Louisiana's Open Primary

[Adlai Stevenson]

I didn't know where to post this but I have been wondering for a while - if both presidential candidates received less than 50% of the vote, would there be a run-off?  I don't remember any record in history where this has happened but if this was the case why was there no run-off in 1992 when Clinton led 45%-40% over Bush?

[True Democrat]

Aren't presidential elections more of a federally mandated thing, whereas Senatorial election are left up to the states?

[Lincoln Republican]

Actually, a Presidential election is 50 state elections, voting for President.

As is well known, especially after 2000, no national standards apply, in fact, standards differ from county to county in the same state sometimes.

Louisiana's procedure for candidates receiving 50% plus 1 in an election to win, often requiring run off elections, does not apply at the Presidential level.  There would never be a run off at the Presidential level, even if no candidate receives 50% plus 1 of the votes cast.  First past the post wins, just like in any other state.  As has been stated, this happened in 1992, when neither Clinton nor Bush received more than 50% of the vote.  Clinton got more votes than Bush, and therefore Clinton received Louisiana's electoral votes.

Can you imagine what would happen if the electoral vote was close, neither Presidential candidate receives a majority of the vote in Louisiana, and both candidates need Louisiana to win the election?   

[True Democrat]

Can you imagine what would happen if the electoral vote was close, neither Presidential candidate receives a majority of the vote in Louisiana, and both candidates need Louisiana to win the election?   

Hundreds of millions of dollars pour into Louisiana for a few weeks.

[jimrtex]

I didn't know where to post this but I have been wondering for a while - if both presidential candidates received less than 50% of the vote, would there be a run-off?  I don't remember any record in history where this has happened but if this was the case why was there no run-off in 1992 when Clinton led 45%-40% over Bush?

Louisiana at one time held the general election before November, with any run-off on the November national election day.  This was determined by the USSC to be in violation of the date set by Congress, in particular because the general election decided who was elected most of the time.  Louisiana did not respond, so eventually the court ordered a change to the election calendar so that the general election for congressional elections is in November, with any runoff coming afterwards.  Lousiana then changed their election laws to comply.  So having the general election on the national election day, followed sometimes by a runoff does not violate the date set by Congress.

Congress has also has set the date for presidential electors to be chosen.  In the statute, it also provides that if the final decision has not been made on election day, a state may make provisions in their election law.  So, Louisiana could provide for a runoff in the election of presidential electors.

[Brandon H]

I had wondered about this with electoral votes, but as stated, it only takes a plurality and not a majority.

A law passed recently that will make Louisiana's Congressional Elections like other states, with a primary for each party and then a general election. By taking an extra month for the run-off, Louisiana's Congressmen missed out on things such as office selections and committee assignments.

[True Democrat]

I had wondered about this with electoral votes, but as stated, it only takes a plurality and not a majority.

A law passed recently that will make Louisiana's Congressional Elections like other states, with a primary for each party and then a general election. By taking an extra month for the run-off, Louisiana's Congressmen missed out on things such as office selections and committee assignments.

Will it be like the current open primary system only a couple months earlier, or will it be a normal primary system?

[jimrtex]

A law passed recently that will make Louisiana's Congressional Elections like other states, with a primary for each party and then a general election. By taking an extra month for the run-off, Louisiana's Congressmen missed out on things such as office selections and committee assignments.

Will it be like the current open primary system only a couple months earlier, or will it be a normal primary system?

The current open primary system used to be earlier, with any runoff happening on the national election day.  This was ruled to be in violation of the date set by Congress for congressional elections in Foster v. Love, since the representatives and senators were usually determined before November.

Louisana didn't do anything, and eventually the court imposed the current calendar, which Louisiana then changed its laws to match.

So Louisiana can't go back to the old calendar. 

[True Democrat]

A law passed recently that will make Louisiana's Congressional Elections like other states, with a primary for each party and then a general election. By taking an extra month for the run-off, Louisiana's Congressmen missed out on things such as office selections and committee assignments.

Will it be like the current open primary system only a couple months earlier, or will it be a normal primary system?

The current open primary system used to be earlier, with any runoff happening on the national election day.  This was ruled to be in violation of the date set by Congress for congressional elections in Foster v. Love, since the representatives and senators were usually determined before November.

Louisana didn't do anything, and eventually the court imposed the current calendar, which Louisiana then changed its laws to match.

