarized politics, as many white Democrats warn that thousands of white voters will now opt definitively for the Republican Party.

Republican-leaning voters in Mississippi have long been able to cross party lines in primaries, voting for centrist Democrats in state and local races while staying loyal to Republican candidates in national races. But political experts here say that by limiting these voters — almost all of whom are white — to Republican primaries, the ruling will push centrist Democratic candidates to the other party, simply in order to survive.

Most black voters in Mississippi are Democrats, and black political leaders have been pushing for years to prevent crossover voting in Democratic primaries. Black leaders say they want to end precisely what white Democrats here seek to preserve, a strong moderate-to-conservative voice in the Democratic Party, and in the process to pick up more state and local posts.

The ruling last month by Judge W. Allen Pepper Jr. of Federal District Court allowed the legal remedy sought by black leaders. Judge Pepper said the Democratic Party in Mississippi had a right to “disassociate itself” from voters who were not genuine Democrats. Most other Southern states also have open primaries.

As a result of the ruling, which was handed down June 8 and barring an appeal will go into effect next year, few whites are likely to remain in the Democratic Party, experts here say, a prospect that Republicans regard with glee, white Democrats with horror and black leaders with indifference. Not for the first time in the South, Republicans and blacks have achieved a de facto unspoken alliance of common interests that has been particularly evident in the drawing of Congressional districts, where blacks are packed into majority-black districts, leaving little space for moderate white Democrats to be elected.

more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/us/18south.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. The courts pulled this BS in California and Washington

Why should Mississippi be exempted? :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

2. because it may cause the demise of the Dem Party in Mississippi?

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Whose fault is that? The Dems are the ones who brought the suit to court

Specifically, the black Democrats who want to prevent Republicans from cross-over voting. It was the Democrats who brought similar suits in California and Washington to eliminate blanket primaries. And if you read the ruling, it "allows" the Democratic Party to hold closed primaries, not requires that they do so. If the Party decides to excercise that right, and racists decide to leave the party as a result, what of it?

[AtomicKitten]

8. In this case, "racists" is not equivalent with "moderates"

It is the moderate white Dems that have forged a cohesive voting block with the black, more liberal Democrats. It is that majority that has maintained a foothold in the state. Tampering with that delicate balance will throw the majority to the Republicans which is why as the article points out the GOP is "gleeful." Any time Republicans are happy, you can betyerass the Dems are getting screwed.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. If these white moderates hold the balance of power, then there is nothing to fear

Again, the court decision allows the Democratic Party to prohibit crossover voting; it does not obligate them to do so. If the party excercises this power and the racists -- excuse me, the moderates -- chose to abandon ship as a result, who will be to blame?

This matter seems very cut and dried: Either political parties have a right of association to determine their own candidates without the influence of non-party members, or they do not. In the last ten years the federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have found exactly this right. Given the precedents, the court in this case had no choice but to find that yes, the Mississippi Democratic Party has the right to prohibit crossover voting.

If they had found otherwise, I and tens of thousands of other Washingtonians would be demanding our Legislature reinstate our blanket primary which had been found unconstitutional by the USSC because it -- say it with me -- violated the parties' right to free association and pick their own candidates without interference by non-party members.

[iverglas]

20. btw

violated the parties' right to free association and pick their own candidates without interference by non-party members.

I think that says what I thought kinda clearly, stripped of all the tactical considerations that don't really belong in a discussion of basic rights like that.

[EST]

3. I am not as familiar with this case as I am with some others.

Was the point that the black voters made-that republicans were picking their candidates for them, due to crossovers?
Since they have been districted into majority districts, that point would be valid and probably inspired some pretty pissed-offed-ness.

On a national scale, it's what gave us Lieberman.

Here in Illinois, whatever party you are registered in doesn't matter. When you walk into the polling place they ask what primary ballot you want and that's what you get.
It seems there are problems no matter what way it's set up and the battle is over which set of problems takes priority over the other and is that the way it's going to be forever and ever.

People just can't seem to be able to resist the temptation to screw with elections, to "cook the books," as it were.

Instead of "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our currency, we should have "Honesty--The Best Fallacy," or, maybe, "In god we trash."

[AtomicKitten]

4. nail on head

It seems all the machinations including this, redistricting, etc. are designed to manipulate the vote.

Our elections have indeed become a crapshoot and the antithesis of an accurate measure of voters' wishes.

[iverglas]

5. as a foreigner, I find this fascinating

I don't even begin to understand it, but it's fascinating. ;)

In Canada -- and countries with similar political sytsems -- if you want to influence the choice of candidate a party puts up, you join the party. You pay for a membership in your local constituency association, you go the nomination meeting, and you vote for whichever of the candidates nominated you want to run (any member of the association can be nominated). And the winner is the candidate.

There are indeed all sorts of machinations go on -- candidates sign up supporters left and right who've never had anything to do with party politics -- but still, the people picking a party's candidate have to have taken some positive step to associate themselves with that party.

