I have no idea how this might work.
Still the only voter ID anyone should need
The Republican Party of Texas filed a lawsuit against Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson on Thursday in a bid to restrict participation in the GOP’s primary elections to only voters registered with the party.
The lawsuit, filed in federal district court, claims Texas’ open primaries violate the Republican Party’s First Amendment associational rights to choose party leaders. The GOP said in its suit that it would prefer the Legislature to pass a law allowing only registered party members to vote in primary elections, but that it could not wait for lawmakers to act.
“[G]iven the steps necessary to transition to a fully closed primary in an orderly fashion, the Party cannot continue to wait and risk further political inaction and delay that could lead to open primaries (or even a bridge election) in 2028 as well,” the lawsuit read.
[…]
Using a suit against a secretary of state to restrict access in the primaries is not an unprecedented maneuver. A federal district judge ruled in favor of the Idaho Republican Party in a suit against their state’s secretary in 2011, closing the state’s primaries as requested. Ten states have closed primaries, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Because Texas has open primaries, people who traditionally affiliate with the Democratic or Republican parties can vote in the other party’s primary election, commonly referred to as “crossover voting.” The suit alleges that crossover voting leads to the selection of more moderate candidates and gives non-party members unfair influence.
“In Texas, Republicans, and only Republicans, should select Republican nominees,” Republican Party of Texas Chair Abraham George said in a brief statement posted on social media.
The suit pointed to the 2024 primary races of two House representatives — former House speaker Rep. Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, and Rep. Gary VanDeaver, R-New Boston — as examples of the prevalence of crossover voting. Both lawmakers won their primary races by less than 800 votes, and the suit suggested the pair prevailed over their opponents because of votes from Democratic and independent-leaning voters.
The suit also says the state GOP will be able to create its own registration and verification process for a closed primary if the court rules in its favor.
The Texas GOP adopted new rules in 2024 calling for closed primaries and bolstered them again in June.
The Idaho example notwithstanding, it’s hard for me to see why a court would take this seriously. This very much is a legislative issue, one that you’d think the Republicans would be able to accomplish if they wanted to. The claims of injury via the party’s disfavored candidates winning their elections seem ludicrous as well. But I know better than to guess what is beyond the pale for some federal judges.
If they do somehow win, how would that manifest itself? Force everyone to re-register with a party? That sounds like a huge mess. Maybe the state GOP does have a plan to make that happen, at least for their voters. Color me skeptical.
And again if they do win, this feels like it could backfire on them. Like, it may turn off a bunch of more casual Republican voters, who won’t want to jump through the hoops of qualifying to vote in a closed primary, or who might not qualify and be offended by that. They would almost certainly achieve the goal of nominating even more hardcore and extreme candidates, which may be all they care about.
Again, I don’t think this will happen, but who knows. I’m not in the business of giving them advice, but the old adage “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” seems appropriate here. What do you think? The Chron has more.
IMHO, like #47, Texas GOPs are just talking to hear themselves talk, no matter how ignorant.
Does the Texas Election Code prevent them from voluntarily withdrawing from the State election system and conducting their 2028 primary at their own expense and by their own rules? Common sense tells me that there must at the very least be contractual agreements in place for the 2026 primaries.
Will definitely backfire on them causing chaos and confusion and resulting in lower turnout. But please be my guest
After a quick perusal of the Texas Election Code (caveats apply – I am not a lawyer, I was only skimming and could very well have blanked out sometime in the preceding 171 chapters and missed something, I’m having a barn-burner of a weekend night, lemme tell ya, etc.), yes and no, voter_worker. They can hold their own primaries, but can’t just make their own rules. I also remember that there was a court ruling that came down in the 1960s against parties telling Texas voters that they can’t vote in a primary, but may or may not apply here (the segregationists in charge at the time used the same “association rights” argument). After 650 pages of election law, I’m not looking that up, too.
The GOP cannot withdraw from holding primaries for state and county offices (except for specific non-partisan offices). Any party that gets over 20% for their nominee in the most recent gubernatorial election must nominate via primaries.
Parties can run them at their own expense (the County has to offer all required primary parties the same contract terms, but the parties do not have to accept). Also, they still have to follow state law, which includes the open primary language and the uniform election dates.
For anyone else who wants to read election law – https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/sdocs/electioncode.pdf
@Souperman, thank you for digging into the Election Code and providing us with this information. Since there isn’t even a class of people in Texas known as “registered to vote by political party” it is interesting to know about these provisions.