Independents Call for Congressional Hearings on Disenfranchisement
By Damon Eris | 06/09/2012 | Activism, Movements, Organizations | 20 Comments
Independents around the country are calling on Congress to hold hearings investigating the disenfranchisement of Independents from the political process. The campaign, launched by IndependentVoting.org, aims to bring much needed attention to the issue of structural discrimination against Independent voters and candidates for elected office.
Though they are courted by politicians from the president on down, and receive a fair amount of attention in the mainstream media, Independents are prevented from fully participating in the nation’s electoral process by myriad laws and norms that put the maintenance of the two-party state before the interests of the people. Independent voters are barred from participating in the first round of elections in states with closed primaries, may be prohibited from acting as poll workers or observers, and are precluded from sitting on boards that are mandated to have a bipartisan composition. Independent candidates for elected office often face draconian ballot access laws that burden them with petition requirements far-exceeding those applied to Democrats and Republicans, and are often prohibited from participating in debates and other forums by their rivals in the major parties.
This year’s presidential primary races has a lot of Independents questioning the nature and organization of the party-based primary system. In a letter to the editor of AL.com, Bob Friedman, an Independent from Birmingham, Alabama, writes:
“In 26 states, independents are prevented from voting in primaries, not because they don’t have an ID, but because they don’t belong to a party. Our tax dollars pay for the primaries. That’s just wrong.”
In an opinion piece for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cynthia Carpathios, an Independent from Ohio cited the same grievance, while reported on work being done by a newly-formed chapter of Independent Voting in the state.
“If I want to remain an independent, I’m excluded from voting for candidates in primary elections altogether, though expected to fund these elections as a taxpayer. That’s just one example of how party privilege trumps voter rights in this day and age.”
Carpathios emphasized the importance of instituting non-partisan structural reforms to the electoral system.
“Independents want reforms that can prevent government from functioning exclusively on a partisan basis: open primaries, nonpartisan elections, nonpartisan redistricting reform, putting independents on the Federal Election Commission and reducing the domination of the parties over the people.”
The campaign for Congressional hearings on these and similar issues by Independent Voting has already begun to gain some traction among members of Congress. One supporter is Republican Rep. Michael Grimm from New York City. In a letter to Trent Franks, the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution in the House Judiciary Committee, Grimm stated his support for hearings on what IndependentVoting is calling the “second class status” of Independent voters. His letter noted a number of the barriers faced by Independents.
“These include closed primaries, restrictions on voter mobility, loyalty oaths, and the enforced bipartisan structure of rulemaking and oversight bodies from the F.E.C. To most state and local Boards of Elections.”
Grimm underscored the importance of these issues for all Americans regardless of their party affiliation or lack thereof.
“Congressional hearings on the status of the Independent voter would explore these perceived inequities and highlight any possible avenues for reform. It is surely appropriate for Congress to examine how to increase participation and accord full voting rights to this large sector of voters and whether such measures would help revitalize our democracy and reduce the current level of partisanship, a concern to all Americans regardless of political affiliation,” he concluded.
To learn more about the campaign, check out IndependentVoting.org.





Leave Your Comment →
20 Comments
Ramiro Hinojosa
06.09.2012
NOOOOOO . I AM A VOTER …. Not a sheep .
Lionel Mares
06.09.2012
Yes! I am frustrated with the two party system. I either vote for the Peace & Freedom, American Independent, and or Green party. I am frustrated with people in my city who vote for the Democrats and Republicans! I served as a Pollworker Inspector in the CA Primary. Most of the voters were Democrats. :(
Ted Rigsby
06.09.2012
No but then again unless your very rich your not noticed anyways
Jack Knapp
06.09.2012
Congressional hearings. Where we’ll be heard by people who are determined not to allow independents to gain political power. Riiiiigghhttt!
Gwen Mandell
06.11.2012
Jack Knapp – That is part of the point and beauty of this campaign – to raise those contradictions. A number of Congresspersons have written letters in support of the campaign (perhaps simply because they realize that a growing segment of their constituency is independent), but more importantly, the campaign gives us independents a tool to develop our voice and our movement (and to continue to dispel with the myths -largely propagated by the parties and party pundits – about who independents are) Independent activists around the country are engaged in meetings w/ their elected officials, gathering postcards among other independents, and becoming spokespeople for the campaign.
