Advertisement
*
Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact reprints@wistechnology.com.

How Wisconsin's historic open primary was temporarily closed

Madison, Wis. - Let's say you've never been a Democrat but you think Barack Obama is a prophet of change. Or you're an apolitical soccer mom who feels moved to vote for Hilary Clinton, just because it's time. Or you're a political independent who noticed that some cultural conservatives can't stand Republican John McCain, which is reason enough for you to vote for him.

Welcome to Wisconsin's “open” primary. It's one of the few presidential contests in which voters are actually encouraged to color outside the partisan lines.

If predictions are correct and 35 percent of Wisconsin's 4.1 million eligible voters cast ballots in the Feb. 19 presidential primary, it will not only represent one of the largest primary turnouts in state history, but one of the largest voting percentages in the nation this campaign year.

Driving turnout

The procedure driving the large turnout will be Wisconsin's open primary, which means voters need not register as Democrats or Republicans or otherwise declare any partisan preferences. Each voter is given the ballots of all parties and must decide which ballot to cast in the secrecy of the voting booth. There are safeguards to prevent the voter from marking more than one ballot.

Established more than 100 years ago, the Wisconsin primary is one of the few truly open primaries in the United States. As such, it will be closely watched by political reporters and pundits who wonder how Obama, Clinton, McCain, and the rest might perform in a contest that roughly resembles a general election.

Wisconsin's open primary almost lost its special status, however, when the Democratic National Committee decided after the 1972 presidential election that it no longer wanted those pesky independent and crossover Republican voters polluting their primary. The DNC began a long and sometimes bitter campaign to “close” Wisconsin's primary so that only registered Democrats could take part in the process of selecting Democratic presidential delegates.

The national party actually succeeded for a while. Citing its right to “freedom of association” under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the DNC took the fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 1981 it was permissible for the national party to refuse to seat delegates elected in an open primary.

1984

That set up the bizarre situation in 1984 in which Wisconsin held a presidential primary election (Republicans never challenged the process) as well as Democratic Party delegate selection caucuses a few days later. The results, somewhat predictably, were split.

The Democratic primary was won by Gary Hart with about 46 percent of the vote, compared to Walter Mondale with 43 percent and Jesse Jackson with about 10 percent. An exit poll showed that eight percent of the people who voted in the Democratic primary were Republicans, 29 percent were independents and 56 percent were Democrats. Republicans and independents favored Hart, the exit poll concluded.

The caucuses, open only to Democrats, were won by Mondale with 54 percent of the vote to Hart's 29 percent and Jackson's 15 percent.

Mondale was hammered by Republican Ronald Reagan in the general election (Reagan carried Wisconsin) and the Democratic power-brokers began to wonder if their efforts to cram national party rules down the throats of Wisconsin voters was really a smart idea. In March 1986, the DNC reversed its position and allowed Wisconsin Democrats to select their national convention delegates based on an open primary versus a closed caucus. It's been that way ever since.

State craft

The fight over Wisconsin's open primary is ancient history to most state voters today, but it stands as a lesson in how the Constitution envisioned states crafting their own voting rules to comply with local political values and culture. And despite the fact it comes 38th in the 2008 pecking order, Wisconsin's primary will matter this year - precisely because it is open to every eligible voter.

Recent articles by Tom Still

Tom Still: Conservation, biofuels, and alternative energy are state's sweet spot

Tom Still: How Wisconsin can step up to the challenge of creating jobs

Technology brings benefits, and tests, to society

Tom Still: From also-ran to excellence: Can Wisconsin make the economic grade?

The legacy of Lee Dreyfus: Openness, civility, and vision/a>

Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.

The opinions expressed herein or statements made in the above column are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Wisconsin Technology Network, LLC.

WTN accepts no legal liability or responsibility for any claims made or opinions expressed herein.

Comments

no RODHAM responded 6 months ago: #1

Wisconsin republicans, John McCain has won the GOP nomination. Pimp yourselves out and vote for Obama. Destroy the clinton machine once and for all!

Amy Benedict responded 6 months ago: #2

Thank you for your article! Reflecting back on my passionate support of Jesse Jackson at the State Capitol caucus in 1984 I was curious to know how that chaotic, marvelous day figured into history. Fascinating! I would love to read more comparing secret ballot primaries and participatory community caucuses. Living in NH, I'm struck by the control and power people feel over keeping their vote private and the almost taboo of talking politics in many public and personal spheres.