And especially in my particular party, although more when it comes to leadership contests (the leader of the party with the most seats in the House becomes Prime Minister), there's a perennial debate over whether to run someone who actually looks like a social democrat / democratic socialist ... or is just kinda "centrist".

The idea that an actual member of the Liberal or Conservative party could wander into the meeting, whether for a local candidate or to elect delegates to a leadership convention, and participate in the vote on the New Democratic Party's choice ... well, that's just too bizarre to imagine. And the parties do police these things. We had somebody seeking the nomination in my riding a few years back who everybody knew was not one of us, and was closely identified with the Liberals. So I called up a Liberal backroom boy I knew and got him to check for us, on the QT, that the guy didn't have a Liberal party card. Next election, same guy was seeking the Liberal nomination in a nearby riding, and I returned the favour for the Liberal (his membership in our party had expired).

I absolutely understand that there are particular factors in play in the situation reported here that make the whole thing very different from how we do things, and I'll be interested in what people have to say about this, just from the point of view of understanding how other people do stuff, and of course what all this "moderate" Democrat stuff is about there.

[EST]

10. Since there are only two parties of real significance, here,

those parties have to contain views ranging from party purists to "disgusting vichy collaborators." Often it is one strongly held view on one political point that determines which party one associates oneself to and that can make for some pretty testy relationships.

We pretend that all points of view are equally valid-on its face an obvious fallacy-and that elections are more a re-ordering of national priorities, determined by a popularity and "gut-check" contest.
We are continually undermined by reality: that the influence of points of view which include airy-fairy content instead of facts just don't produce valid policy nor elections.
In the effort to be a "centrist" nation, we have moved too far toward reality challenged policy and abandoned those precepts which, although widely considered to be too "liberal," can make a nation to be envied in its collective search for truth and justice.

[iverglas]

17. interesting point

We pretend that all points of view are equally valid-on its face an obvious fallacy-and that elections are more a re-ordering of national priorities, determined by a popularity and "gut-check" contest.

The counterpart notion up here is that we're really just a one-party state, and that party is the Liberals, which stand for all things Canadian but just get careless every once in a while and have to have their hands smacked. They're referred to as the Natural Governing Party.

I don't share that view myself ...

You waffle between Democrats and Republicans, we waffle between Liberals in power and Liberals in brief exile, at least as the Liberals see it and try their damnedest to have reflected in the national mirror.

I experienced an excellent example of this practice a few years ago. The Liberals were engaged in a leadership contest, and were busy being a big tent. At dinner with a good friend's new boyfriend, we were cajoled and nattered at throughout the meal to join the party. We should join up and support the "left" candidate, Alan Rock (who once drove John and Yoko around in his VW ...). In fact, the person doing the nattering was a backroom boy for the farthest right candidate, Paul Martin. His line was that we should join so we had a chance to "pick the next Prime Minister". I tried to explain to him that, strange as it might sound to him, the Liberal Party was not Canada, and I really didn't give a shit who they picked for their leader. He just couldn't seem to understand that.

But it's how the Liberals get a lot of people, especially new Canadians.

In the effort to be a "centrist" nation, we have moved too far toward reality challenged policy and abandoned those precepts which, although widely considered to be too "liberal," can make a nation to be envied in its collective search for truth and justice.

Not unlike here in principle -- although of course what passes for "centrist" is a little different (it would be called socialist down there ;) ), and we do have an actual party representative of left-of-centre to at least keep the social justice discourse sputtering.

[AtomicKitten]

12. This is illustrative of what happens

when the urge to purge moderate Dems from the party prevails. The idea looks good on paper but in effect it weakens the party by ceding majority rule in pursuit of purity. IMO the end does not justify the means, not by a long shot. We have witnessed the impotence of being in the minority.

[iverglas]

18. and again, a sort of northern counterpart phenomenon

The idea looks good on paper but in effect it weakens the party by ceding majority rule in pursuit of purity.

We left-of-the-Liberals are constantly shamed and blamed to get us to vote Liberal. If we don't, we could split the "left" vote and let a Conservative win. This is party line in the Canada forum here.

Well, it's not an easy question. I generally just don't care whether the Liberals or Conservatives are in power, and *I* want to be represented in Parliament, along with the 1 out of 7 Canadians who consistently vote the way I do federally, so that any opportunity can be taken to bring issues I care about to the national forefront and maybe get something done about them. Is there a point at which I would "vote strategically" -- vote for the Liberal candidate locally to try to keep a seat out of Conservative hands, and thus deny them enough seats to form a government? The theory is to do that if your candidate has no hope in hell of winning; the practice is that the Liberals try to scare everyone into voting Liberal no matter what local circumstances are. But yes, I've done it provincially. I've also voted Progressive Conservative, federally in 1974, because I despised the Trudeau Liberals so much that I preferred to gamble on a pink Tory.

