"Odd" primary systems

[jimrtex]

First off, a definition of a "normal" primary for the purpose of the this thread: Candidates file with a government agency, appear on a ballot amongst members of their own party, and then the winner of each primary goes on to the general election.  Run-offs are allowed if no one reaches 50%

Which states differ from this, and in what way? A few I could think of off hand (although my details may not be complete or accurate):

Washington: Top-two primary

Minnesota: Seems to rely heavily on conventions to determine nominees

Virginia: More conventions

Texas: Administered by parties and can't occur in a county without a county chairman

South Carolina: Also run by parties

Any more details or any other states?

An important distinction is who may vote in primary elections.

There are:

Open primaries: Voters may choose a primary on election day.

Closed primaries: Only voters registered with a party may vote in its primary.

Semi-closed: Only voters registered with a party, plus unaffiliated voters may vote in its primary.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a State party may have a semi-closed primary even if this contradicts State law and the State is conducting the primary.  That is, a party may open its primary to non-affiliated voters.  But the Supreme Court has also ruled that a party may not open their primary to registrants of other parties.

In some States, unaffiliated voters may register with a party on election day, blurring the distinction between semi-closed and closed.  In some States, voters may also switch party registration on election day.

Some States do not have party registration which means their primaries are open.  In some of these States, voters choose their party in secret and there is no public record of which party's primary a voter voted in.  In other States, a voter chooses his party, and there is a public record of the activity, but this is not binding on elections in future years.

States also have different procedures for being placed on the primary ballot, on how minor parties are handled, and how independent candidates are handled.

While it is true that in Texas, primaries are administered by the parties, they do so according to State law, so that the difference is generally superficial from both the perspective of voters and candidates.  It is worthy of a footnote, not a classification distinction.  

[jimrtex]

The Supreme Court has ruled that a State party may have a semi-closed primary even if this contradicts State law and the State is conducting the primary. ... But the Supreme Court has also ruled that a party may not open their primary to registrants of other parties.

Even if state law allows a party to open its primary to registrants of other parties (as Maine's does, although what constitutes the party in making the decision to send the required notice to do that isn't clear)?

In Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 479 US 208 (1986)  The Supreme Court ruled that that the GOP could open up their primaries to independent voters, which was contrary to State law.  In Connecticut, candidates are placed on the primary ballot by convention.  The party in effect wanted to allow non-affiliated voters - who might be critical for party success in the general election - to be able to vote in the primary.  The SCOTUS ruled that the party had the right to expand its political association to include voters who may share the same political interests, though not formally registered members of the party.

An issue brought up in dissent was who should be permitted to determine whether the primary electorate was expanded or not - the state convention or the registered voters of the party.   After all most voters who had joined the "R" or "D" clubs, probably did so simply to be able to vote for the nominees of the "R" or "D" clubs, so why should the party convention be able to dilute their influence.

In Clingman v Beaver 544 U.S. 581 (2005), the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma sought to expand the Tashjian ruling, by permitting registered members of other parties to vote in their primary.  In Oklahoma, it is a party option whether or not non-affiliated voters participate in their primary.  The Libertarian Party had sought to exercise this option to include registered Republicans, Democrats, and Reform members.

The decision does not address the issue of what would happen if State law gave the discretion to the parties to invite registered members of other parties.  It ruled that Oklahoma's laws did not impose a severe burden on the political association rights of the Libertartian Party nor registered Republicans or Democrats who might wish to vote for Libertarian Party nominees, and that Oklahoma had legitimate interests in doing so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know about voting in more than one primary.  I'm pretty sure that they would uphold a State law that prohibited the practice - they have upheld at least some minimal regulations with regard to switching registration before an election.

[jimrtex]

IL provides that if no one runs in the primary from an established party, the county party leaders can slate a candidate to fill the ballot vacancy. Many candidates run this way, particularly against incumbents.

Which is almost the exact opposite of Texas, where the only time the parties can choose candidates is if there are no party nominees for that office, or if their original nominee had been disqualified or died.