Voter Disenfranchisement in America: Or Not Closed Primaries

One of the common refrains of the Sanders’ campaign is that the people want him while the democratic “establishment” want Clinton. However, as the campaign goes on and Hillary gains more popular votes and pledged delegates, that argument is becoming a little hard to swallow. Where is this will of the people demanding Sanders? Hillary has won states in every region of the country and through every voting process. She also wins among a diverse group of people, winning minority voters by large margins. The past month has seen Sanders win a number of states and so his supporters thought they had a chance at winning and were gaining momentum. However, after a large loss in NY, many supporters were left wondering how a state considered one of the most left in the country could have gone so much in Hillary’s favor. Either they had have to confront the fact that the people want Clinton, or they had to come up with a different answer. That answer is the evils of the closed primary and the voter disenfranchisement of independents.

First, it’s important to discuss the history of voter disenfranchisement in America. Historically African American voters have been disenfranchised by local attempts at keeping them from voting despite federal mandates that they be allowed to vote. These attempts came in the form of poll taxes, literacy tests, and even violence. After the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights movement more subtle limits on voting had to be initiated. In the last few decades gerrymandering, the drawing of voting districts, has successfully diminished the voting power of minorities in many parts of the country. There has also been a trend of voter ID laws passed. On its face voter ID laws seem reasonable but many people don’t consider that not everyone has a drivers license or a passport. The justification of these laws is to prevent voter fraud but voter fraud is not common and the effect of these laws is to disenfranchise poor and minority voters. These voters are disenfranchised because they are being denied a constitutionally guaranteed right with no remedy. They made no choice to limit their voting power.

Closed primaries are not disenfranchising independent voters. For one thing a presidential primary election is not a guaranteed constitutional right and it is not run by the government. Political parties are not in the constitution. There is a reason you are not forced to register for a political party. Presidential primaries are for a political party to choose its nominee. If the green party chose to run two candidates than they too could have a presidential primary and, in states with closed primaries, only those registered with the Green party could vote. If you are not part of the Green party why should you care who its nominee is? When you register to vote, hopefully when you’re 18, you have a choice of which party to register with. The state does not register you as an independent, the only people who are registered as independents are those who choose to be. Not knowing the rules of a primary is not being disenfranchised. If you didn’t look up your polling place or forgot the day of the election you would not be disenfranchised.

As a lifelong New Yorker I have always known that in New York one limits their voting power if they do not register as a democrat or a republican. There are obviously many important discussions to be had about the two party system, however that argument is not that you are disenfranchised by it. Senator Sanders chose to register as a democrat to run in this presidential election long before October. It was his campaign’s job to know the rules of every state and to educate voters accordingly. Could one argue that October is too early to force people to change their registration? Sure. However, again, that registration date is not an act of disenfranchisement. If you are a Sanders supporter who was not informed of the rules of the New York primary perhaps you should be upset with the Sanders campaign. Or perhaps you should ask yourself if you even want to be part of the democratic party.

There is another large problem with claiming disenfranchisement by closed primaries. Not only is it incorrect but, based on the history of voting suppression in this country, many feel it is a tone deaf and insensitive way to describe the situation. The Sanders’ campaign has had trouble reaching out to minority voters since the beginning of this campaign. Unfortunately, he has made many comments over the course of his campaign that have shown he is tone deaf at best and borderline racist at worst. This conversation about disenfranchisement has come on the heels of the Sanders campaign completely dismissing the democratic voters in Southern states. Not only is this a bizarre strategy if you want to be president but minority voters are the mainstay of the democratic party in the south. Without these attempts at voter suppression by southern states perhaps the republican party would not have such a strangle hold on the politics there. Without gerrymandering laws the democratic party might be able to elect more democratic representatives that could build up the party in those regions. We can see that there are democrats voting in southern states based on primary elections. Unfortunately those same people have a hard time making their voices heard for other elections due to these voter suppression tactics by the republican party. The democratic party doesn’t need to add to this suppression by dismissing one of the few votes with which southern democrats can make their voices heard. So please stop dismissing the south and stop saying you were disenfranchised if you weren’t allowed to vote in a closed primary due to your voter identification. Learn from this and make sure to change your registration in time for the next election. Be happy there is such an easy remedy available to you.