Taxpayers fund primaries: Should independents be excluded?

Don Scott

Voters head to the polls on Tuesday, June 23, for the primary election, which will select the Democratic candidate to oppose Congressman Mike Lawler in November.

The leading candidates appear to be Beth Davidson, Cait Conley, and Effie Phillips-Staley. Although all taxpayers fund the cost of a primary election, this year only registered Democrats may participate. Everybody else can stay home and watch.

New York is one of 13 states with what is referred to as a closed primary system, meaning that the only voters who can participate in a primary are those who are registered in the party holding the primary. In many cases, the primary effectively determines who will win in November. Fortunately, that is not the case in New York's 17th Congressional District, which will be a closely watched race. If past elections are any indication, it will be decided by a couple of percentage points.

The voters who turn out in a primary are generally the most strident. The result is frequently a more extreme candidate than voters in a general election would be looking for. The two parties have rarely been held in lower esteem. A recent Pew Research poll showed that 58% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party and 59% have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party. Both of those unfavorable ratings are at all-time highs. I'm not sure either party deserves the car keys when it comes time to select a candidate for the ballot in November.

It's not surprising that Americans are increasingly rejecting party labels. Gallup reports that 45% of Americans identify as independents, outnumbering both Democrats and Republicans nationally. In 18 states, independents constitute the largest group of voters. Yet in closed-primary states like New York, this group has no voice in deciding who is on the ballot in November. Both party brands are badly damaged. In a recent Wall Street Journal column, William Galston compared the parties to the 1962 Mets, wondering, along with their manager Casey Stengel, "Can't anybody here play this game?"

Political polarization in America is at an all-time high. Yet we have a primary system that makes it worse, not better. It is a system that rewards ideological purity from candidates. To succeed in a primary, a candidate must satisfy the party's most strident voters. Consensus and cooperation across the aisle are not highly valued.

Talk show host Michael Smerconish, along with several other independents, has filed suit in Pennsylvania challenging that state's closed-primary system. The crux of the suit is that primaries are funded by taxpayers. Independent voters pay taxes like everyone else. Excluding 1.4 million independents from meaningful participation, they argue, violates the Pennsylvania Constitution's requirement that elections be "free and equal." The suit contends that Pennsylvania has effectively created a two-tiered electorate in which Democrats and Republicans wield more political power than independents.

Defenders of the current system argue that political parties are private associations and should be free to choose their own nominees without interference from non-members. That is a legitimate argument. The question is whether taxpayer-funded primaries that often determine the eventual winner should be treated as private party affairs or as public elections.

New Yorkers need to ask themselves, if independents are the fastest-growing political group in America, should they have a greater voice in choosing candidates? Would allowing everyone to participate produce less polarized nominees, or would it simply weaken the political parties? Regardless of where you come down, the issue deserves discussion.

At a time when trust in political parties is cratering, it might be worth asking whether the people choosing our nominees should be more representative of the people who will ultimately elect them.