In  the last month, federal district courts in Idaho and South Carolina  have handed down rulings on Republican party lawsuits challenging the  constitutionality of each state’s open primary system.  Idaho’s open  primary system was struck down, but South Carolina’s was upheld.

On  March 2, Chief Judge for the District of Idaho, B. Lynn Winmill, issued a ruling that  declared the state’s nearly forty year-old open primary system  unconstitutional.  The Idaho Republican Party had argued in its suit  that the open primary system violated its First Amendment right to free  association since it allowed voters not affiliated with the Republican  party to cast ballots in GOP primary elections.  Relying on the US  Supreme Court’s decision in California Democratic Party v. Jones,  which struck down California’s blanket primary system on similar grounds, and evidence of significant “cross-over voting” in  Idaho, Judge Winmill sided with the plaintiffs.

“Like the blanket primary system in Jones,  Idaho’s current open primary system, as applied, forces the Idaho  Republican Party to associate with, and have their nominees and  positions determined by, those who have refused to affiliate with the  party,” wrote Judge Winmill in the conclusion of his decision.

Several  Independent political organizations were granted permission to  intervene in the suit, and one, the American Independent Movement of  Idaho, has appealed the ruling.

"In Idaho, the Republican primary is  often the only election that counts, and independents who wish to  affiliate with the Republican Party for purposes of that primary should  be able to do so,” said attorney Gary Allen, who filed the appeal for  the group, according to a report at The Moderate Voice.

In 2010, there were 43 Republican party candidates for public office in Idaho who ran unopposed in the general election.

In  the meantime, the Idaho legislature has quickly moved to institute a  new system based on a partisan registration process.  Parties would have the option to allow Independents and members of other parties to  vote in their primary elections, or to close their primary elections to  all but registered members of the party.  Under the old system, voters  did not register with a party, but rather chose a specific party’s  primary ballot on the day of the primary elections.  The new legislation  has already been approved by the state’s Senate.

In the second lawsuit, the  Republican Party of South Carolina objected to that state’s open  primary system on grounds similar to those put forward by the Idaho GOP.   However, US District Court Judge Michelle Childs upheld the state’s  open primary system in a ruling issued last Wednesday.  Relying on the  US Supreme Court finding in Jones  as well as a precedent from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Childs  found that, because South Carolina’s election statutes “provide  multiple methods for political parties to nominate candidates to the  general election ballot,” the open primary system does not substantially  infringe upon the party’s First Amendment right to free association.   Furthermore, no solid evidence of cross-over voting by members of other  parties or Independents was presented in the case.

Under  South Carolina law, parties may nominate their candidates by means of  the open primary, by a party convention or by petition.  In the case,  the SCGOP argued that nomination by convention was not “a viable  alternative to the open primary system,” but admitted that minor parties successfully nominate by convention in the state, and even that the GOP  had itself utilized the party convention method of nomination in the  past.

According to a report at Greenville Online, the South Carolina Republican Party is  considering an appeal of the ruling. Queried on the matter, the state  GOP’s Executive Director Joel Sawyer replied that party officials are  “weighing our options with regard to an appeal.”  Republicans may  alternatively urge the state’s legislature to allow voters to register  by party.

On the other side of the issue, attorney Harry Kresky said, "It's  a great day for independents. It's a great day for all voters in South  Carolina."  Kresky is co-council for the Committee for a Unified  Independent Party, which intervened in this suit as well as the case in Idaho.  In 2008, a majority of candidates  for the state’s legislature ran unopposed in the general election, as  reported at the Greenfield Daily Reporter.   If Independents were barred from voting in the state’s primary  elections, they would be effectively disenfranchised from the political  process.

Twenty-five  states currently have a closed primary system, sixteen have an open  primary system and the remainder have a mixed form or use some other  nomination method, according to Fair Vote.

For the full text of the two decisions discussed above, see Ballot Access News (Idaho and South Carolina).