There are so many factors. Not just: is there really any meaningful difference between Liberals/Democrats and Conservatives/Republicans? There often isn't. Especially between local candidates. But there may be one big difference that makes it important enough that the seat be kept out of the opponent's hands by any means necessary.

In the US, I think this is such an instance, overall; I could only vote Democrat these days with a sick stomach, if I were voting there. But voting anti-Republican would be the most important, for reasons that matter to me.

I think what I understand is that there are reasons for risking the seat that matter to Democrats in ... Mississippi, is it? ... that they consider to be important. I'm not persuaded that they're not right. Being constantly told to subordinate one's own interests to the good of some entity that just isn't doing much for one, when one's interests have been at the bottom of the list since history began; it must be pretty annoying. I'd have to think and know a lot more before having an opinion myself. ;)

Tentatively, though, I might think there's a bit of own foot shooting going on here.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. A bit of American political history

It used to be that party nominations were made by "back room" committees. If you wanted to run for city council, you had to be either powerful enough to strong-arm the committee into naming you the party candidate, or rich enough to outbribe your political rivals. The only people who could be members of the party were those who were, again, powerful enough or rich enough to get invited to the halls of power.

Around 1900, that began to change. In response to widespread election fraud, political scandals and the very real threat posed by third parties such as Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party, states passed laws requiring voter registration. For the first time in the United States, anyone who wanted to vote had to first register with the state and provide proof that they were, in fact, eligible to vote. In most states, voters had to declare affiliation with a political party, and all persons registered with a party by law had a voice in that party. It was at this time that back rooms gave way to caucuses, meetings of party activists to pick candidates and pass resolutions rather than meetings of just the movers and shakers.

Starting in, I think, the 1920s, some states (mostly in the west) went further and created primary elections; over the next few decades, primaries spread to many other states. Different states implemented different rules regarding primaries. An open primary is where voters request a one-party ballot at the polling place; a semi-open primary requires that the voter request a one party ballot some time (typically a few weeks) before voting and vote only the requested party's ballot. A closed primary is where voters are given the ballot of the party listed on their voter registration. For many years (until the major parties, led by the Democrats, filed and won a lawsuit in federal court) Washington State had a blanket primary, where all candidates were listed on the same ballot and the party candidate with the most votes went on to represent their party in the general election.

Elections for President and Vice-President are handled differently because it represents our only nationwide election (Congressional elections are at their biggest statewide, and thus fall under the laws of the state.) Most states require than an election or caucuses be held, but the states can not obligate the national party to use the results from that election. The Democratic Party of Washington State has ignored the state primary elections since 1996, chosing instead to appoint candidate delegates by caucus. In fact, in 2004 (and probably 2008), the presidential elections in Washington were cancelled because both major parties had announced that they would be ignoring the results.

[iverglas]

19. thanks!

It's partly that registration business that gets me -- up here, party membership is completely secret; membership lists are available only to authorized people within the federal or provincial party and the local association. For instance, locally, someone seeking the nomination has access. I couldn't just walk in, flash my party card, and get a printout. Of course, this is by party practice, but it's pretty universal. That's why I had to call Mr. Backroom Bigwig to get the dirt on our interloper. ;)

I was curious, so I googled. The British Columbia government's privacy manual specifies political party membership as personal information (information the govt would likely only have from some third party communication) that may not be disclosed:

22 (1) The head of a public body must refuse to disclose
personal information to an applicant if the disclosure
would be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's
personal privacy.

Examples of religious or political beliefs or associations:

* A reference to an individual's religion contained in a letter.
* An individual's political party membership and contributions.

... contributions are disclosed by law anyway.

A privacy lawyer doesn't think it's a breach of privacy law:
http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/2006_09_01_pipeda_archive.html
but the fact that the issue is raised is indicative of the concern. To have to go on public record as being affiliated with a political party, in order to participate in that party's activities; that's just odd. I could be mistaken -- is it not public record?

In any event, "caucuses" are much more similar to how things are done out here!

[Sanctified]

7. But don't Republicans usually exploit having the ability to vote in a Democratic Primary?

I was under the impression that Republicans use the tactic of voting in Democratic primaries to get a weak candidate on the ballot. Isn't that the tactic they used against Cynthia McKinney?

[AtomicKitten]

9. it's a double-edged sword to be sure

n/t

[Sanctified]

11. After reading the article entirely I think this will be better for Democrats in Mississippi.

Those who will leave are the ones who vote for centrist or conservative Democrats anyways, this will probably make it easier for liberal Democrats to get elected in local government.

[AtomicKitten]

13. IMO it will cede the majority to the Republicans

and make it more difficult to elect ANY Democrat in the state.

I think that's the point.

[Sanctified]

14. But the Democrats who were getting elected were just Republican lights.

This will give liberal communities more power to elect true liberals in their local communities. I think this works in favor of the black community since they will no longer be tied down by white DINO's.