So Louisiana can't go back to the old calendar. 

Well, it kind of could.  I know Alaska has an open primary system like Louisiana, only a couple of months earlier, except the primary doesn't determine the winner of the election.  It only determines who gets each party's nomination.

For example:
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=211602

Alaska held an all party primary in 1996.  This was much like the Louisiana open primary, except that the general election included the top winner of each party's votes.

[jimrtex]

So Louisiana can't go back to the old calendar. 

Well, it kind of could.  I know Alaska has an open primary system like Louisiana, only a couple of months earlier, except the primary doesn't determine the winner of the election.  It only determines who gets each party's nomination.

For example:
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=211602

Alaska held an all party primary in 1996.  This was much like the Louisiana open primary, except that the general election included the top winner of each party's votes.

I think it may be a case that it did.  BTW, that was a pretty amazing election in Alaska since about 85% of the people voted for the Republican.

Washington State had long had what is called a blanket primary.  The minor parties nominated a candidate at conventions who then ran on the primary ballot, against the candidates for the nomination of the major parties.  Everyone was on one ballot, so there could be 2 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Libertarian, and 1 Green on the ballot.

A voter could only vote for one candidate in each race, but could totally disregard the party, voting for a Democrat in one race, a Green in the next, etc.

The votes were counted differently for the major parties and the minor parties.   A minor party candidate had to get 1%(?) of the vote to be placed on the general election ballot, while the top vote getter for the major parties advanced to the general election.

California adopted a similar plan (by the initiative) as did Alaska.  In California, there was no pre-primary process for minor parties, who were treated the same as any other party.  In the only election it was used for, there were a couple of Libertarians seeking to run for a couple of legislative seats, and a bunch of people crossed over to decide who the Libertarian candidate was, since there wasn't a contest for the Democrat and Republican nomination in that race.

The California law was challenged on the basis that it violated the parties' rights of association, and also diluted the political message of minor parties, and was oveturned by the USSC in:

California Democratic Party v. Jones, U.S. 99-401 (2000)

Throughout the decision, the judges suggested that a Louisiana-style open primary would be acceptable because it wasn't nominating party candidates, but simply reducing the field as part of the process of selecting state officers.

Alaska's law was overturned as well, as eventually was Washington's (Washington had been conducting its elections illegally for 2/3 of its history).

In response, Washington and California voters initiated a new format, which in Washington was called the "Top 2 Primary" by proponents, and a "Cajun Primary" by opponents who raised the spectre of Edwin Edwards and David Duke.  The difference between Washington and Louisiana was, that in Washington, the two top candidates regardless of party would contest the general election, even if one had a majority in the primary.  This avoids the risk of the primary making a final decision in a congressional election before the national election day.

The California initiative was defeated, but the Washington initiative passed.  But it was challenged in court, and overturned (last year).  It is currently being considered by the 9th Court of Appeals.

Washington Top 2 Litigation

[Brandon H]

I had wondered about this with electoral votes, but as stated, it only takes a plurality and not a majority.

A law passed recently that will make Louisiana's Congressional Elections like other states, with a primary for each party and then a general election. By taking an extra month for the run-off, Louisiana's Congressmen missed out on things such as office selections and committee assignments.

Will it be like the current open primary system only a couple months earlier, or will it be a normal primary system?

It will be like a normal primary - each party's primary will take place several months before the election and the winner from each party will be on the ballot on election day in November.

Here is the article from BAN: http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/06/27/louisiana-governor-signs-sb-18-closed-primaries-for-congress/

It doesn't say a lot but does say that this year's congressional elections will still use the current top two system.

[jimrtex]

A law passed recently that will make Louisiana's Congressional Elections like other states, with a primary for each party and then a general election. By taking an extra month for the run-off, Louisiana's Congressmen missed out on things such as office selections and committee assignments.

Will it be like the current open primary system only a couple months earlier, or will it be a normal primary system?

It will be like a normal primary - each party's primary will take place several months before the election and the winner from each party will be on the ballot on election day in November.

1st primary is first Saturday in September.
2nd primary is first Saturday in October.

I was looking at the vote in the Louisiana House.  The GOP was narrowly opposed, with the Democrats about 2:1 in favor.

It's kind of odd that they will keep the open primary for legislative races and state races.