| 摘要 | In 2004, John Kerry acquired enough delegates to become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in mid-March, weeks before voters in more than a dozen states cast insignificant ballots in taxpayer-funded elections. With California, Illinois, Florida, New Jersey and New Hampshire weighing controversial changes to their primary schedules, we should consider how the current scheduling system effectively disenfranchises millions of Americans.
Since today’s system was implemented in the 1970s, the earliest nomination contests have grown steadily in importance. Iowa and New Hampshire alone typically receive about a third of the early newspaper coverage and the bulk of the candidates’ early spending and time.
California, with its 1,100-plus delegates, long ago set its contest late in the season, hoping to be the behemoth that determines the nominee. But as the early nominations took on greater importance, California’s role diminished. Out of frustration, it might move up its primary date. To ensure their relevance, Florida and New Hampshire are even considering violating national party rules that govern primary scheduling, which could make their delegates legally ineligible to participate in the convention.
What took so long? The resignation with which most states have adhered to the arbitrary favoritism of party-constructed calendars is surprising.
States pay for primary elections themselves and theoretically can schedule them any time. The national parties exercise control by threatening not to admit to their nomination conventions delegates from states that violate party rules. The parties say they can do this because as private organizations they have the right to establish criteria for delegate qualifications.
But even if the parties are private organizations, their role in national politics is so entrenched the law can and should prohibit them from exercising preferential treatment. In 1932, for example, the Texas Democratic Party attempted to exclude blacks and thereby prevent them from voting in its primaries.
Party leaders argued that as a private organization, the party could regulate the qualifications of its members much as a labor union or fraternal organization might. But the Supreme Court deemed the policy illegal, reasoning that because primary elections constitute an integral part of the electoral process and an essential function of the state, the parties are subject to the same constitutional restrictions as any public organization. As Justice Stanley Reed wrote in Smith v. Allwright (1944), insofar as participation in party activities is essential to participation in the choice of elected officials, “the state makes the action of the party the action of the state.”
If the law were no remedy, history indicates that the pressure Florida and other states could exert by violating the party calendar could persuade the national parties to adopt long-term reforms. In 1984, Wisconsin tried to choose its convention delegates through an open primary, a violation of the national party rules of the time. A lengthy legal battle ensued, and the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the party’s ability to reject the delegates. But it was an embarrassing affair, and the national party revised its rules to allow the open primary for the next election cycle. If Florida or another state violates the party rules, it could follow Wisconsin’s example.
When word spread last summer that the Democratic Party planned to review its nomination calendar guidelines, many hoped for some kind of rotating schedule that would distribute the privilege of early elections equitably. But the anemic changes foolishly preserved Iowa and New Hampshire’s status as the nation’s first caucus and primary, respectively. And the Republicans made no changes at all.
Recent attempts to revise the primary calendar are undoubtedly causing headaches for the states as well as the candidates who’ve announced they are running in 2008. But it is a cornerstone of democracy that elections be conducted with an eye toward equal influence for each individual. The confusion and dissension we see today will continue as long as the national parties ignore this standard and insist on a system that perpetuates preferential treatment for a small minority of voters.
Timothy Ryan is a research assistant at AEI. |
