THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, April 25, 1996 TAG: 9604250001
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A16 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Another View
SOURCE: By PATRICK M. McSWEENEY
LENGTH: Medium: 63 lines
When David Broder and political scientists all across the country conclude that open primaries will virtually destroy political parties, a serious discussion of the subject on The Virginian-Pilot editorial page is expected. Instead, your April 19 editorial, ``To sore losers: Pack it in,'' was shallow, error-filled and misguided.
The editorial concedes that cynical Democrats might invade a Republican primary in an attempt to assure the nomination of the weaker candidate. Yet that concern is airily dismissed with the assertion that there is no evidence that crossover voting has ever altered the outcome of a Virginia primary.
There is ample proof that tens of thousands of Democrats, including elected party leaders, voted in the 1989 Republican gubernatorial primary to tilt the nomination to Marshall Coleman, who won by fewer than 7,000 votes. In 1977, Republicans flocked to the Democratic gubernatorial primary to influence the outcome in favor of Henry Howell. Was The Virginian-Pilot asleep in 1989 and 1977?
Even if there were no proof of ``raiding,'' a party must have the right to determine its membership boundaries. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said the constitutional right to freedom of association means virtually nothing if the members themselves cannot decide on qualifications for participation in the association.
When government dictates who can participate in party affairs and how nominations will be conducted, incumbent legislators are tempted to prescribe a system that favors them. That's precisely what has happened in Virginia, with what Judge Williams called the ``Incumbent Protection Law'' - a law that allows incumbent legislators to choose the nomination method when they run for re-election.
Government regulation of parties also means, by definition, that the party in power gets to decide how nominations are conducted. Can we reasonably expect the majority, under those circumstances, to deal fairly with minority parties and independents?
My challenge to the open-primary law was intended to carry out the wishes of the Republican Party's State Central Committee, which urged the General Assembly to adopt party registration to allow each party to prevent ``raiding'' by members of the opposing party. When the legislature killed the proposal, the only recourse left was a suit to challenge the constitutionality of Virginia's open-primary law in court.
At the bottom of all this is the future of political parties. Jefferson believed that without political parties, there could be no representative democracy. More recently, political scientists have said there will be no effective political accountability without strong parties.
Others may disagree, but this is a serious issue with significant ramifications for our nation's future. The Virginian-Pilot could do a great service by encouraging a debate about whether we should have political parties at all and what alternatives exist to provide accountability and coherence to our politics. The superficial treatment of the subject in your April 19 editorial, however, does not do the subject justice. MEMO: Patrick McSweeney is chairman of the Republican Party.
by CNB