Article Image
News Link • Politics: Libertarian Campaigns

Arizona Libertarian Party Opens Primary to Independent Voters After Suing to Keep Them Out!

• AZLP Yahoo Group Posting
The Chairman and Board of the Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP) have voted to open the August 28, 2012 Libertarian Primary Election to members of political parties that are not entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section ARS 16-804, and to voters who are registered as independent or no party preferred. This move is an open invitation to disaffected voters who do not support the Republican or Democrat Parties.
 
Later, the article states:
 
As stated by State Chairman Warren Severin, "It has been a long-standing tradition in the Arizona Libertarian Party to welcome libertarian-minded independent-registered voters. They have always been able to sign our petitions for office. This opens the door for them to vote in the Libertarian primary this year."
 
Contrast that with this article from September 29th, 2007 from KTAR.com:
 
Judge: Independents Can't Vote in Libertarian Party Primary 
 
 
TUCSON, Ariz. - Independent voters will be barred from casting ballots in the Libertarian Party primary under a ruling issued by a Tucson federal court judge this week, a case that could eventually affect the statewide open primary system.
 
Arizona opened its primary elections in 2002, allowing independent voters and those belonging to parties not on the ballot to chose a party at the polls. The number of registered independents and unaffiliated voters in the state has since doubled, to about 28 percent.
 
The ruling issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins came in a case filed by the Libertarian Party, which argued that the law threatened their right to free association.
 
The ruling was an affirmation of the right of a political party to choose its own fate, said David Hardy, the Libertarians' lawyer in the case.
 
``This is the flip side of free association,'' Hardy said. ``If you have the right to associate, you have the right not to associate.''
 
So - which is it? - Ed

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by J E Andreasen
Entered on:

IIRC the suit challenged the claim that the STATE could compel a political party to accept votes from those not registered as a member of said party, in elections that chose their candidates and PC's.  

By contrast, it appears that Mr. Severin and his associates appear to be making that determination for the Arizona Libertarian Party; an wholly proper role for the executive officers of such a private association.

To argue that the distinction is immaterial is to conflate marriage with slavery and rape.

Comment by Thane Eichenauer
Entered on:

I would look at this as a matter of control. Both positions are consistent with the idea that political parties should be allowed to include or exclude whomever they wish. There has been a change in party election policy from closed to open which in my evaluation counts as a flip. A future change to closed would be a flip-flop.

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Well we were the first ones to let them vote in our primary after suing (or threatening to sue) to let them vote in OUR primary.  Then when voters passed a mandated let them in we sued to keep them out.  Fun times.


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:


Attorney For Freedom