Wakelaw2006
Well-known member
If you register as Independent in FL, you hypothetically could vote in an Independent primary. If you register NPA (no party affiliation), then you can't vote in any primary.
Closed Primaries
- Thread starter DeaconCav06
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
If you register as Independent in FL, you hypothetically could vote in an Independent primary. If you register NPA (no party affiliation), then you can't vote in any primary.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
God I just spent like five minutes reading a message board with this question about the 2008 election for the Democratic party in North Carolina. It took 60+ posts of people going back and forth between "it's open1111" and "noooo it's closeddddd" until someone finally came in and said that it's semi-closed. Parties get to pick each cycle who they want to allow to vote in their primaries within the state. Both always allow unaffiliated from what I can garner but not Independents.
Yeah just found a couple other sources saying "non-affiliated voters" may choose on election day which party to cast a vote for, but registered voters for any party may not. That makes sense.
Yeah just found a couple other sources saying "non-affiliated voters" may choose on election day which party to cast a vote for, but registered voters for any party may not. That makes sense.
wfumike02
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,896
- Reaction score
- 232
Nearly 40 years of SCOTUS precedent begs to differ, Citizen United notwithstanding.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
A pretty good article on the topic which I remember reading a few months back: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/is-money-speech_b_1255787.html
"The point is simple. Even though an object may not itself be speech, if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue. Thus, a law that prohibits political candidates to spend money to pay for the cost of printing leaflets, or that forbids individuals to contribute to their favorite political candidates to enable them to buy airtime to communicate their messages, directly implicates the First Amendment. Such laws raise First Amendment questions, not because money is speech, but because the purpose of the expenditure or contribution is to facilitate expression.
Indeed, not a single justice of the United States Supreme Court who has voted in any of the more than a dozen cases involving the constitutionality of campaign finance regulations, regardless of which way he or she came out in the case, has ever embraced the position that money is not speech. It is simply not a persuasive or even coherent way to frame the issue. If it were, then the government could make it a crime for any person to use money to buy a book."
"The point is simple. Even though an object may not itself be speech, if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue. Thus, a law that prohibits political candidates to spend money to pay for the cost of printing leaflets, or that forbids individuals to contribute to their favorite political candidates to enable them to buy airtime to communicate their messages, directly implicates the First Amendment. Such laws raise First Amendment questions, not because money is speech, but because the purpose of the expenditure or contribution is to facilitate expression.
Indeed, not a single justice of the United States Supreme Court who has voted in any of the more than a dozen cases involving the constitutionality of campaign finance regulations, regardless of which way he or she came out in the case, has ever embraced the position that money is not speech. It is simply not a persuasive or even coherent way to frame the issue. If it were, then the government could make it a crime for any person to use money to buy a book."