The Independent View: Third Circuit Upholds New Jersey’s Closed Primaries

In November 2014, I posted this:

A number of state organizations representing independent voters submitted an Amicus Brief in support of EndPartisanship.org's appeal with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeal, which was filed in Philadelphia on November 3, maintains that the current primary system in New Jersey denies 47% of the electorate meaningful access to the voting process. The Amicus Brief was co-authored by Independent Ohio leader and Attorney Rick Robol and Virginia Independent Voters Association (VIVA) chair Steve Richardson, and was filed by Robol on behalf of the Massachusetts Coalition of Independent Voters, Independent Pennsylvanians, North Carolina Independents, the Utah League of Independent Voters, Independent Ohio and VIVA.

It urges the court to reverse the original decision of the New Jersey federal district court that dismissed the case.

On April 8, the Third Circuit issued a 13-page opinion in Balsam v Guadagno, 14-3882.

Plaintiffs are New Jersey voters who argued that the state’s closed primary system is unconstitutional and should be abolished. Some of the voters are registered independents, and some are Democrats or Republicans who say they only register into those parties so they can vote in the primaries of those parties, but they would rather be registered independents.

New Jersey is not really a closed primary system, its closer to a semi-open system. There is no such thing as an independent voter in New Jersey, instead one can be unaffiliated from any party. Unaffiliated voters may vote in a partisan primary election, but by doing so they become registered members of the party whose primary they have voted in. They may change their registration back to unaffiliated after the primary if they so wish. But unaffiliated voters may not vote in a minor party nominating convention without first registering with that party.

The Third Circuit relies on past precedents to find that the U.S. Constitution does not prevent states from holding closed primaries. The decision says that even if the New Jersey Constitution does have provisions that might protect independent voters, federal courts cannot strike down laws on grounds that the law violates the State Constitution unless the state waives its sovereign immunity, and that New Jersey has not waived its immunity.

CLICK HERE to read the court's opinion (PDF).

Here is a thought, in Greenville, South Carolina, the Republican party would agree to pay for their municipal primary so they could keep it closed. How would activists handle this option?