It Wasn't Us!

There’s another new argument among Idaho Republicans. I only thought they couldn’t get more divided.

On November 6, 2012, Idaho Republicans experienced their very first voter caucus.  Very simply, it didn’t go well. Voters waited in line for hours (many until midnight) for the opportunity to finalize their vote. There were a lot of frustrated people, many having to give up and go home, because they simply couldn't be out that late. But as bad as all that was, it has only recently become apparent just how bad the caucus system actually is. The worst of it was the way in which it disenfranchised voters: the military, the elderly, the night-shift or early morning worker, the ill. Certainly, one must have a lot of extra time on their hands in order to sit through a primary caucus.

For the counties in the north, their disappointment was compounded when because of the heavy Mormon influence in the southern part of the state; a Mormon candidate; and a time difference of an hour, voters heard the outcome of the election even before the northern counties were finished with their vote.

Idaho had been an open primary state up until this point. An open primary allows one to vote either side of the aisle. It is kept private with no need to register your party preference.

On the other hand, in a closed primary, one must legally register their party affiliation. Ones' vote then, is no longer private and one can only vote for candidates of the party for which they are registered.

It is also interesting to note, that it is in fact the more liberal states that have adopted the closed primary system: New York, Washington, California, and Oregon, just to name a few. There are now 20 in all; you can see which states support the closed primary here. In reality, it is up to the party to decide, (Democrat or Republican) and you will find in some states the parties differ in their choice of primary system.

Now that the 2014, May primaries are upon us, we are hearing a lot of debate about who initiated the confounded caucus system in Idaho in the first place. It was such a mess and so unpopular no one wants to lay claim to the change.

I follow politics pretty closely, and I pretty well thought I understood just exactly how the caucus was brought to Idaho. Still, those I thought responsible were denying it was them. I decided I needed to do a little research so we would know once and for all who gets the credit, or if you prefer (I do) the blame.

It took a little digging to get to the bottom of it, but for a political/news junkie like me, it really wasn’t much trouble. I don’t suppose the “average Joe”/Jane would bother, which is why I decided to make it easy for people to read in this blog, if they are curious as to what happened.

It started with a guy by the name of Rod Beck. He had tried without success, three times since 2000, to run for an office in Idaho. He finally decided to take matters into his own hand. So armed with his own determination and the backing of his fellow Ron Paul supporters, he went after it. You can read about it here in a 2010, article at CNS. The lawsuit against the state began in 2007. However, it was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled the lawsuit must be brought by the state Republican party rather than individuals.

As the Republican Party became more and more fractured across the nation, but especially in Idaho, some believed it was really due to this divide that the change in the primary system was sought. The well-known divide was conveniently labeled as Ron Paul supporter vs "RINO", which has hopefully now more accurately been revealed as "Libertarian vs true Conservative". Despite the success the Paul campaign had in convincing voters that libertarians are the more conservative faction, in fact the opposite is true as revealed in this chart, as well as voting records one can view at this site.

Regardless, in 2010, the lawsuit was brought again by the Idaho Republican Central Committee now controlled by precinct committeemen that the Paul campaign had been successful in enlisting, and yes voted on by the public. However, most were uncontested races due to the lack of voter knowledge about the position of "Precinct Committeman". It was a very smart move by the Paul campaign. Finally, the lawsuit was "won" by "The Republican Party" i.e. the Republican Cental Committee, in 2011, just in time for the Presidential election.

While Democratic states typically favor the closed primary, (as I said before, most Democratic states are closed) Democrats in Idaho, do not support a closed primary. From that, I guess we could surmise it is the underdog in any given state that would support an open, rather than a closed primary. This thought is also revealed in the above article.

Personally, I feel the reason that was given to change to a closed primary – to prevent members of the other party from skewing the vote in the primaries with a cross-over vote – happens so rarely, that it is in no way worth the inconvenience of the caucus system and the amount of voters who are disenfranchised because of it.

The truth of the matter is that the Paul campaign in both 2008 and 2012, worked very hard to get their people into the precinct committeeman position. They were by and large successful. The precinct committeemen make up the Republican Central Committee and it is they who are responsible for bringing this vote, lawsuit and eventually effecting this change.

In a heavily Mormon state, with a Mormon candidate on the ballot, the caucus didn’t work out as anticipated for those that desired this change.  As an end result, we are left with a big, fat mess for which no one wants to admit responsibility.

The divided Idaho Republican saga continues.

Resources:

• http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/idaho-primary-why-gop-closed-its-ballot
• http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/idaho-gop-reshaped-tea-party-outrage
• http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/11/judge_rejects_lawsuit_seeking.html
• http://grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com/list-of-states-with-open-and-closed-primaries/