Douglas C responded 6 months ago: #3

On Feb. 21 in Los Angeles, the trial date for Paul v Clinton will be set and discovery can begin. Hillary will finally be under oath this summer. The civil case will expose the campaign finance fraud she directed. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl

Jack responded 6 months ago: #4

I have been an ardent supporter of Hillary since the start of the campaign but have noticed several things which have disappointed me and am now disillusioned with her campaign. She was all supportive of NAFTA when Bill Clinton made it happen and now she wants out of it. And she speaks so much about campaign reforms while continuing to accept lobbyist financial support; I wonder what kind of reform she will bring out if she becomes president. She openly distanced herself from Bill Clinton's comments in presidential debates and declined to take responsibility for them; I was expecting better from her. I wished she never blatantly copied Obama's slogan of change while never really adding substance; now that slogan has changed to solutions. She has resorted to petty ads in Wisconsin that Obama won't debate with her; just seems a lowly thing to do while fighting for something so important.She should have managed the finances of her campaign better to sustain her publicity efforts instead. Now that I think of her 'experience' and 'readiness on day one', I think that she's maybe ready on day one but is she ready to be correct and do the right thing on day one?

Elizabeth responded 6 months ago: #5

Here's the problem with open primaries. A genuine Democrat won't vote for a GOP. A genuine GOP won't vote for a Democrat. An independent can't commit, and has all kinds of problems making up their minds with things political.

So, allow, say a genuine GOP to cross over and vote against a Democratic candidate if the GOP race is pretty much over?

Not very good party politics. Especially if a party stands for something, as both do (even though indies dispute that until their heads spin).

Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen responded 6 months ago: #6

Those of us with teenagers got a hilarious reminder of the Clinton scandals of the 1990s this weekend while watching the new movie, "Definitely, Maybe."

It takes Bill Clinton apart in a way that John McCain and the Republicans could only wish they could.

It is a must see for all those who want to innoculate their teenagers from the impact of future "Bimbo" irruptions, fits of lying and other attractions sure to come our way with another Clinton presidency.

Lacey responded 6 months ago: #7

THERE IS NO CHANGES WITH OBAMA EXCEPT THE MEDIAS HELP AT HIDING HIS RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE WAR AND BUSH. WHAT OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE AFRAID TO REALIZE. Obamas record shows he supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. He voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. His latest bit of posturing S 433 allows the Bush Administration to suspend any troop withdrawal!!!!if not suspended, still keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Obama when faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from the Bush administration or corporate lobbyists. Such as Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, INCREASING STUDENT LOANS RATES AND FEES increasing hardship for families. Obama voted for one of Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities. Obama voted with Bush to make it harder for ordinary people to hold big corporations accountable when they do things like sell toxic toys, poisonous pet food, or just plain rip you off. Obama was the Senate's biggest Democratic advocate of subsidies for liquid coal, even though liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of the crude oil it's meant to replace and voted for increased subsidies, albeit with conditions.Obama, a Hamiltonian believer in free trade and supporters of globalization has lent his support to the "Hamilton Project formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other 'Wall Street Democrats' to counter populist rebellion against corporate tendencies within the Democratic Party. Obama provided assistance to pro-war candidates (such as Joe Lieberman). Obama voted for "business-friendly 'tort reform' bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation...from corporations!!! Obama considers single payer universal health care too socialist and has stated that he prefers voluntary solutions. **He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on. With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business. Obama has no substance. He has provided no solutions.

Change agent responded 6 months ago: #8

OBAMA THE CHANGE AGENT
Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed!
Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office. being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger, I was not aware that I had voted no on that piece of legislation.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

-Add Your Comment

Name:
E-mail:

Comment Policy: WTN News accepts comments that are on-topic and do not contain advertisements, profanity or personal attacks. Comments represent the views of the individuals who post them and do not necessarily represent the views of WTN Media or our partners, advertisers, or sources.

WTN Media cannot accept liability for the content of comments posted here or verify their accuracy. If you believe this comment section is being abused, contact edit@wistechnology.com.

Advertisement
Advertisement
WTN Media Presents