California voters approved an open primary system yesterday.
Lots of people are gnashing their teeth about it (see Ace and Bookworm).
I’d gnash a little more if a similar initiative hadn’t already been struck down in California in 2006.
I’m no constitutional scholar, but what I read of the opinion in the settled case–that the blanket primary takes away the parties’ right of association–doesn’t seem solved in the new proposition. I don’t see any comparisons between the two laws, so I could be mistaken. I wish someone would enlighten me how this could pass Constitutional muster.
Or are the proponents hoping that a Supreme Court with a different makeup will rule differently in a couple of years?
