Democratic Party leaders in Hawaii irritated by non-members voting in the party’s "open" primary elections are challenging the system, to the justifiable chagrin of the party’s elected public officials, including Gov. Neil Abercrombie.
If the party leaders’ federal lawsuit is successful, which is unlikely, ballot secrecy would be lost and the miserable primary voter turnout would sink further.
Attorney Tony Gill stepped down as the chairman of the Oahu Democrats to file the lawsuit, arguing that the present system violates the Democratic Party’s freedom of association, since non-Democrats are able to cast votes on the party’s ballot.
Abercrombie and most Democrats recognize that their party offers a "big tent" welcome to independents, inclusion that has bolstered the party’s dominance.
Hawaii is among 11 states that conduct open primaries, where, in the privacy of the polling booth, voters can choose the party ballot to cast their votes. If the lawsuit is successful, the state would have to devise new primary elections.
Gill suggests that the Democratic Party would allow voters to use the party’s ballot —members or even non-members "completely unaffiliated" with the party — as long as they give their names to the party by a specified time before the election.
That is outrageous. That would violate an inherent aspect of confidentiality in a primary election, and raises alarms of invasion of voter privacy or worse.
The state Constitution states: "Secrecy of voting shall be preserved; provided that no person shall be required to declare a party preference or nonpartisanship as a condition of voting in any primary or special primary election. Secrecy of voting and choice of political party affiliation or nonpartisanship shall be preserved."
Gill, however, maintains that the Democratic Party is intruded upon by voters who are indifferent or even opposed to the party’s beliefs. He points to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that invalidated California’s "blanket" primary system, which allowed a person to vote for primary candidates of any party affiliation, e.g. a Democrat for governor and a Republican for legislator. However, the high court added that California’s blanket system "may be constitutionally distinct" from open primaries such as those like Hawaii’s system.
Hawaii’s 1978 Constitutional Convention authorized the open primary to replace a "closed" system, and voters approved the change. Since then, continuing an already emerging trend of apathy, primary election voter turnouts have fallen from 74.6 percent of eligible voters to 42 percent. Hawaii’s Democratic Party has only about 60,000 card-carrying members, while more than 237,000 voters participated in the election two years ago.
While the lawsuit may irk most Democratic politicians, it does reflect the party’s constitution, approved in May 2006. It says the open primary system does "violence to the party’s associational freedoms and the individual freedoms of its membership to define their own political views."
Dante Carpenter, the party’s chairman, supports the lawsuit. However, state Sen. David Ige (D, Pearl Harbor-Pearl City-Aiea) undoubtedly reflects the feeling of many other life-long Democrats: "A closed primary would create further barriers for voters and not allow them the opportunity to vote for the person they believe in. We should be encouraging voter participation and not limiting it."
To those Democrats bent on closing their party, be careful what you wish for. Should this longshot suit prevail, many are likely to leave the "big tent." What now is the political cat-bird’s seat, with Democrats controlling Hawaii’s political landscape, could shrink considerably:
» Already, Hawaii GOP Chairman David Chang is publicly welcoming "participation of Republicans, Independents and dissatisfied Democrats in the Hawaii Republican Party’s open primaries." That mirrors what happens in Alaska: While Alaska’s dominant GOP limits voting in its primaries to members only, any registered voter can participate in the Democratic primary. In time, this could turn Hawaii into more of a two-party state.
» Or, disenfranchised Democrats and irritated voters in general may well push for what came to pass in California: party-neutral elections. Nonpartisan elections are one way to keep party ideologues pure, preserve voters’ privacy and maybe even boost turnout as control flows from the dominant party into the voters’ hands.
