Yeah, I was thinking last night, wondering how he was possibly going to get enough signatures, and then I realized... oh! no one bothers to vote in primaries! I figured he was probably going to do something exactly like this, and I'm glad to hear he is.

I changed my registration to independent just to make sure I didn't forget and accidently vote in the primary.

Not clear to me is whether you just can't vote for the governor's office in the primary -- or you can't vote in the primary at all. I assume the intent was that you just can't vote in the primary for the governor's office, but I'm wondering how they're going to determine that after the fact.

That is, they have a record of whether you voted in the primary, but do they open your secrecy envelope and record which races you voted in?

I have great respect for the Secretary of State's Office, and have complimented them, especially the Elections Division, in many forums. So I hope this does not cause me any problems.

But this sort of partisan statement coming out of their office is precisely why many are advocating for non-partisan election administration.

Bradley's spokesperson, Anne Martens, was quoted: "Sen. Westlund was a legislator when this passed, and he knows what the rules are,... he knows that even if you disagree with a law, you don't get to disregard it."

No one is disregarding the law (she might as well have said "break the law" since that is the implication).

The law says that if you sign a nominating petition and then vote in a primary, the petition signature does not count. That's it, nothing more. There is nothing illegal about signing.

All Westlund's petition gatherers are doing is wasting their own time and money, no one else's.

Oregon now has the most restrictive ballot access rules in the country. This provision exists in no other state.

As a state which advertises itself as progressive and reformist, we ought to be embarassed by this provision.

Jack,

You cannot vote at all in the primary. The act of voting or not (the public record) is completely separated from your ballot.

I wouldn't be so sure that you can't vote at all. Under the law I quote, it seems to me that your signature is good unless the "filing officer" (Bradbury, I assume?) "determines" that you also voted "for the same office." I don't see how he can do that just because you showed up in May. I may have voted for eveything else in May but left the governor's race blank.

Bill Bradbury seems to view as one of his duties of office the act of thinning the candidate herd on behalf of the Oregon Democratic Party.

Has Oregon ever had a slimier, more blatantly partisan state official in charge of elections?

I remember back in 1991 when he was trying to get himself elected President of the Senate. He was sleazy then and sleazier now.

But, then, many Oregonians seem to like sleaze. Or, at least, are indifferent to it.

Jack--you like Saxton's odds over Mannix? I can't stand Kevin, but my sense has always been that the right-wing GOP primary voters like the guy.

Jim,

I wouldn't call it Democratic bias; his bias is to protecting the two party system, something both Reps and Dems do.

Besides isn't Westlund on the ballot a help to the Dems since he is more likely to pull away moderate republicans and split the rep vote?

He isn't helping the Dems with me.

I don't know how the Elections folks could determine whether you voted in a particular race or not. I think all they can legally determine is whether you voted or didn't vote in the primary.

Which, on the face of it, sucks. In order to support Westlund, I'd have to give up voting in the non-partisan city commissioner elections...which I steadfastly refuse to do.

As for voting in a three-way general election, I think it would depend upon who the party candidates are. I suspect that more Demos would cross over to the independent if it were Saxton-Kolonoskopi, and more Repubs would cross over to the independent if it were Mannix-Kolonoskopi.

In order to support Westlund, I'd have to give up voting in the non-partisan city commissioner elections...

I'm not so sure of that, but it would make an interesting lawsuit: Westlund v. Bradbury.

It may be coming.

Jack,

True, I'm sure he'll get a lot of Dems voting for him. But him pulling moderate rep voters out of the primary probably makes them even more likley to nominate Mannix. A general election with the Gov, Westlund and Mannix is probably a cake walk for the Gov.

Godfry,

I thought the primary consisted of 3 parts, the rep primary, the dem primary and the non-partisan races. The way I would interpret the law is everyone gets to vote in the non-partisan and only registered Dems and Reps in each respective primary. By signing for Westlund you disqualify yourself from either partisan primary but can still vote in the non-partisan section.

But then I am applying common sense, which of course may not apply at all:-)

Eric, I think #2 supports your reading:

"An elector is considered to have participated in the nominating process for each partisan public office listed on the ballot at a primary election if the elector returned a ballot of a major political party at the primary election."

