SCOTUS Just Missed a Big Opportunity to Stop Election Meddling

The U. S. Supreme Court regarding the closed primary system, which prevents unaffiliated voters from participating in certain party primaries. The case brought forth by Michael Polelle argued that closed primaries restrict the rights of independent voters, but the Supreme Court declined to address this issue.

1. Background of the Case: The case, Polelle v. Byrd, involved over 3.4 million independent voters in Florida who alleged their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by not being allowed to vote in closed primaries. The 11th Circuit Court dismissed the case, and the Supreme Court chose not to review it.

2. Importance of Closed Primaries: Closed primaries are considered crucial for filtering quality candidates for general elections. They ensure that only party members vote on their candidates, which can motivate informed and engaged voters.

3. Arguments Against the Case: The petitioners claimed that closed primaries treat independent and third-party voters unfairly, arguing that individuals shouldn't need to join private political parties to vote. However, the article argues that choice in party affiliation is essential for maintaining the purpose of primary elections.

4. Defense of Closed Primaries: The piece argues that closed primaries serve as a quality control mechanism, preventing candidates who do not genuinely represent party ideology from advancing. This, the author suggests, leads to stronger candidates who are more likely to succeed in general elections.

5. Misinterpretation of Independents: The article challenges perceptions of independent voters, suggesting that many label themselves as independent without truly having diverse views. It claims that forcing parties to include such voters in their primaries dilutes the democratic process and opens the door to electoral disruption.

6. Historical Context: The author refers to how nominees were traditionally selected in earlier conventions, implying that closed primaries serve a similar purpose by empowering politically active party members to choose their representatives effectively.

7. Consequences of Weakening Primaries: If closed primaries were to be deemed unconstitutional, it could lead to less competent candidates winning elections, as the need for party coherence and passionate engagement from committed voters could be undermined.

The article concludes that the Supreme Court’s decision to not affirm the constitutionality of closed primaries represents a missed opportunity to protect an essential element of the democratic process. Closed primaries are portrayed as a necessary mechanism to ensure that elections yield competent and representative candidates, thereby offering a stronger defense against chaotic electoral influences. 

https://spectator.org/scotus-just-missed-a-big-opportunity-to-stop-election-meddling/