Do you know what’s coming up June 25? No, it’s not your mother’s birthday. It’s not your sister’s, either. It’s not even your three-month anniversary with your girlfriend. It’s the state Republican Party primary.
Like most Utahns, you probably didn’t know and probably didn’t care. As an average citizen, the statistical likelihood that you will vote in any given primary election is tiny?only about 20 percent, according to most estimates.
However, next week’s primary may actually be one worth remembering. It’s the first time since the mid-1960s that a Utah political party has tried a closed primary, in which only registered members of the party can vote.
At last August’s state Republican Party convention, conservative delegates forced through an initiative limiting participation in primary elections to card-carrying Republicans. Before then, both parties in Utah used an open primary system, in which any registered voter could simply show up the day of the primary and choose a party.
The Democrats will continue to allow Independents and Republicans to participate, creating a “semi-closed primary,” in which one party in the state has a closed primary, and the other has an open one.
Moderate Republicans and Democrats will be tempted to dismiss the state GOP’s new system as yet another example of how Utah’s unique conservativism is ruining local politics. It’s easy to simply say, “Those right-wing wackos, they did it again!”
However, moderates should be careful about blowing off the closed primaries as a product of Utah’s kookiness. In actuality, most of the country uses closed primaries. Furthermore, the Republican party has a constitutional right to determine its nomination process. Granted, the party may shoot itself in the foot by nominating extremists in primaries who can’t win in general elections, but it’s the party’s prerogative. Criticism that the Republicans are being exclusive or unfair misses the fundamental point that political parties are organizations of private individuals trying to advance an agenda. Insofar as closed primaries serve that purpose, it’s hard to fault party insiders for wanting them.
Primary elections first began in the early 20th century as part of the Progressive movement. At that time, political parties exercised incredible influence over every aspect of public life. Because most civil service positions, right down to garbage collection and water sanitation, were filled by political appointment, huge numbers of government workers relied on their parties’ electoral success to keep their jobs. Campaigning for a party thus became synonymous with putting food on the table. Parties exercised so much power that so-called “machines,” such as the New York Democratic Party’s Tammany Hall, regularly rigged local elections.
Progressives called for the primary system, in addition to civil service reform, as a way of breaking down the parties’ control. Rather than having top officials hand out nominations, primaries forced parties to let ordinary voters decide. Currently, 29 states, including New York, Florida and Pennsylvania use closed primaries, and many others, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and Oregon, use semi closed primaries like Utah’s.
Perhaps because of a culture of individualism, Americans feel uneasy about the general concept of political parties. This feeling is unique to the United States, as is the primary system. In every other major democracy in the world, there’s no such thing as primaries, and party discipline is extremely rigid. In fact, most European democracies elect at least some of their legislators using a system of “party lists,” in which voters check the name of a party, and the party’s leaders decide how to fill legislative seats.
The fact is that, although political parties may have exercised too much control in the past, modern parties serve a necessary role in electoral politics. They field candidates, fund campaigns, and help organize the government. However, the dramatic increase in the number of unaffiliated, or “independent,” voters in the last 50 years has frequently undermined parties’ legitimate functions. In California, for instance, voters approved an initiative in 1998 that created “blanket primaries,” in which voters used a ballot listing both parties, where they could check their favorite candidate for every office. Both major parties sued, arguing that the system undermined their right to determine nomination processes, and hindered them from effectively doing what primaries are designed to do?nominate candidates who represent the party’s agenda. The Supreme Court agreed, and struck down the law in 2000.
Some Utahns argue that the Republicans’ new requirement that voters register a party affiliation will give the government threatening new powers to invade privacy. That’s hogwash. There’s nothing dangerous about letting the government know your party affiliation. The worst that could happen is you get a few more mailings and perhaps a phone call or two from party headquarters every year.
Perhaps the most important observation a moderate commentator can make on the new closed primary is that, more than ever, middle-of-the road Republicans need to step out of the ho-hum of non affiliation and become politically active. Moderate conservatives who fear that extremists will hijack the Republican Party should get involved and start voting, rather than sitting on the sidelines bemoaning the loss of their political individuality.
The primary takes place June 25. There’s still time to register.
John welcomes feedback at [email protected]. Send letters to the editor to [email protected].