It's all about how you interpret "for each". Does "for each" mean one vote in any partisan race is a partisan ballot for all races? Or does "for each" mean each partisan race is treated independently. I would say to be safe, don't vote in any race of a major political party if you want your Westlund sig to count. Non-partisan offices and ballot measures shouldn't be affected. But it sure would be nice for the SoS to issue clarification before people get their ballots.

Full disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Good reading, Sirajul! If you vote for any Democratic or Republican candidate in any of the partisan races in the primary, you're disqualified from signing for any independent running for any partisan office.

That says nothing about whether you can vote in nonpartisan races and still sign for an independent candidate in a partisan race.

BTW, I'm a tax person, but some aspects of the new law smell a little unconstitutional to me. To say nothing of its being bad policy.

Ah, but here's an interesting hook: "if the elector returned a ballot of a major political party at the primary election."

If I'm a registered Democrat, is my ballot for nonpartisan races and ballot measures a "ballot of a major political party," even if I don't cast a vote in the partisan races?

Here is a Repub pulling for the Independent. I can't stand Mannix. He won't win anyway, and he will run up a huge campaign bill, which he can't afford and we are stuck with Ted again.

I am thinking Minnesota and a certain pro wrestler. How would you get access to sign a Westlund petition on the Oregon Coast?

I can't agree with all of Westlund's issues, but he has some and there is reason behind them. I like that.

I think this endless thin-slicing of this language and trying to divine intent of the legislature is why I am glad I did NOT become a lawyer. I think I would kill myself.

No offense to any lawyers reading this. I'm sure you find your jobs fulfilling.

[snicker]

If the partisan and nonpartisan portions of the ballot are combined, that's basically disenfranchisement: people wishing to nominate Westlund could only do so by forgoing their May ballot entirely. If so, it's torch-and-pitchfo... I mean, lawsuit time.

Therefore the partisan portion of the ballot had damnwellbetter be completely separate from the nonpartisan portion. While they may be separate papers, they are tracked together in one secrecy envelope. Once the ballot is received and validated by the voter's signature, it is first de-identified and then opened and separated into partisan and nonpartisan portions. (Otherwise there's not much point to the secrecy envelope, is there?) Given that, there's really no way to tell which ballots a particular voter actually returned.

The only way to do it is to add a second, distinctive secrecy envelope that contains just a partisan ballot.

So for every single signature disqualification, Westlund should ask the Secretary of State's office to prove that the DQ'd voter submitted a partisan ballot. (Not just received one in their ballot package, but submitted one.) That will be basically impossible to prove for any given voter. Is the SoS seriously going to DQ a signature based on a completely unprovable vote? Would any judge let that stand?

Stupid law anyway. Who sponsored that trash?

On a related topic, I think the "major parties" should be billed by the counties for the costs of running a primary election on their behalf. Why should the 25% or so independent-registered taxpayers subsidize their private nominating process, anyway?

Excuse this wino's ignorance, but what was the point of this law?

It sounds like something Erik Sten would write: an overly complex solution in search of a problem.

There's one simple solution for those who want to sign for Westlund (and I'm in that camp): change your affliation right now to Independent/unaffiliated.

That way, you won't get a partisan ballot, right? And if you do? Uh...more fodder for more lawsuits, I'd imagine.

(And I'd also love to see the numbers of people who switch their affiliation just so they can sign for Westlund, if it comes to that...)

Anyone looking for a definitive answer on the inner workings of HB 2614, look no further. Without speaking to whether or not it's fair (it's not), here's how it works:

If you're a Democrat or Republican and you MAIL BACK YOUR BALLOT ENVELOPE, then any petition you signed for an independent candidate does not count towards that total. Even if you didn't vote for anything.

If you're a Democrat or Republican who doesn't vote in the primary, you can still negate your petition signature if you either:

a) Participate in an independent nominating convention for THE SAME OFFICE that the petition was for, or
b) Participate in a third-party nominating convention, or
c) Sign someone else's petition for the SAME OFFICE.

If you're a registered Independent voter who signs Ben's independent petition for Governor, you may still vote in the primary. As an Independent voter, the only ways you can invalidate your signature is by doing A, B, or C listed above.

