Debate Over Open Primary

In your June 27 editorial you “mourned” the end of California’s blanket primary by a Supreme Court decision. You hinted that California may even find that the real need is for an effective state campaign reform system.

Let’s take a look at Maine. That state has enacted full public financing for qualified candidates who are running for state offices. One-third of Maine’s candidates are now receiving such public funding. These candidates are enthusiastic about Maine’s election system, which frees them from ties to moneyed special-interest groups.

SAMUEL ROTH

Woodland Hills

*

I certainly don’t agree with your editorial. Every party has certain principles that are attractive to party members. If a voter isn’t attracted to the principles of the Democratic Party, why should he be able to vote in that party’s elections? The same in the Republican or any of the other parties. Anyone can register in any party. If I don’t like the man on my party’s ticket, what good am I doing for my party to vote for someone in the other party? There are enough members in either party to stand for the policies I believe in.

DENTON POTTER

Los Angeles

*

A couple of problems with Bill Press’ position on California’s open primary (Commentary, June 28). For starters, political parties are quasi-public institutions. When I registered as a Democrat, for instance, it was with the state of California, not a private organization with membership bylaws and dues.

This leads to the more significant problem: Namely, that a political party “belongs” to its members, not to some hierarchy of unelected officials. Ultimately, it is and should be the members’ right to determine whom we associate with. Majorities of each major party voted for open primaries, so party members clearly favor associating with nonmembers.

The majority of each party has ruled in favor of openness. Who is Press or any other faceless apparatchik to say otherwise?

ROBERT SCHMIDT

Culver City