Why it failed part III: hardly closed primaries

Blog: Between The Lines

Abstract

The most
cataclysmic failure of the concluded 2024 First Extraordinary Session of
the Louisiana Legislature was genuinely closed primary elections for all
Louisiana federal offices and statewide plenary executive and judicial contests
(much less for statewide single executive, legislative, and appellate and district
court offices) won't come anytime soon.

Recently, particularly Republicans had
stumped for closed primaries, and even made legislative
overtures to close primaries for all federal contests, as presidential preference
primaries have been for decades. This means only registrants of that party
could vote to determine a general election nominee, as opposed to the current
blanket primary which actually isn't a primary but instead a general election
contest without party nominees where all candidates regardless of labelling run
together. If no candidate receives a majority, a runoff election occurs.

In this session, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry backed
even more ambitious changes that
would have created unadulterated closed primaries for all majoritarian branch
contests at the federal and state level. Major parties at their own discretion could
opt in to let unaffiliated voters participate in these contests. The plurality winner
in a primary would advance. Local offices were excluded, which is not
inconsistent in that the current blanket primary system simulates nonpartisan local
elections commonly held across the country.

By far this was the most important issue in the
session because the blanket primary system distorts the policy-making process
to the state's detriment. If parties can control the most important decision
they can make, providing a candidate of their label for the general election,
this prompts election of officials more likely to pursue a common agenda rather
than individual ones. And a major reason why Louisiana has fallen so far behind
other states on issues of economic prosperity and quality of life, as evidenced
by the outmigration of over 100,000 residents during the governorship of
Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards, is because the blanket primary system doesn't provide
the glue to hold together a majority party that helps it make significant and bolder
holistic policy changes necessary to address numerous shortcomings.

Of course, the bigger the change, the greater the political
power needed. Landry and his legislative allies needed to let nothing interfere
with this quest. And then they botched it, big time.

It all started going awry as dilution after
dilution of the original legislation occurred. When the dust settled days
later, all that was left was "closed" primaries for congressional offices and
for the Public Service Commission, Board of Elementary and Secondary Education,
and Supreme Court, with runoffs if needed. And these aren't really even "closed,"
because the version
that passed took away parties' ability to exclude unaffiliated voters.

Note that if one goal of Landry and the GOP
supermajorities in each legislative chamber was to enhance the party's ability
to carry a conservative agenda that could fix what ails the state through primaries
that tended to weed out Republicans-in-Name-Only, they failed almost entirely.
And even in the narrow areas of education and utility regulation, or for congressional
contests, milquetoast conservatives still can win those GOP primaries with
support from moderate leftists that can change their registrations to no party
(which can be done in seconds online
if you have a driver's license, or in days by mail if you don't) and back again
every four years to vote in the Democrats' presidential primary.

Landry and the GOP flubbed their chance for
meaningful and comprehensive close primaries because they
mistakenly gave away a congressional seat – and nearly
did the same with a state Supreme Court seat – to Democrats through voluntary
congressional reapportionment spurred by an unresolved court case that the state
has a decent chance of winning, even though they are contesting the very same
kind of case concerning legislative reapportionment rather than capitulating.
These attempted giveaways sensitized particularly Senate Republicans, all of
whom gained their seats under the blanket primary system and many of whom blanched
at handing Democrats a gift, to seeing they had no real reason to turn their
backs on the system that got them there by going out on a limb for a Republican
governor willing to give away the farm.

If bound to surrender seats thus triggering this
reaction within their own party, to get the votes to pass something close to
the original bill what Landry and GOP leaders had to do was tell the beneficiary
Democrats that unless they went along with that, then congressional reapportionment
was off the table and the state would take its chances with the courts, just like
it was with legislative reapportionment. If they tried this, they did it too
ineffectively.

Chances for change like this don't come often, yet
Landry blew this opportunity for fundamental reform necessary for moving the state
forward by letting reapportionment distractions get in the way.