Since any voter who doesn't vote in the primary is eligible to sign the petition, the Westlund campaign is currently asking everyone to sign (after all, a total of zero voters have so far voted in the primary). Naturally, this will change once ballots begin to be returned.

So, you can vote in the primary AND sign Ben's petition if you are an Independent or if you re-register as an Independent in time to get an nonpartisan primary ballot. (It's okay even if you signed the petition as a Democrat, then registered as an (I) to get a nonpartisan ballot -- they'll both count.)

If, however, you would like to vote in a Dem or Repub primary AND sign Ben's petition... that's just simply no longer allowed. But what you should do in that case is write-in Ben for Governor. It'll be a good show of support.

Thanks for the space.

I'm so glad you brought this topic up because I've been wondering about it too.

I guess I should officially switch to independent status just to be sure.

If you're a Democrat or Republican and you MAIL BACK YOUR BALLOT ENVELOPE, then any petition you signed for an independent candidate does not count towards that total. Even if you didn't vote for anything.

That's not what the law says, but obviously, from the perspective of the Westlund camp, it's safest to assume the worst.

I hope someone challenges this law. It's awful on a couple of different levels. A bad idea, poorly drafted.

What's the deadline for switching from a party to independent -- does anybody out there know off the top of his or her head?

That's what I'm going to do--switch my registration to independent for the primary. At least then I'll get to vote for the city council and county commission races.

Let's hope the Keisling/Paulus initiative to essentially eliminate party primaries passes. (The initiative would list all candidates for office together, regardless of party, on the primary ballot. The top two go on to the general election).

Even though I've been pretty much a yellow-dog Democrat for my entire life, I never have understood why the citizens of our state pay for the primary elections of what actually are non-governmental organizations, i.e., political parties. If the political parties want to run elections to pick their candidates and want to dictate the rules as to how those candidates are picked, then they should pay the state for the cost of the elections.

What's the deadline for switching from a party to independent -- does anybody out there know off the top of his or her head?

Looks like it's April 25.

That's actually what the law says - at least according to the interpretation the state's made in this document: (available on Westlund's site)
http://www.westlundforgovernor.com/documents/Individual_Manual_2006.pdf

(Apologies for not retrieving the text itself, but the beast that is Acrobat locks my system up something fierce; the reference is on page 21 or 22, if I recall correctly.)

Don't bother asking your state rep. to explain this bill (law). I tried and here's what I got in response: (an email exchange poted on my blog)

p.s. because of past misbehavior Jack has banned my former moniker on his blog - you'll have to add another "g" at the end of "rickyrag" to make the link work.

www.rickyrag.blogspot.com

Oregon's voter registration form can be found here.

HB 2614 was sponsored by reps. Kitts and Nolan. The legislative history of the bill is somewhere in here, but that's a huge page. (If you're on dialup, go do something useful for five or ten minutes.) The relevant bits are... shoot, it's practically all relevant. Here's the whole thing: [Emphasis added.]

HB 2614 By Representatives KITTS, NOLAN -- Relating to elections.

2-22(H) First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
2-24 Referred to Elections and Rules.
3-15 Public Hearing held.
3-18 Public Hearing held.
5-5 Work Session held.
5-9 Recommendation: Do pass.
5-10 Second reading.
5-11 Rules suspended. Carried over to May 12, 2005 Calendar.
5-12 Rules suspended. Carried over to May 13, 2005 Calendar.
5-13 Rules suspended. Carried over to May 16, 2005 Calendar.
5-16 Rules suspended. Carried over to May 17, 2005 Calendar.
5-17 Third reading. Carried by Kitts,Nolan. Passed.
Ayes, 45; Nays, 11--Boquist, Bruun, Buckley, Galizio, Kropf, March, Nelson, Olson, Roblan, Rosenbaum, Shields; Excused, 4--Berger, Boone, Lim, Tomei.
5-18(S) First reading. Referred to President's desk.
5-24 Referred to Rules.
6-14 Public Hearing held.
6-20 Work Session held.
6-24 Recommendation: Do pass with amendments. (Printed A-Eng.)
6-27 Second reading.
6-28 Third reading. Taken from 06-28 Calendar and placed on 06-29
Calendar by voice vote.
6-29 Bill read. Carried by Brown. Passed.
Ayes, 17; Nays, 12--Atkinson, Beyer, Ferrioli, Gordly, Kruse, Metsger, Nelson, Schrader, Starr, B., Starr, C., Westlund, Whitsett; Excused, 1--Winters.
6-30(H) House concurred in Senate amendments and repassed bill.
Ayes, 39; Nays, 7--Bruun, Buckley, Butler, Galizio, Riley, Rosenbaum, Shields; Absent, 1--Wirth; Excused for Business of the House, 13--Avakian, Boone, Hanna, Hansen, Jenson, Krieger, March, Morgan, Richardson, Schaufler, Smith G., Whisnant, Speaker Minnis.
7-12 Speaker signed.
7-14(S) President signed.
7-21(H) Governor signed.
Chapter 593, (2005 Laws): Effective date January 1, 2006.

