Ellington

Last month, the Mississippi Democratic Party filed suit with the federal district court in Greenville charging that the state's open primaries violate voting rights. Mississippi Democratic Communications Director Sam Hall said the party filed suit to "protect the integrity of voting in Democratic primaries." At stake is whether Republicans and independents should be allowed to vote in Democratic primaries. Such votes tend to favor more conservative candidates.

Mississippi Republican Party Chairman Jim Herring said that Democrats want to purge their party of anyone the least bit conservative. "The Democratic executive committee wants the right to exclude whoever they want from their primaries. The Republican Party believes that the more people we have vote in our primaries, the better," he said.

Herring went on to note that Democrats have thwarted Republican attempts to require voter I.D. at the polls. "If there's ever been an effort to establish voter I.D., it's this irresponsible lawsuit. Every person in the state would have to reregister by party. You can't have it both ways. I think this shows a side to the Democratic Party that is alien and foreign to most people in Mississippi."

State Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat who was named as a defendant in the suit along with Republican Gov. Haley Barbour and Democratic Secretary of State Eric Clark, pledged to "vigorously defend the state of Mississippi in this lawsuit."

Meanwhile, Democrats are keeping mum about the lawsuit for reasons that remain unclear. Hall refused to provide more than the brief statement above, and the state Democratic Party did not even have a copy of the lawsuit to share with reporters. The JFP acquired a copy of the lawsuit from the state Republican Party.

Previous Comments

ID

65580

Comment

It is idiotic and hypocritical to on one side, rail against voter ID as a racist, exclusionary tool of the Right, but then demand that primaries be closed, which could only be enforced by some form of ID. The Dems are desperate to keep King Benny in power. I support voter ID, btw, and reject any notion that requiring ID to vote is racist. I believe the people who are fighting hardest against voter ID are the ones who benefit the most from the current system which allows fraud and no accountability.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-03-10T18:48:12-06:00

ID

65581

Comment

I'm a strong supporter of Rep. Thompson (and the only member of our congressional delegation I brag about to folks out of state), I oppose voter ID, and I am annoyed by the recent trend of duplicitious Republican crossover voting (witness the mayor it helped give us), and I am somewhat disgusted by Chuck Espy's willingness to rely on same. That said, I have a hard time getting excited about closed primaries in principle, for more or less the reasons you claim. It makes no sense to oppose motor voter that turns away minority voters in the general election and then turn around and say that it's okay if it turns away Republican voters in the primaries. Either we're for these kinds of obstacles or we're against them. Personally, I'm against them. And besides, I'm an independent myself. I flirted with registering as a Democrat, but I'm not sure I ever did, and I certainly don't identify as one now. If this policy passes, I'll be excluded from Democratic primaries--where I tend to support more progressive incumbents like Bennie Thompson and Harvey Johnson. Democratic incumbents should not be able to rest on their laurels. Let them fight for their votes. There are never enough crossover votes to overwhelm the power of an energized base. Besides, crossover voting is the only way political minorities can have representation in majority districts. Sure, it sounds pretty cruddy right now, when good candidates are being pushed aside in favor of folks who play well to both sides. But imagine, if you will, living in a state or district where only Republicans have a chance in hell of winning. I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I would want to at least be able to vote in the Republican primaries so that I would have a meaningful say of some kind in the way the government is run. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-03-10T20:20:31-06:00

ID

65582

Comment

I wrote: I'm a strong supporter of Rep. Thompson (and the only member of our congressional delegation I brag about to folks out of state), Uhm, I'm not a member of the congressional delegation (thank God). I meant to say that Bennie Thompson is the only member of the congressional delegation I brag about to folks out of state. And personally, all this aside, the silver lining of the Democratic Party's lawsuit is that at least they're standing behind Thompson. Good on them for that. I remember how annoyed I was when Dowdy and other prominent Democrats praised Lott's seniority over "new blood," but would not do the same for Thompson. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-03-10T20:22:24-06:00

ID

65583

Comment

Tom: You couldn't have flirted with registering as a Democrat, or as a member of any other party, since Mississippi doesn't have voter registration by party. But I'm convinced that we will have party registration once this suit is decided. A local unit of the Virginia Republican Party has a similar suit pending in the federal appeals court there, and oral arguments are scheduled to start on May 22. I've read the Republicans' brief, and I believe they'll win that suit, which will give a boost to the Mississippi Democrats' case. My guess, however, is that the Dems will fail to get an injunction for the June 6 primary. If they did, there would be mass confusion, as there would not be time to re-register every voter in the state. The only way such an injunction could be enforced would be for the Dems to block from their primary anyone who had recently voted in a Republican primary-- which would make lots of voters mad as hell. I suggest you read-- if you haven't already-- the majority (7-2) opinion in the US Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in California Democratic Party vs. Jones. Also, read George Will's column of April 29, 2000.

Author

Steve Rankin

Date

2006-03-11T14:40:29-06:00

ID

65584

Comment

Brian: I experienced the same lack of cooperation from our Democratic friends as you noted in trying to get copies of the documentation for this lawsuit. (Mississippi Democratic Party v. Barbour, 4:06cv-29) I finally got the documents off a link on another Web site.

Author

Steve Rankin

Date

2006-03-11T14:48:58-06:00

ID

65585

Comment

Steve, Which Supreme Court case is that? I don't have my notes in front of me and other readers might like to know. I assume that's the case that ended so-called "blanket" primaries.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-03-15T11:21:39-06:00

ID

65586

Comment

California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000) struck down California's blanket-primary law. Reed v. Washington State Democratic Party (2004) struck down that state's blanket primary by following the reasoning used in the California case. [Blanket primary: All candidates of all parties are listed on the same ballot, with the top vote-getter FROM EACH PARTY advancing to the general election. Thus, the voter could vote for a candidate from one party for one office, and a candidate from another party for another office.] George Will's column of April 29, 2000 provides an excellent explanation of why the primary-election system used by Mississippi is not likely to survive the Democrats' lawsuit. This column is available from the Chicago Sun-Times for $2.95 (plus 2 Rice Krispies boxtops). Or you can get it FREE by e-mailing me at [email][email protected][/email]

Author

Steve Rankin

Date

2006-03-15T23:02:02-06:00