I was reading a story on Jurist talking about how Louisiana's law about primary elections was ruled unconstitutional.
It led me to wonder something -- how in the world does a primary election fall under any sort of governmental jurisdiction? A primary election is part of how a political party -- a non-governmental agency -- determines who it will put up in a general election to run for a seat. Some political parties don't even have primary elections, they simply have a convention and choose a candidate, or maybe even the party elite simply decide who the candidate will be.
So, clearly there's no requirement for a primary election. Why is there any government involvement at all? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of, say, the DNC or the RNC to pay for their own primaries, and run them however they see fit?
The state shouldn't have any say in how the parties select their candidates. The federal government shouldn't be telling the state (or anyone else) how to run an election that doesn't actually elect a government official.
What's the legal justification for this? How can it be legal, other than by apathy and nobody fighting it?
Because it isn't a Primary for a party. La. is the lone exception in the US in this regard. They hold a "Blanket Primary", I believe its called. Instead of 20 names on the ballot for the general election, they have a non-partisan primary from which two people emerge to go on to the general election ballot.
Dan's got half of it. Federal jurisdiction comes in since the primary replaces the general election if a single candidate receives over 50% of the votes.
Maybe in Louisiana (because it's got that blanket primary) but what about all over the rest of the country? Why is it it that states pay for the election costs of helping the political parties decide a completely internal matter?
Federal jurisdiction comes in via a little thing called the 14th Amendment.
As for why other states fund primaries, I gather its because those two parties control the state. :)
What part of the 14th amendment applies?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
... doesn't seem to apply.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
... this is about electing the electors (as happens in the General Election for president) or actual representatives, **NOT** about "who a given party will put forward as its candidate for a later general election".
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
... nope, not applicable.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
... not applicable.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
... would be applicable if some other section applied, but they don't.
The states legislated direct primaries into existence, hence they pay. The parties fought the laws and lost. Had the parties prevailed they would have continued selecting their candidates with no accountability to the general membership.
But, again, *how* did the parties lose that fight? Freedom of association would seem to stipulate that the "party" gets to determine who it associates with itself as its candidate, not a state-run election.