The Kentucky State Senate voted this week to allow independent voters to participate in the Commonwealth's previously closed primary elections. The measure was split along party lines, with the Republican majority voting in favor.
The bill moves now to the House, where it will likely lose in the hands of a Democratic majority. It seems GOP legislators believe their party would benefit from an influx of independent voters, while Democrats believe quite the contrary.
One can only feel empathy for those who choose not to register with a particular party, and thus have no say in primary races. But, just as political parties nominate their own candidates for President at conventions, so too do the election laws of Kentucky try to keep the nomination process within the various parties themselves.
Elsewhere, primaries are wide open to all parties and voters. Then the top two vote-getters move on to the general election. Actually, in non-partisan local races here in Kentucky, a similar format is enacted.
But, for state and federal races, which are indeed partisan, a Kentucky voter must be registered with a political party in order to participate in its primary election. At least for now. And likely for the foreseeable future.
Of course, voters are welcome to vote for whomever they wish in November, regardless of party registration. Not good enough for some who prefer to remain "free agents" through primary season and choose candidates and parties race by race. No straight ticket voting for these independents.
The pro's of allowing independent voters in primaries are simply ensuring more of us participate in the glory of the democratic process. Many states allow for it, and somehow they manage to retain their claim to democracy.
The con's come when campaigns are initiated by rival parties and various special interests to falsely support a primary opponent they feel a better chance to defeat in a general election. It wasn't so long ago in Georgia when radio commentator Rush Limbaugh encouraged listeners to vote for a Democrat underdog in an open primary.
Needless to say, no such thing exists in Kentucky. So, if you hold sacred the tradition of closed primaries, the State Senate's bill is unwelcome. For those who enjoy a free-for-all in May, and have little regard for a political party's right to nominate its candidates, you need to get on the phone to your State Representative.
Yes, freedom must be maintained. In a recent election a couple years back I couldn't vote for my own father in the primaries because i'm independent. Our state congress is just trying to ensure that people have as little a "say-so" as possible. Anything they can do to create a new democracy, not concerned with the people of this country but with themselves.
The Kentucky State Senate voted this week to allow independent voters to participate in the Commonwealth's previously closed primary elections. The measure was split along party lines, with the Republican majority voting in favor.
11
Jorge Pancho