No voice for some Pennsylvania voters

As Pennsylvania gets ready for its most exciting primaries in years, some of the candidates' most fervent backers have found out that they need not bother going to the polls on April 26 to vote for their favorite candidate, because if they do, they will be disappointed and frustrated.

Under state rules, only registered Democrats can vote in the state's Democratic primary; only registered Republicans can vote in the GOP primary.

One of seven registered voters in Pennsylvania (about 15 percent) will have no say in this month's presidential primaries. I am one of them. About 700,000 of us are registered as independent, nonpartisan or some other unaffiliated designation. In addition, another 675,000 belong to minor parties, such as the Green Party, on whose ticket Ralph Nader has run for president. The closed primary system in this state is rigged in such a way that the only items on which we can vote in the primaries are state constitutional questions or referendums in our home municipalities.

Because of the interest in this year's primaries, there have been a significant number of voters who have changed parties or designations. Some have changed from Democrat to Republican either to vote for or against Donald Trump. That goes for independents, too. If you're thinking of doing this, by the way, forget about it, because the deadline for changing parties or registering in general was March 28.

New York state voters are complaining about the same problem, except in their case they had to register or change parties by last September. In fact, it created an embarrassment for candidate Trump when two of his ardent supporters, children Ivanka and Eric Trump, missed the deadline, so they were not able to cast a vote for their father in Tuesday's Republican primary.

About 20 states now hold "open primaries" that allow independent voters to cast ballots in the presidential primary of their choice. Some states even allow cross-filing, meaning that Democrats can vote for Republicans and vice versa. Critics of the closed primary call it "archaic." They claim that this and other restrictions discourage people, especially young ones, from voting.

Pennsylvania is one of 13 states with these types of closed primaries. Another 15 states allow semi-closed primaries where registered independents can vote with one party or the other in the primaries, but registered Democrats are not allowed to cross over to vote for Republicans or vice versa.

On top of that, the closed primary effectively disenfranchises us nonaffiliated voters. Our tax dollars help fund elections, just like Democrats and Republicans, yet we get no say in the outcome.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political parties have a First Amendment right to determine who may vote in their political primaries; OK, but do these parties have a right to force us to pay for their candidate-selection process? Not at all, but we do.

A few years ago, California adopted an election process by voter initiative. All candidates of all parties appear on a ballot, which is available to all registered voters in each district.

The top two vote-getters move on to the general election in November. The primary winners could be two Democrats, two Republicans, one of each, or even a minor party candidate might get a position on the fall ballot.

"This way, taxpayers are not forced to subsidize a process that's stacked in favor of the two political parties," said Matt Zencey in an opinion piece for Pennlive.com.

In this era of gerrymandered districts, the ugly truth is that most elections these days are settled in the primaries, not the general election. If there is to be any meaningful challenge in these districts, it is likely to come from someone in the incumbent's own party, not from someone from the opposing party who knows it is virtually futile to try to overcome the voter registration edge in the gerrymandered district. So at the time it is most critical, unaffiliated voters are shut out of the process.

Remember that I said earlier that nonaffiliated voters are able to vote on April 26 if there are constitutional questions? Well, there are two - sort of:

"Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?"

"Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to abolish the Philadelphia Traffic Court?"

But even here, these votes might be meaningless because of a pending lawsuit questioning the wording of the judges' retirement age question.

The state House of Representatives earlier this month approved a resolution directing the Secretary of the Commonwealth to disregard any votes cast April 26 on the proposed constitutional amendment and instead place the question - with wording changes - on the November ballot.

Supporters said the question scheduled to appear on the ballot this month was not written in a clear manner. They also say that postponing the question until November would allow more voters to cast ballots since voters who are not Republicans or Democrats are limited in the primary election to voting on the proposed constitutional amendments only and so might be less likely to come to the polls merely to vote on these two questions.

Opponents note the cost of advertising. The Department of State has spent a little more than $1.3 million advertising the ballot questions (even in Spanish in some heavily Hispanic populated areas such as Allentown and Hazleton) for the two proposed constitutional amendments, according to Wanda Murren, a spokeswoman for the state department. If the question were postponed, that advertising would have to be done again. Many counties have already printed their ballots and would need to post signs advising voters that their ballots on the question won't count.

My, my, can you imagine the scene that some unaffiliated voters, who traipsed to the polls specifically to vote for the ballot questions, will make when they find out that their trip was meaningless?

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com