A popular argument on the left holds that political parties are essentially illegal in the US because they are so regulated that they can’t manage their own affairs. This is not true.
In Minnesota we don’t register for parties, and I assume that’s true in some other states. So you can’t be unregistered. The main party control is “endorsement,” and it’s very loose. Unendorsed Democrats win all the time, even for governor, like Tim Walz. Once third parties reach “major” status, they are vulnerable to takeover. The Legalize Marijuana Party became a major party in Minnesota and Republicans encouraged conservatives to use its ballot line across the state to create spoiler tickets. Minor parties have more control.
Of course what he means by “parties are illegal” is the “left’s conception of tightly controlled, member run parties, fully in control of membership and its ballot line like parties in Europe” is substantially illegal.
You are correct and Meyer is unfortunately not wrestling with these practical and legal realities. I am not an election or NY lawyer, but I am a lawyer who has worked on campaigns and in the legislature, so I do have an ability to read cases as a lawyer would.
As you say, those NY precedents certainly don’t show much in an open primary state. But in NY, those precedents point to a practical effect that totally vindicates Kinnucan’s original argument. Meyer is missing how insanely hard those precedents show it is to truly kick out members in the scenario in which DSA is a mass/major party.
1) party purity is legally absolutely easier when you are a small party of weirdos. When you get serious, states will require you to hold primaries (run by the state as Kinnucan says). The failure to wrestle with the fact that we want DSA to be a major party is a big oversight.
2) look at how hard it is to boot “bad Democrats” from NY ballots. The examples of party raiding precedents are nowhere near a European-style party purge based on ideology. The standard appears to be more like if you are trying to hijack a party’s ballot line for an adverse party, not just if you are trying to have a leftier or more centrist D. The precedents talk about how the major parties are big tents so people can’t just be kicked out for being a *different kind* of D in a party with diverse ideology. Very important distinction that a lawyer would have to deal with.
3) going through state courts to do this (essentially proving each case one by one) is Kinnucan’s argument that the state controls the line, not the parties.
4) Speech and Debate Clauses are common in constitutions in this country, so Meyer is wrong that wanting to kick out a D for his legislative caucusing and not being able to doesn’t reflect on the practicalities of what he says is legal.
5) the fact that DSA hasn’t been attacked under NY law on these grounds, despite beating some very high placed Democrats, is a good indication of how difficult it would be to do it.
It seems to me the notion that primaries ought to dictate nominees vs "the party" however that it is set up is much of the issue. The example of Super-Delegates stopping the Sanders candidacy was the Democratic Party acting like a Party (perhaps to their detriment but that isn't the point). Also, the Dems essentially not holding competitve primaries then convincing Biden to step down and handing it to Harris--also the Dems acting like a Party--again perhaps to their detriment but still not the point. I am not up on all the ballot access laws but it seems to me that if a third party was forced legally to participate in the primary system (are they? and if so how is that decided?) that this would be the point where they would have to determine what weight, if any, they would want the primary outcome to carry.
Good point, at least regarding the presidential ballot. This is an area I am not sure about at all. Presidents and probably statewide candidates in most states are nominated at the convention after the primaries decide delegate counts. But I think legislative and congressional races are straight up decided by primaries without convention nominations. Maybe it works differently in different states? But I don’t think so. Happy to hear from someone more up on that part.
As mentioned in the comments, many more people live in open-primary states and/or nonpartisan registration states (like Georgia and most of the former Confederacy, but also the Great Lakes), which make the idea of a “party member” much more nebulous and the ability to remove party labels from candidates or nominees much more difficult without a court order compared to NY.
But in addition, the state-funded, state-ran nomination process allows the state to control the calendar and method of nomination, as we see in the conflicting trigger laws between Iowa and New Hampshire who threaten each other with earlier primary or caucus dates if one leapfrogs the other. This meant that when the DNC wanted to place the South Carolina Democratic primary first ahead of New Hampshire and Iowa, both Republican-ran states and their Democratic parties objected and threatened to hold their primary anyway. Furthermore, Georgia refused to move their Democratic primary ahead of their Republican primary, and the state government controls the means of party nominations.
OTOH, state parties give so much control to the state government as a cost-cutting measure to ensure broad participation in the nominating process, and both party supporters and independents see the primary as a direct means of popular control over the candidates. But they surrender their independence and quality control to these state governments in that process.
Many states have open primaries and you don’t need to be a registered member to vote in the primary or run as a candidate. I am active in the Vermont Progressive Party, and people raiding our ballot line is a real concern and not something we ever have to consider when we make DSA endorsements.
