Colorado Politics

Letter: Presidential primary bill would damage parties beyond repair

Editor:

Under House Bill 1454, the “Primary Participation Act,” why would anyone permanently affiliate with a party? The only reason would be that he or she had plans to run for public office and wanted a mainstream-media-defined “D” or “R” next to their name.

I’ve barely had time to read the introduced bill. It replaces the presidential part of our caucus with a presidential-only extra primary election. Yet it has already passed in a House committee without amendment and despite many objections by witnesses. It’s on the familiar fast track that makes wide public involvement impossible.

The bill contains discrepancies with Title 1, which governs elections in Colorado — too many to enumerate here. It provides for a confusing extra election with unexplained differences.

More importantly, its “temporary affiliation” feature is clearly a big mistake. Voters will have an obvious incentive to register as Unaffiliated. Without the draw of a presidential nomination process that requires affiliation, the best function of political parties will be damaged beyond remedy. That valuable function is consensus-building at precinct caucuses and at followup county meetings. These voter-connecting events give local meaning to the letters “D” and “R.”

Affiliation and caucus will be attractive only to those who seek public office. They and a very few friends will be the only participants in the caucus remnant.

There is a viable argument that parties have harmed the caucuses through mismanagement. For example, they often combine precincts into caucus “super-sites,” causing overload. Parties may not have not been the best political custodians of caucuses. So perhaps they don’t deserve such a significant role in presidential nomination. That is an argument for HB 1454. However, most sensible arguments would defeat the bill.

Don’t rush another big electoral change before the potential effects on citizens’ involvement are fully explored.

Simply vote “no” on the bill.

Harvie Branscomb

Carbondale

The Statesman welcomes letters to the editor on topics related to politics and government in Colorado. Letters must be signed, should be kept under 600 words and should include the writer’s hometown, phone number and email address, if available. Please send letters to info@coloradostatesman.com. Letters may be edited lightly for length, style and clarity.

 

Colorado Politics Must-Reads:


PREV

PREVIOUS

Nicolais: Senate candidate Keyser’s day in court

Jon Keyser’s failure to collect enough petition signatures to make June’s Republican primary ballot is the big story of Colorado politicos right now. Coming up 86 signatures short, Keyser’s U.S. Senate campaign finds itself in mortal peril. The campaign will now go before a Denver District Court to plead its case. Depending on why signatures […]

NEXT

NEXT UP

Perl: Can new judicial emergency in Colorado spur action on stalled nomination process?

Last week, after just a single day of court operations with six active judges and an empty judgeship, Colorado’s federal trial court caseload rose to a staggering 631 cases per judgeship. This prompted the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the United States Courts to declare the vacant seat on the U.S. District Court for Colorado a […]


Welcome Back.

Streak: 9 days i

Stories you've missed since your last login:

Stories you've saved for later:

Recommended stories based on your interests:

Edit my interests