Was the Illinois Senate correct in defeating a bill that would have made primary elections open (not requiring voters to declare a party) in Illinois?

Yes

1 of 4

by Charles Ray

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The Art of the Politically Possible.

In a 17-37 vote on April 1, 2009 the Illinois State Senate rejected a move to open primary elections which don't require voters to declare their party preference before casting ballots (please note that even though it was April Fool's Day, this was no joke). The legislation, Senate Bill 1666, was proposed by Senator Larry Bomke, a Republican from Springfield, who stated that it would be a "good start in cleaning up corruption in politics that Illinois has become renown for." Bomke maintained that many voters feel intimidated by having to state their party preference.

Opponents of the measure claim that it would be far too costly and could lead to one party raiding another party by having its members cast votes for a weak opponent in order to set things up for the general election in their party's favor. This makes sense. In an area known for political shenanigans, giving political operators another loophole to crawl through doesn't make sense. Supporters of the bill also make good points. Making known publicly your party affiliation could lead to harrasment by supervisors or political operators. Until evidence of such harrasment is proven, however, it is far more likely that individuals and groups desiring to manipulate the outcome of elections would use the completely open primary to the disadvantage of the voter. Supporters also claim that the current system discourages voting. There is, however, no evidence to demonstrate that voter turnout is affected by whether a primary is open or closed. During the 2008 elections, there was record turnout in almost every state, notwithstanding the nature of the primary system. Maryland has a closed primary, allowing unaffiliated voters to vote only for school board or board of education candidates, yet it significant increases in voter turnout in 2008 for both the primary and general elections.

Illinois is not the only state with a 'closed' primary requiring the voter to state a party affiliation before obtaining a ballot. Maryland, for instance, provides a ballot that contains only the candidates of the party whose affiliation the voter claims. While this is not a complete defense against vote-rigging, it does make it more difficult. It has also had little impact on voter turnout.

It would cost more for Illinois to print primary ballots by party, but if the state did so, voters would not be presented with the temptation to invalidate their ballots by voting across party lines. In general elections, voters should not be required to identify party affiliation, but in primaries, which are designed to select parties' candidates for the general elections, it is valid to require participants to identify their party.

A recommendation for reform of Illinois election system would be to make sure that election records are not available to party leaders or others. Election officials should be subject to severe sanctions if party affiliations are divulged to unauthorized persons or organizations.

If Illinois voters believe they are subject to intimidation or vote-rigging under the present system, that says more about the political climate than it does about the electoral system. It is just as likely they will have the same feelings under a completely 'open' primary system. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's no evidence the system is broken.

Learn more about this author, Charles Ray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.