If you're upset about this and you don't see your Senator's or Representative's name listed at least once under Nays above, then they've got some explaining to do. Find your legislator's name here and write them here. Better yet, call or visit their local office and ask for an explanation personally. (Despite what RR says above, I think this is worth doing. They need to know that you're unhappy about this, and they won't figure that you unless you tell them so.)

Okay, now...

I'm a registered Democrat because I wanted to be able to vote in the primaries. Yet, because I live in an exceedingly Democratic district and it's generally fairly easy to discern the psychoceramics from the usual run-of-the-mill Democratic candidates, my Demo registration really doesn't amount to all that much.

The question is, do I want to go through the process of re-registering to support a Republican gone independent? I don't know enough about Kolonscopi's Demo challengers or Westlund to know whether it's worth it. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Kolonscopi fan, but he's a damned site better than Mannix.

Ricky's exchange includes this bon mot from Rep. Mitch Greenlick: "It didn't seem fair for a person to vote in the Democratic primary for an office and then vote again by signing a petition for nominating somebody to an office."

But Mitch, what you passed apparently means that as a practical matter a person with a party affiliation can't vote for anything in the primary and then sign a petition for a candidate for any office in the general election. Did that "seem fair"?

Alan-

I fully agree with you about non Dems or Reps footing the bill for their primaries. They should have their own nominating convention if they don't want to have open primaries. Restricting the ballots of the rest of the electorate is unnecessary and unfair at the very least.

Alan,

I didn't say don't contact your rep. to let them know how you feel about this BS; I said don't look to them for explanations of its mechanics - for obvious (if you read the exchange) reasons.

I share your outrage and DID contact Greenlick as soon as I realized what was being perpetrated in my name.

And, as I understand it, if you're registered D or R and return your ballot - your signature on a nominating petition for an independent is void. The election folks only note whether a ballot came back from a voter before separating the ballot from your name - and it's your name that carries a party affiliation and thus negates your petition signature.

JT: I smell an opportunity for an initiative. I betcha Westlund would sign it. :-) Any of you lawyers reading feel like drafting something to that effect?

RR: Ooops. Sorry, I misinterpreted. Glad we're clear on that now.

All: A correction to my 25% figure above: Statewide in November of 2004, 22.3% of voters were not afilliated with a party. Not a bad guess, but I shouldn't have just guessed.

From the PDF I posted earlier:

If an elector has returned a partisan ballot (emphasis mine) at the 2006 Primary Election (Democrat or Republican) the elector may not participate in any of the following processes to nominate minor political party or nonaffiliated candidates to the General Election ballot (regardless of how the elector voted the partisan ballot).

I had this confirmed by callling the Multnomah County elections office earlier today - either you can re-register to change your registration to 'unaffiliated', or send them a letter requesting that they change your registration. And yes, this has to be done by April 25th.

There was an attempted defense of this law over on blueoregon by Rep. Nolan: http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/01/independents_on.html

Rep. Nolan claimed it was there in order to protect third parties. [rim shot]

For the record, Rasmussen polling shows ATKINSON beating both Saxton and Mannix, and he is gaining momentum.

Westlund will appeal to liberals who are fed up with Kulongoski. He will siphon more D votes than R votes, especially with a solid conservative like Atkinson in the general election.

Keeping Westlund off the ballot is therefore a high priority for Kulongoski, and therefore Bradbury.