Antoinette Miller
06.09.2012
Yes. Independents don’t get treated the same as Democrats or Republicans. They seem to be held back and pushed aside in favor of the broken two party syatem.
There are too many people who refuse to give up the two party “evil/lessor of two evils” status quo.
It really ticks me off when peoiple tall me I’m the problem! I’m the reason THEIR candidate didn’t or won’t win.
How dare I vote Independen! How dare I want REAL CHANGE!
Paul Tooter Deems
06.09.2012
It ticks me off when people tell me, voting independent is a waste of a vote. What?!? What happened to each vote counts? Oh, wait, that’s right, electoral college trumps the will of the people, I forgot.
Ed Brown
06.09.2012
The level of disenfranchisement varies by state. In NC, we have “semi-closed” primaries, which mean the only people who can’t vote in a party’s primary are members of another party. As an “unaffiliated” voter, I get to vote in whichever primary I choose. Alas, without something like Instant Runoff Voting, I’m still faced with the same bad choices in the general election.
William Cranmer
06.10.2012
I hate the fact that I have to research who my political candidates (aside from the presidential) are on every level and unless they cause a stir I hardly know who they are and what they are doing. In the age of information technology I should know who all of my elected officials are all the way to the mayor at a minimum. But unless I google it and then spend hours researching them I don’t know what they hell is going on or who is doing it. SAD, SAD, SAD, our political system is broken. To many lobbyist and not enough action from our government for the people they were elected to serve. And this whole BS about Republican vs Democrat is just a way to divide us further, do people not remember the saying “United We Stand, Divided We Fall”??
Ted Hewitt Ofs
06.10.2012
I feel like my only choice is who to vote against. Worse, my choices are framed and defined by the Big Two Parties who are NOT elected representatives.
Amy Smith
06.10.2012
William you could not have said it better, that is exactly how I feel. I think to that is their goal to divide us, so they can keep their power over us.
Dan Richards
06.11.2012
@danrich
The thing that many actually work to our advantage, is much of the media thinks Independents are Liberal/Progressives, and not that we are all over the board. So it might help in the fact that the Politicians might also think it will help the liberal agenda to give us a free roam. But then again, some of them might actually be able to realize this, and fear it would do as much harm as good. It will be interesting to see what these people in congress do decide in all their confused intelligence.
David J. Poetter
06.11.2012
It’s one of those where there really is no wrong answer, per se.
On the one hand, if you have to subsidize the primary, it shouldn’t matter if you affiliate in order to participate.
On the other hand, if you want a say in who the party advances to the general, joining the party is really not all that unreasonable.
It seems to me that there are bigger fish to fry than worrying about if some states are open, semi-open, allow for same-day affiliation, or advanced affiliation. The two party monopoly is NOT going anywhere anytime soon, and the system is geared toward maintaining this stranglehold. THAT needs to be sorted out first.
Knobby Kabushka
06.11.2012
Forget primaries, just switch to a one time vote system with every one running and winner takes office…
Elina Parizhkova
06.11.2012
No, I am just amazed that people would even choose to follow one party, how can you possibly agree 100% with views of just one party?!
Grant Fairbanks
06.11.2012
Not at all. I laugh at both sides when they are arguing because they want the same thing, and the credit for the idea. Take NAFTA when the republicans wanted it the dems said it was a bad idea, but loved it when Clinton signed it into law. Still the same idea.
Robert B. Winn
06.17.2012
It won’t work. Party politicians are not going to let independent voters run against them. What independent voters have to do is start saying, Political parties are in violation of federal law. They cannot take 43% of the voters and say that the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 do not apply to them just because they have been violating those rights.
HK88
06.27.2012
While it is a noble idea, unfortunately, I fear that too many politicians are invested in the status quo for such a hearing to take place. What will it take for politicians to concede some of their power to ordinary people and to third parties? I think the key will be to show the benefits of conceding some control to third parties. There is a benefit if the politicians of the two parties had to hang out with third party politicians more often. That’s why Vermont’s legislature is better-run than other legislatures by letting the Progressive Party have a few seats.
