So much for free speech and association...

Now, granted, I'm no expert in constitutional law.  Heck, I'm not even a lawyer yet!  But this sounds just a tad fishy to me:

The chances of an independent candidate winning an election are exceedingly slim. Now it's going to be tougher to even make the ballot.

An Oregon law that recently took effect prohibits anyone who votes in a partisan primary election from helping to nominate an independent candidate. Before the new law, any registered voter could sign a nominating petition for an independent candidate, or attend a nominating convention.

So let me get this straight: if I like a certain Republican in one race, and as such register to vote in the primary to support that Republican, I am then unable to show my support for, say, a certain Libertarian in another race?  I could be wrong, but I do believe this is a blatant violation of my rights.  The First Amendment to the Constitution protects my rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.  Supporting a political candidate clearly falls under both of these fundamental freedoms.  This law is an affront to democracy.

The big question: why make it in the first place?

Politicians in power see the ability of you and me to support the candidates we like as a threat to their continued rule.  Therefore, they acted not in the name of democracy, but in their own selfish interest, to consolidate their power.

It is time for some serious change in our government.  Government should exist to protect the people, not the other way around.

Comments

[Tony]

I may be wrong, but I think what it is saying is that when you are a Republican, Democrat, Libercrat, or any other party, your ballot for the primary election will only have your primary candidates on it, instead of your party AND the independent candidate.

So if, say, Westlund were to run as an independent, your primary ballot would have only the Republican candidates on it if you are a registered Republican. Westlund would not appear on the ballots for governor until the general election.

I don't have a problem with this...if you register as a party voter, it is your duty to pick which member of your party should represent your party.

If you register unaffiliated or with another party, you have no business picking which candidate a politcal party chooses to nominate. Ergo, the open primary is thankfully been squashed in Oregon.

[Tony]

Turns out I am wrong. I did some more looking at it, and the law is bunk. It sucks. Its anti democratic.

I was saying I agree that party voters should not be able to vote in primary elections for others, but this law doesnt apparently have much to do with that.

It is instead saying that you cant sign a petition to put an independent or other party candidate on the ballot if you are a primary voter.

That is just an incumbent protection act.

Or, it is designed to make it so that poor public officials like Bradbury don't have to resort to corruption and criminal infringement of people's constitutional rights to keep the Naders of the world off the ballot.

[Gullyborg]

Yep, you got it! The Oregon Incumbent Protection Act!

Oh, and I forgot, it also violates another Constitutional right, the right of the people to petition the government, which is exactly what is most directly attacked. A petition to put an independant on the ballot is basically a petition addressing the government to request that the government include that person on the government-produced election ballots.

So three strikes against our freedom.

[Rivrdog]

When the party machinery is letting all of down so badly, as is the case here in Oregon, an Open Primary becomes not only a good idea, but the only way out of this swamp.