I've just confirmed with Marion County that if you are registered as a member of a major party, you will receive a partisan ballot. If you vote that ballot, your signature will be disqualified from any nonpartisan nominating petition. This is true even if you did not vote on the party primary race in question, and even if you did not mark a single partisan vote. Voter secrecy prevents them from connecting what (if any) measures or races you marked back to your name... all they record is that you voted a partisan ballot. In short, the ballot you receive is a partisan ballot, and therefore the ballot you return is also a partisan ballot.

The only way to avoid having your nonpartisan nominating signature disqualified is by not voting the primary ballot at all, or by re-registering as not affilliated with a party by April 25.

The person I talked to at the elections office expressed her (seemingly guarded) opinion that this law may not be so good in practice as it might have seemed on the House and Senate floor. She used the word "disenfranchised" before I got around to it, which pleased me mightily. She pointed out that the Oregon County Clerks' Association opposed this law. She seemed delighted by the idea of billing the parties for the partisan primaries, and seemed rather sad about lacking the authority to do so.

Seems to me there is a constitutional problem with this. I think the Westlund Staff is correct in its reading of the statute. (Sorry, Jack.) But why should I be disqualified to vote in the judicial races that will be on the May ballot just because I want to sign a Westlund petition? Yes, I can re-register as an Independent and vote for judicial candidates, but suppose I want to vote in the Democratic primary for other partisan offices? The statute seems to prevent that, and it therefore violates my right of association. Or have I forfeited my right to associate with Democrats just because I want to vote for an Independent for Governor? Surely the State cannot interfere in such detail with my right to choose whom I want to associate with.

I agree, Charlie. This really doesn't affect independents very much... but if you're a Democrat or a Republican, your ability to freely associate with any independent candidate is being infringed.

If it were a party rule of the Democrats or of the Republicans, that'd be one thing... but as a State law it's quite another!

Charlie,

I don't think it is the state so much as the Dems and Reps who can say you don't get to vote in their primary if you want to sign a petition for an independant in one of the races. As far as I understand it they have the right to decide who gets to pick their candidates; if they wanted to do it in a smoke filled room with 5 people making the choice they are free to do it.

Our rights as voters are to vote in general elections, primaries are entirely a private matter for the parties; they can choose to exclude anyone they see fit (now the question of how wise any particular restriction may or may not be is something they need to weigh)

Now as to why we should then have to fund those primaries with tax dollars is another matter entirely...

"I don't think it is the state so much as the Dems and Reps who can say you don't get to vote in their primary if you want to sign a petition for an independant in one of the races."

I'd have no problem if that's what they were doing. But what they're actually doing is saying that if you vote in their party's primary, your signature on an independent's nominating petition is void. There's a world of difference between the two statements.

The parties could have accomplished what you suggest by observing the signatures of people nominating Westlund (or whomever) and kicking the owners out of their party. No problem... it's a semi-private organization and it can write its own membership rules to freely choose its associations. I doubt they needed legislative intervention to kick someone out of their party, but in any case that's not what they asked for.

Instead, they said that any member of their party who cares to vote this May is not allowed to help nominate any person who is not one of their own for any partisan office. What's more, they got the legislature to give this restriction upon their members' other political associations the force of law. The parties have disenfranchised their own members!

Tell you what... how about they kill the initiative process the same way? It'll be dead easy. Just say that anyone who votes a partisan ballot is disqualified from signing any initiative petition that is not supported by the party's leadership. Why? Because it's not fair for people who have partisan representatives in the legislature making laws to also make laws themselves. *Poof!* No more pesky initiatives. It's the same damn thing.

Feh, no wonder I'm seeing Red over this... it sounds so familiar: "If you are a member of the Communist party, you may not belong to a trade union. If you wish to vote, you must be a member of the Communist party. Welcome to the Soviet Republic of Oregon, have a nice day." One-party state, two-party state, what's the damn difference when they collude with each other to use State power against the citizens?

Okay, I'll stop now. Back to nice week with me.

PS: Apologies to any Oregon Communists reading this. I don't mean to malign y'all by associating your party with the Demublicans and Republicrats.

Alan,

Oy,

I take back all the bad things I've thought about you.