Rbwinn3
06.27.2012
@user117
Congressional hearings about anything are always a joke. Since Congress is no longer a legislative body, but only a place for party politicians to divide up the trillions of dollars borrowed on national credit, and all significant legislation comes from the Supreme Court, members of Congress can do about anything that comes to their minds in a Congressional hearing, and the effect will be the same. It will mean nothing. The political situation is this: Democrats cannot give independent voters ballot access to general elections without losing control of their political base. Democrats will continue to offer meaningless concessions with regard to primary elections like California’s current law because it keeps them in control of independent voters and keeps independent voters firmly enclosed on the Democratic plantation. Republicans have traditionally been the party most hostile to independent voters and will continue to be because they want to believe that they are a national party the way the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists were national parties in Europe, political parties that are supported by public revenues and are synonymous with government. They are not like the party they copy in party politics, the Conservative Party of England because there is no monarch here, therefore they cannot base their party on the divine right of kings as the Conservative Party is. Republicans and Democrats have to base their parties on the divine right of parties, which is meaningless in American government. The government is the people. Right now 43% of the people are registered independent and are denied their right to vote in elections they pay for and excluded from being candidates for office, even though the Voting Rights Act of 1965 specifically secures to them those rights by federal law. But party appointed federal judges consistently rule that independent voters are not protected by the Voting Rights Act. Only political party members are subject to its provisions. Obviously, political parties are in an untenable position. What independent voters need to do is to start saying the obvious: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 already guarantees us the rights we are seeking We want the protection of laws that are already in effect.
There is no need for alarm. Independent voters do not need to panic. Political parties will have no choice but to start letting independent voters be voters in elections they pay for and candidates for office, either by federal court decision, which is most likely, or by an act of Congress, which is almost an impossibility. In the meantime, independent voters should just start registering as candidates for all offices, not for the purpose of being elected, but for the purpose of registering voters. When independent voters gain seven more percentage points in numbers, they will outnumber all political party members in the United States. We will know we have restored free elections in the United States when independent voters are running against independent voters and being elected.
Robert B. Winn
01.26.2013
Where is seem to differ from most independent voters is over the question of primary elections. There is no way primary elections can help independent voters. Before there were primary elections, independent voters participated in American elections on a fairly equal basis with party candidates, except that they were regarded as an oddity because of the dearth of independent voters that existed after the 1830′s, when Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren engaged in a campaign to convince Americans that political parties were necessary in American government. Before that time, Americans were still of an opinion held by the founding fathers that political parties were an evil and dangerous to American freedom. The efforts of Jackson and Van Buren in propagandizing against independent voters resulted in a decrease in their numbers and a corresponding increase in numbers of Democrats, the party Jackson and Van Buren were re-organizing as a pro-slavery party. This decrease in independent voters was one of the factors that led to the Civil War. By the turn of the century, the two major parties have a virtual lock on public offices, their only uncontrolled part of elections of that time being the Populist movement, which was causing problems for both parties, the Democrats because they had run Populist candidate William Jennings Bryan unsuccessfully for President multiple times, and the Republicans because they wanted candidates of their party selected by party leadership, not by popularity. The result was the idea of primary elections, which would give both major parties more control over who would be candidates for office, while the people could be told that the decision was theirs because they would be voting between candidates acceptable to party leadership, and they could not unite behind a candidate like Bryan, who could not pull enough party machine votes in cities to get elected. How does this involve independent voters? Some states let them vote in party primaries, which does them little good because they are voting for poor quality party candidates, and some states closed their primaries to independent voters, denying them their Constitutional right to vote.
The real problem today for independent voters is not that they are not allowed to vote in primary elections with candidates acceptable to party leadership. That does independent voters little good anyway. The problem is that independent voters are the only voters that federal courts have said are not protected by the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If you want to be protected by this legislation, say federal courts, join a political party, and then you will be protected. Independent voters are stupid any time they rejoin political parties just because political parties deny them rights.
What independent voters need to do is start becoming candidates for office, trying to meet the unconstitutional requirements placed on them by political parties. As long as there are no independent candidates, political parties can say with some justification that independent voters do not care enough about American government to attempt to get the disproportionate signature requirements state laws impose on them to become candidates.
But independent voters need to remember one thing. Those disproportionate and unconstitutional requirements did not always exist. As recently as the 1960′s independent voters could appear on the ballot with only a few signatures, because before independent voters began to increase significantly in numbers, political parties tried to pretend that they were fair toward independent voters. As recently as the 1970′s, an independent candidate could run for President in Tennessee with only 23 signatures. Most legislation to keep independent candidates off the ballot came after independent voters began to increase significantly in numbers. The way to contest this kind of legislation is by registering as candidates for office, not by petitioning to political party politicians for relief.