by J Robbins

Created on: April 11, 2009

Bipartisan Senate Vote Keeps Rights of Political Parties

On April 1, 2009, by a vote of 37-17, the Illinois Senate defeated Bill 1666 which would have allowed voters to cast ballots in primaries without stating a party preference.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Larry Bomke, R-Springfield said passage of the bill would have encouraged more voters to vote. But half of the Republican votes cast, along with two-thirds of the Democrat votes and the single Independent vote were opposed to the bill.

In a technical sense Illinois already has open primaries. An open primary is defined as one where voters are not required to designate any party affiliation when registering to vote. This is the case here in Illinois.

The purpose of a primary is to determine which candidates of each party will be selected to run against each other in an upcoming general election. Illinois does not restrict how many parties can hold primaries, and at the moment there are three here: (in alphabetical order) Democratic, Green and Republican.

Voters are also not restricted from choosing a party's primary ballot. The laws of the Illinois State Board of Elections are clear on this matter:

"At the polling place, sign an application for ballot. Additionally, in a Primary Election you will be required to call for the ballot of the party for which you wish to vote. You may call for the ballot of any party conducting a primary and may change party from one primary to the next."

Sen. Bomke proposed to change Illinois law from being an "open primary" state to being a "blanket" (or "wide open") primary state where voters can pick candidates of their choice from any of the parties' ballots.

The states of Alaska, California, and Washington have had "wide open/blanket" primaries. At times the legality of their status have been questioned and in 2000 the Supreme Court tackled this thorny issue. Their decision (with 6 of the 9 justices agreeing) held that "California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of Association" (California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 - 2000).

In their decision the U.S. Supreme Court also found that voter participation had not increased, better candidates to represent voters had not been produced, and candidate selection had not been expanded beyond the "scope of partisan concerns" due to blanket primaries in California. (Pp. 14-18)

The Supreme Court decision did not result in the abolition of blanket primaries. Sen. Bomke says he will attempt a new bill in the next session. In the meantime, there is a House version sponsored by Bill Black R-Danville, but it also faces extensive opposition and is likely to be defeated.

Learn more about this author, J Robbins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.