Now just extend your collusion conclusion to the PPS board and PAT and we're there.

OK, not all the bad things.

Tell you what... how about they kill the initiative process the same way? It'll be dead easy. Just say that anyone who votes a partisan ballot is disqualified from signing any initiative petition that is not supported by the party's leadership. Why? Because it's not fair for people who have partisan representatives in the legislature making laws to also make laws themselves. *Poof!* No more pesky initiatives. It's the same damn thing.

---------------

No its not the same thing. What they are restricting you from doing now is voting in a partisan primary. You are free to vote however you want in a general election.

The problem is that any vote a party member casts in the primary -- including nonpartisan races and judicial races, for which it's the one and only election -- disqualifies him or her from signing for an independent. That's a terrible law.

"What they are restricting you from doing now is voting in a partisan primary."

No, Eric, they are not. Let go through some scenarios to illustrate why this is.

If you are a minor party or unaffiliated candidate, this makes qualifying for the general election ballot somewhat more difficult. (It remains to be seen if this makes qualification insurmountably difficult, but presumably not.)

If you are an unaffiliated voter, this law does nothing to you... except to potentially reduce the slate of minor party and unaffiliated candidates in the general election.

If you are a minor party voter and you participate in your party's nomination process, your signatures on any nominating petition for any unaffiliated or other minor party candidate in any race for "partisan public office listed on the ballot at the general election" will be disqualified. (In fact, it probably voids your participation in your own party's nominating process as well.) Otherwise, it does nothing to you, except to potentially reduce the slate of minor party and unaffiliated candidates in the general election.

If you are a major party voter, this law does nothing to affect your primary vote. But if you vote for any measure or any candidate in a primary election, or if you even return a completely blank primary ballot, your signatures on any nominating petition for any unaffiliated or other minor party candidate in any race for "partisan public office listed on the ballot at the general election" will be disqualified. If you, a registered member of a major party, vote for even so little as a quarter-acre annexation measure this May, your signature on Westlund's nomination petition for the general election for governor will be disqualified.

In short, the major parties are saying that their members must monogamously associate with their own party, and the penalty for their members' excercise of their right of free association is to make their other associations void by force of law.

If the major parties had voided their members participation in their own nominating process as a penalty for participating in another, I would have no argument with it. (Aside from it being petty and stupid, natch.) But that is most assuredly not what they did.

This is not a wife divorcing a cheating husband. This is a wife shooting the other woman and shackling her husband in the basement.

What's more, they have the gall to claim that they are protecting minor parties from meddling by their members. Of course, the minor parties could get the registration data and screen out major party members if they thought it a good idea... but now they have no choice. They cannot welcome major party members into their nominating process if they want to.

So this is why my statement on initiatives is valid: the major parties are restraining their members from participating in nominating processes that the major party does not approve of. In this case, they do not approve of minor party or independent candidates on the general election ballot. But if this is allowed, there's no reason they could not pass a law to enforce the same restriction on other nominating processes the major party disapproves of their members participating in... like all those pesky citizen initiative and recall petitions.

Isn't that nice?

No you are still twisting it, you are free to vote on any iniative you see fit.

All you can't do is sign for a minor candidate and vote in a party primary.

Look, I'm no big fan of this law or even the two party system, just trying to play a little Devil's Advocate here.

I think the real issue and what is causing all the mess is the mixing of party pirmaries with non-partisan races. The very inelegeant solution the state is imposing is an attempt to work around this broken system. If I could waive a magic wand my simple solution would be to have 3 ballots, a nonpartisan one for all those races and a Dem one for their rpimary and a rep one for their primary. Everyone mails in the non-partisan one and registered dems and reps send in their repsective primary in a seperate envelope. As a registered Dem or Rep if you wanted to sign for Westlund you'd be ineligible to vote in your primary, if you do send in one your signature gets tossed.

Eric, I am not saying that it affects initiatives now. You're absolutely right that HB2614 affects neither initiative petitions nor initiative elections.

But if the parties can get the State to enforce a prior restraint on their members' other political associations, I don't see why they couldn't also restrain their members' association with initiative petitions in the next legislative session. Can you tell me what the difference would be?

