The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
A push to allow voters to register their political affiliation and create a mechanism for closed primary elections in Virginia is gaining steam.
Legislation cleared a Senate subcommittee on a party-line vote Wednesday with the Republican majority prevailing over the objections of Democrats, who said it would limit voter participation.
Another provision in the bill from Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Franklin County, would allow political parties to determine each year which voters can cast ballots in their primaries.
Under his bill, political affiliation would be added to the voter-registration form next year.
Currently, registered voters may opt to identify with a particular party. Those who choose remain unaffiliated are listed as independents.
Stanley said the time has come for the proposal, describing it as a way to allay fears that voters from one party would try to hijack another's primary.
Democrats argued that closed primaries keep voters out of electoral process, particularly in areas of the state where one party is dominant and the primary contest effectively decides the ultimate victor.
"I think voters have rights and their main right is to express their preference at the polls, including primaries," Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax County, said during the subcommittee hearing.
An election official said that if the legislation passes, the state could incur costs to update its voter database and notify voters.
The legislation comes as the state GOP moves to undo a much-reviled plan to require voters in Virginia's March 6 Republican presidential primary to sign a loyalty oath to the eventual GOP presidential nominee before voting.
Acting on a request from the party to rescind the oath, state election officials Tuesday told Virginia general registrars that pledge paperwork should not be included in absentee ballots they mail to voters later this week or given to those who vote by absentee ballot in-person.
A voluntary registration system, Republican party chairman Pat Mullins told lawmakers Wednesday, "would ensure that no party ever needed to require a loyalty pledge again."
Julian Walker, 804-697-1564, julian.walker@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Why are we paying for a
Why are we paying for a political party's primary anyway. The party's should be footing the bill for those.
How is this representative of Democracy?
Democracy - government by the people; especially: rule of the majority. Nowhere in that definition is the word "party". In a democratic electoral process I and any other voting American, have the RIGHT to vote in any electoral process that has bearing on what candidates will ultimately be offered for my selection as leader of my nation.
I’m not Republican OR Democrat. I’m a free thinking, self directing, taxpaying American who understands that due to the nature of what is now our "political" system, will ultimately be left to vote for a President who is the lesser of the evils.
Currently, regardless of party affiliation, I have some impact on which of those evils remains in offering. This bill and those like it are the very reason our syste
When politicians tell us what we can and can't do
I get really nervous, especially concerning the voting booth, I start thinking term limits, these people have been in office way, way too long.
I break out in a rash when people start pontificating about loyalty oaths, tax pledges, tea parties and occupy movements.
Our once great country is now like the the Mid East, thanks to politicians who represent corporations instead of their constituants.
We need a clean sweep.
I doubt is this will past
I doubt is this will past legal muster.
You do realize...
You do realize that 30 states plus DC all allow for party registration. The First Amendment includes the right of assembly (not just freedom of speech), which has been held to allow for groups to decide with whom they wish to associate and who they do not. This being political "speech" it is afforded an even higher standard. In fact, not allowing people to formally associate with a political party via party registration is much more legally suspect.
Why?
Why would you doubt it would pass legal muster? It makes sense to me rather than having other party members meddling in the choosing of the nominee of another party.
I don't consider myself an
I don't consider myself an affiliate of either party. I prefer to think for myself.
Sounds more like a push to
Sounds more like a push to "require" than "allow". Allow is how it works now- we are allowed to put what party we affiliate with, or not. The new law would make it a requirement, no?