In Minnesota we don’t register for parties, and I assume that’s true in some other states. So you can’t be unregistered. The main party control is “endorsement,” and it’s very loose. Unendorsed Democrats win all the time, even for governor, like Tim Walz. Once third parties reach “major” status, they are vulnerable to takeover. The Legalize Marijuana Party became a major party in Minnesota and Republicans encouraged conservatives to use its ballot line across the state to create spoiler tickets. Minor parties have more control.
Of course what he means by “parties are illegal” is the “left’s conception of tightly controlled, member run parties, fully in control of membership and its ballot line like parties in Europe” is substantially illegal.
You are correct and Meyer is unfortunately not wrestling with these practical and legal realities. I am not an election or NY lawyer, but I am a lawyer who has worked on campaigns and in the legislature, so I do have an ability to read cases as a lawyer would.
As you say, those NY precedents certainly don’t show much in an open primary state. But in NY, those precedents point to a practical effect that totally vindicates Kinnucan’s original argument. Meyer is missing how insanely hard those precedents show it is to truly kick out members in the scenario in which DSA is a mass/major party.
1) party purity is legally absolutely easier when you are a small party of weirdos. When you get serious, states will require you to hold primaries (run by the state as Kinnucan says). The failure to wrestle with the fact that we want DSA to be a major party is a big oversight.
2) look at how hard it is to boot “bad Democrats” from NY ballots. The examples of party raiding precedents are nowhere near a European-style party purge based on ideology. The standard appears to be more like if you are trying to hijack a party’s ballot line for an adverse party, not just if you are trying to have a leftier or more centrist D. The precedents talk about how the major parties are big tents so people can’t just be kicked out for being a *different kind* of D in a party with diverse ideology. Very important distinction that a lawyer would have to deal with.
3) going through state courts to do this (essentially proving each case one by one) is Kinnucan’s argument that the state controls the line, not the parties.
4) Speech and Debate Clauses are common in constitutions in this country, so Meyer is wrong that wanting to kick out a D for his legislative caucusing and not being able to doesn’t reflect on the practicalities of what he says is legal.
5) the fact that DSA hasn’t been attacked under NY law on these grounds, despite beating some very high placed Democrats, is a good indication of how difficult it would be to do it.
It seems to me the notion that primaries ought to dictate nominees vs "the party" however that it is set up is much of the issue. The example of Super-Delegates stopping the Sanders candidacy was the Democratic Party acting like a Party (perhaps to their detriment but that isn't the point). Also, the Dems essentially not holding competitve primaries then convincing Biden to step down and handing it to Harris--also the Dems acting like a Party--again perhaps to their detriment but still not the point. I am not up on all the ballot access laws but it seems to me that if a third party was forced legally to participate in the primary system (are they? and if so how is that decided?) that this would be the point where they would have to determine what weight, if any, they would want the primary outcome to carry.
Good point, at least regarding the presidential ballot. This is an area I am not sure about at all. Presidents and probably statewide candidates in most states are nominated at the convention after the primaries decide delegate counts. But I think legislative and congressional races are straight up decided by primaries without convention nominations. Maybe it works differently in different states? But I don’t think so. Happy to hear from someone more up on that part.
As mentioned in the comments, many more people live in open-primary states and/or nonpartisan registration states (like Georgia and most of the former Confederacy, but also the Great Lakes), which make the idea of a “party member” much more nebulous and the ability to remove party labels from candidates or nominees much more difficult without a court order compared to NY.
But in addition, the state-funded, state-ran nomination process allows the state to control the calendar and method of nomination, as we see in the conflicting trigger laws between Iowa and New Hampshire who threaten each other with earlier primary or caucus dates if one leapfrogs the other. This meant that when the DNC wanted to place the South Carolina Democratic primary first ahead of New Hampshire and Iowa, both Republican-ran states and their Democratic parties objected and threatened to hold their primary anyway. Furthermore, Georgia refused to move their Democratic primary ahead of their Republican primary, and the state government controls the means of party nominations.
OTOH, state parties give so much control to the state government as a cost-cutting measure to ensure broad participation in the nominating process, and both party supporters and independents see the primary as a direct means of popular control over the candidates. But they surrender their independence and quality control to these state governments in that process.
Most countries don’t do this. Why should we?
Many states have open primaries and you don’t need to be a registered member to vote in the primary or run as a candidate. I am active in the Vermont Progressive Party, and people raiding our ballot line is a real concern and not something we ever have to consider when we make DSA endorsements.