As for your proposal, I agree that it's a good idea. But it would approximately triple the cost of a primary election, and I think the parties should bear that extra expense. (We know that over 22% of Oregon taxpayers who are registered to vote are paying for parties... oops, I mean partisan primary elections, to which they are not invited already. Making them pay even more is certainly not fair.)

Also, as the Marion County election person told me yesterday, separate partisan ballots make the ballot totals very hard to reconcile on election night. I interpret this to mean that once the ballots are disassociated from the voter's name, there's no way to reassociate them to establish their validity. So if a box of party ballots gets lost or added during counting, it's difficult to build a system that would detect such an error or fraud because you expect the total number of each kind of ballot to be different.

So I have an even more elegant suggestion: Make every voter registration nonpartisan. Strike all party affiliation from the State voter registration form. After providing all parties one last dump of their membership data, strike all party affiliation data from all State and County voter rolls and databases, and never collect it again. Leave all parties to manage their own membership and primary processes by themselves at their own expense.

If a party wants to hire a county elections division to manage a private election for their membership, they can contract for those services on a cost-plus basis. If they want to kneecap their members for signing nomination petitions outside their party, that's their business. (But it's still assault.)

While we're at it, let's change the law so that the Secretary of State is no longer allowed to track candidate party affiliation. This would mean that all candidates for office must qualify for the ballot in the same way, via nomination petitions. No more special nomination processes for partisan candidates, because there won't be any partisan candidates. This would have the useful side effect of making all elective offices effectively nonpartisan all at once.

There's no free association problem, because the State would no longer have any reason to care about your party affiliation. Join, one, join six, why should the state care? It's a private matter.

I can hear John Lennon singing now:

Imagine there's no parties,
I wonder if you can.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Anyone want to help me draft an initiative (or two) to that effect? There's plenty of time to get it on the 2008 general election ballot.

As part of my proposal I would make the Rep and Dem parites responsible for funding the partions for their primaries, they could probably even be mailed directly to Dem and Rep headquarters and make them responsible for counting them.

And as far as parties being able to tell you that if you want to be a memeber of the party you can't vote for the independant in the primary? (which is what signing a petition to get them on the ballot is essence doing) That is entirely within their rights. If you want to get non-dem or non-rep candidates on the ballot then you maybe shouldn't be registered in one of the parties. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Maybe it would help end the two party stranglehold if a lot more people registered as independants.

The issue with non-partisan registration and primaries is that one party can stuff the ballot box to pick a more beatable opponent. Say you are running for State house in a small district as a Rep and you are unopposed. The Dems have two caniddates, one is a wacko who you beat easily, one is a solid incumbant who would likely beat you. You get your supporters to all vote for the wacko dem in the primary ensuring an easy victory.

Not feasible in statewide elections, but in small districts for stuff like state rep where very few votes make the difference?

"That is entirely within their rights."

Horsehockey!

What I do on my own time is none of their damn business. Why should parties have a right to interfere in any way with their members' political actions when those actions do not involve the party at all? Yes, they can kick me out of the party for signing. (Believe me, right now I'd be glad to go.) But they're not treating this as a member-discipline problem, they're making my signature on the independent's nominating petition invalid. Why should they have that authority?

If each party had a bunch of burly commisars following signature gatherers around and threatening their own members who wish to sign, it would be a less serious interference with their members' right to free association. You can defy a commisar and sign anyway, but you can't get past the Secretary of State.

I guess that is where we disagree. I think the underlying intent behind the law is correct, just poorly and cumbersumbly implemented.

Again, you have no inherent right to select the parties candidates, if they wanted they could pick them in a smoke filled room, they could flip a coin. You also have no inherent right to be a member of a political party. If they wanted to they could say no left handed person could be a Republican. It would be stupid and political suicide, but they can do it.

This statement: What I do on my own time is none of their damn business. Why should parties have a right to interfere in any way with their members' political actions when those actions do not involve the party at all? Gets to the core of the issue. Signing a petition to put an independant candidate on the ballot absolutely affects the parties. And they're well within their right to say that if you want to do so then you cannot vote in their primaries; for any office. Your rights as a voter are to vote for candidates in general elections; it is up to the parties to determine how they pick those candidates.

