This MS thing is actually kinda interesting as it brings up all these old forgotten laws. The AG said this:
Crossover voting prohibited
Crossover voting is prohibited in the State of Mississippi. Crossover voting is defined as participation in the first primary of one political party and participation in the runoff primary of another party. Thus, a voter who cast his/her ballot in the Democratic Primary Election on June 3 is prohibited from casting his/her ballot in the Republican Primary Runoff Election on June 24, and vice versa. See MS AG Op., Brown (April 7, 1988).
And the Democratic Party actually attempted to find a way to enforce this law in their own primaries against crossover voting:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C07/07-60667-CV0.wpd.pdfQuotes in the spoiler:
spoiler (click to show/hide)
In June 2003, the Mississippi State Democratic Party and Mississippi
State Democratic Party Executive Committee (collectively “MSDP”) asked the
state attorney general (“AG”) how the party could enforce § 23-15-575, which it
had not done before. The MSDP wanted to curtail alleged “party raiding” and
crossover voting “whereby voters in sympathy with one party designate
themselves as voters of another party so as to influence or determine the results
of the other party’s primary.”2 This practice is forbidden by the plain language
of § 23-15-575. The AG responded with an opinion (“Cole Opinion”) stating that
a party may challenge a voter in a primary only in accordance with Miss. Code
Ann. § 23-15-579, which outlines strict procedures for challenging a voter. The
AG stated further that a voter may be challenged only for the reasons listed in Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-571
According to the AG:
[W]e find nothing that would allow a poll worker, poll watcher or
another voter to ask a voter if he or she intends to support the
nominees of the party once the voter presents himself or herself to
vote. Challenges may be made . . . for the reason that the voter
does not intend to support the nominees of the party per Section 23-
15-575 . . .
If a challenge of a voter is properly initiated in strict accordance
with Section 23-15-579 and the voter then openly declares that he
or she does not intend to support the nominees of the party, the poll
workers could find the challenge to be well taken and mark the
ballot “challenged” or “rejected” consistent with the provisions of
said statute. On the other hand, if the voter openly declares his or
her intent to support the nominees, then a challenge is not proper
under Section 23-15-575.
. . . .
[W]e have previously opined that absent an obvious factual situation
such as an independent candidate attempting to vote in a party's
primary, the stated intent of the voter is controlling. . . . No past
action by a voter can form the basis of a valid challenge under
Section 23-15-571(3)(g) and Section 23-15-575.
....
In August 2003, the MSDP sought preclearance to implement the semiclosed primary system that § 23-15-575 allowed. The MSDP did not seek
preclearance to implement a closed primary system in which the voters must be
registered Democrats. Due to the vagueness of the party’s submission, the DOJ
could not understand what changes MSDP sought to effect, and it found the
party’s filing incomplete and not “ripe for review,” and warned that any changes
to voting procedures that the MSDP may have adopted were legally
unenforceable without preclearance.
he MSDP turned next to federal court, filing a complaint against
members of the Mississippi State Board of Election Commissioners
5
on the basis
that § 23-15-575 unconstitutionally infringes its First Amendment right of association.
6
The party asserts a First Amendment right to exclude nonDemocrats from participating in Democratic primaries. Most pertinent are its
requests for a judgment declaring Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-575 unconstitutional
and the AG’s Cole Opinion inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in
California Democratic Party v. Jones.
7
The MSDP also sought an injunction permanently restraining the state
defendants from: (1) conducting any partisan primary without affording the
MSDP reasonable opportunity in advance of that primary to exercise its rights
to define participation in that primary; (2) conducting any partisan primary
without (a) implementing a reasonable mechanism for that primary to effectuate
the MSDP’s exercise of its right to limit participation in that primary, and
(b) providing a means for the MSDP to verify who participated in its primary
and communicate with its supporters and members who identified themselves
by participating in the primary; and (3) encouraging or facilitating, directly or
indirectly, party raiding by Republican and independent voters in connection
with any partisan primary except to the extent expressly authorized by the
MSDP for that primary.
...
In its cross-motion, the MSDP disclaimed authority to hold a closed
primary under § 23-15-275 because there is no party registration in Mississippi
and no way to verify whether a prospective primary voter “intends” to support
the same party in the primary and the general election. The MSDP further
argued that its claims were ripe for judicial review because it has no means to
enforce § 23-15-275, and the issue of the statute’s constitutionality affects past
and future primaries.
...
The party unquestionably pleaded a constitutional injury by alleging that
Mississippi’s semi-closed primary statute requires it to associate with members
of the other party during its candidate-selection process.
...
MSDP primarily relies on the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Miller to support
its argument that it has standing. In that case, a local GOP organization sought
a declaration that Virginia’s open primary law violated its First Amendment
right of association. Miller, 462 F.3d at 316. The GOP amended its “Plan of
Organization” to exclude voters who participated in the nomination process of
another party within the preceding five years before the primary. Id. at 314.
The Fourth Circuit, reversing the district court, held that the GOP had standing
because Democratic “party raiding” was inevitable and the GOP had to know
what process would govern candidate selection.
MSDP contends that, like the GOP in Miller, it has standing to challenge
a statute that produces imminent harm by altering the nature of its candidate
selection process. See Clingman, 544 U.S. at 600, 125 S.Ct. at 2043 (O’Connor,J., concurring) (“[T]he choice of who will participate in selecting a party’s
candidate obviously plays a critical role in determining both the party’s message
and its prospects of success in the electoral contest.”). But Miller is
distinguishable because while the GOP had made and attempted to implement
plans to hold closed primaries, the MSDP has done neither.
...
It is certainly conceivable, for instance, that the party’s mere public
announcement of its intent to challenge suspected non-Democratic voters would
discourage raiding attempts. Further, the party admitted in discovery that it
was unaware of any primary voters who did not support Democratic Party
principles or intend to support the party’s nominees. In sum, while it might be
true that § 23-15-575 permits party raiding, the existence and extent of such
raiding are factual questions that cannot be assessed until MSDP has made
some effort to enforce the existing law. Only after § 23-15-575 has been enforced
can the novel legal issue of its effect on the MSDP’s associational rights be
compared with the blanket primary at issue in Jones.
Now I'm not so sure that McDaniel doesn't have some kind of a tiny case to try and throw out any crossover votes if they can somehow identify them. (EDIT: MS uses separate ballots for each parties primary.)
This crossover voting thing has been such a big deal in Michigan they changed the law to block it, then changed the law to allow the parties to decide and the parties went back and forth for cycles before they finally decided to change the law and make them open primaries around 2000. But the best part is that BOTH parties actually have a convention to determine who primary candidates can be. (Or at least used to, I know GOP still does.)
But I'm a dorkus who has found it interesting how the primary vs. party establishment battles have been going on for over a century now and the closest thing to a possible "solution" is the Republicans plan (if they're still going to try it, haven't checked on that) for their next Presidential Primary which if it works might actually succeed in making the primaries relevant but also better controlled by the party.