Now this is where I think the law is so poorly designed. I would say that once you sign the petition you have renounced your party affiliation (at least for this election cycle) and should not be allowed to vote in the partisan primary. The law basically works it backwards and says that you can change your mind and now invalidate your signature by voting in the primary. Clearly they have stacked the deck in favor of the two parties and against the independant, but then is that surprising? It does make the path to get on the ballot more onerous since, but at the same time the # of signatures required is pretty low so shouldn't really make a difference. If he can't get several times beyond the sig threshold he has no chance anyway.

The way I see it when you sign the petition to put Westlund on the ballot you have voted in the primary for him. If you now subsequently vote in a parties primary you have voted twice. Now the question is which vote is valid? The one you cast first or the one you cast last? Maybe they should both be invalidated?

And again this why I think your iniative analogy does not apply. Everything we are talking about concerns primaries not general elections. The parties can do nothing to restrict how you vote in an election; but they have total control over how they conduct their primaries.

"And they're well within their right to say that if you want to do so then you cannot vote in their primaries;"

Eric, we agree on that. But that is not what the damn law says. Your primary vote always counts. It overrides your participation in other processes.

"Now this is where I think the law is so poorly designed. I would say that once you sign the petition you have renounced your party affiliation (at least for this election cycle) and should not be allowed to vote in the partisan primary."

Again, we agree. That would be a perfectly resonable thing to do. But that's not what this law does. I don't give a damn what they intended, what they actually did is completely unacceptable.

"The way I see it when you sign the petition to put Westlund on the ballot you have voted in the primary for him. If you now subsequently vote in a parties primary you have voted twice."

Fine. Let's say I'm a Democrat and I sign Westlund's petition tomorrow. Then I vote only on ballot measures in the May election. I leave blank all candidates, partisan or nonpartisan. You'll note that in this scenario I have not voted twice for anything. I actually participated in only one nominating process, because I cast zero primary votes for the governeor's race on my May ballot... I only signed for Westlund. Should my signature for Westlund's nomination be invalidated?

In this scenario, my nominating signature will be invalidated. If I return my ballot, no matter what I mark on it, I will be considered to have voted in the Democratic portion of the primary becaue voter secrecy prevents anyone from knowing how I actually voted my partisan ballot. (I have personally verified this with my county's elections supervisor. You can, too.)

One man, no vote.

How's that fair? Really, tell me how that's fair, because I don't get it. The party could... hell, the party should kick me out for signing Westlund's petition. But it didn't need to pass legislation to do that. Instead, the party not only expects but now it actually enforces my monagamous loyalty to it via the Secretary of State. It makes me ineligble to sign for an independent so long as I am a member who votes on anything in the May election.

That's not very nice, is it?

The glaring, mere fact that there are 54 comments to this thread says volumes.

OPEN PRIMARIES!

Gawd, Oregon...get your head out from between your legs!

Alan,

Yes you are right, but Eric's has two relatively simple rejoinder.

First, the secrecy of the ballot precludes the possibility of tracking which particular primary you voted for.

Second, they stacked the deck further, assuming that by returning the partisan ballot, you have participated in all of the races listed on the ballot.

But of course you HAVE participated. Your ballot, when returned, counts as "voted", even if you left all of the races blank. So in that respect, you DID vote in the gubernatorial primary. Your vote was "abstention".

"So in that respect, you DID vote in the gubernatorial primary. Your vote was "abstention"."

True enough, Paul. But I seem to recall that the stated point of this measure was to prevent people from participating in two nomination processes for the same office. Abstention is not participation, is it?

(If it is, all those folks abstaining from sex had best start wearing condoms, because we all know that participating in sex can spread disease.)

If I participate in one process and abtain from the other, I am a faithful adherent to the spirit of the law. Yet the letter of the law and its implementation make my one participation void. If a nomination signature is really equivalent to a vote (which is a crock, but that's another argument) then I have truly been disenfranchised, haven't I?

This law exploits ballot secrecy to make a narrow restriction quite broad. This could be a cleverly calculated hack or an incompetent blunder. Either way, the legislators responsible should be sorely ashamed of themselves.

a cleverly calculated hack or an incompetent blunder

There is no chance -- none -- that there was anything inadvertent about this. They knew exactly what they were doing.