Who knows? It's a bad link.

The ruling rejected the idea that a duly held state presidential primary trumped a political party's rules.

IMO,the state could conduct a duly held primary for the state house.However,a political party "has a constitutionally protected right" to rejected he results of said primary.

And nominate a candidate of that Party's choosing.

In fact,wasn't the very same opinion,as reflected in the 11th Circuit ruling in 2008, the reason the Democratic Party was constitutionally permitted to replace former Senator Kurita as the Democratic nominee & the Republican Party was able to bar Speaker Williams to run as a Republican in this election?

The reason this really dumb bill is being brought foward is to allow Speaker Williams to run as a Republican.

The courts have ruled the Parties can conduct their affairs as they see fit..why in the hell can't the Republican Party just vote to let Williams run as a Republican?

I'm conflicted about all of it. Kurita was robbed, I think. Williams, though, made his bed with his deal with the Dems. Others will see it differently, I'm sure.

There are bigger issues with how well the party system works, or doesn't as the case may be. Taxpayers foot the bill for party primaries, and what do we gain? Not much from what I can tell. But if government is going to pay for them I guess you could argue that the government should be able to regulate them.

Or you could argue that party business is their own business, which is fine. Then they should quit asking taxpayers to pay for their primaries, or come up with the money to pay for them themselves. Or eliminate them and have caucuses.

Any of that will require additional legislation and regulation, though, to figure out how to qualify candidates and get them on the ballot so we can have elections.

The other problem with the current system is that independents and third/other party candidates aren't really a factor. I guess the only good thing is that we've made it pretty easy for an "independent" to get on the ballot.

See also: Top Humphrey

(Was that the original link?)

Anyway, as he explains, there are two bills, one with provision for filing as an independent then running as the party candidate (which I'm still not sure I understand), and the second would require judges to settle primary disputes instead of the parties. The second one deals more with the Kurita situation, and the first seems to be hand-crafted to get Williams on the ballot.

So in that regard the first one doesn't seem like good legislation and further complicates an already screwed up system. The second one I'm not sure about.

Yes that was the orginal link & thank you for linking it on your comment.I had trouble with it because the link had been changed.

I believe the proposed legislation only allows one to FILE as an independent candidate & run as a write-in candidate for nomination in the Party primary.The assumption is if one won the Party nomination,on a write-in,they would withdrawl as an independent candidate.However,nothing would preclude one from doing the opposite.

The legislature does write the Election Code & this proposed bill could become law.But the Courts,as in the example of the 11th Circuit's ruling,have said the political party's have a "constitutionally protect right to conduct & manage their own internal affairs."

The 11th Circuits ruling was in a dispute between the rules of the National Democratic Party & the Florida Legislature's ability to conduct a primary in the manner they saw fit.

The Florida legislature set the date for the Florida Democratic Presidential primary contrary to the DNC's rules governing the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

The Florida legislature indeed could set their presidential primary at a date they saw fit.However,the 11th Circuit ruled, that delegates selected,in that primary,could not be seated @ the Democratic National Convention because the Florida primary date was in conflict with DNC rules.

Of course @ the Democratic National Convention if a majority of delegates seated chose to seat the disputed Florida delegates..those delegates would be seated.

Therefore,IMO,indeed the Tennessee legislature can conduct a state primary in any method the legislature see's fit.But the politcal parties can declare that nominee void because of the parties "constitutionally protected rights".

The idea of a direct primary was part of the progressive agenda in the early 20th century.The direct primary,a vote by the people for Party nominees,was viewed by the progressives as a way to combat the power of the political machines & the Party bosses.

Before the direct primary Party nominees were choosen by caucus or Convention & the progreesives believed the bosses & their machines controlled the caucus & convention process.

If one feels too much money is spent on county party primaries one should go to to their respective Party Executive Committees & ask that a convention be held to nominate county Party's nominees.

Finally,off the beaten path of this thread but in the vein of allowing the people to vote.The progressives of the early 20th century also pushed for the radifacation of the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment allowed for the direct election of the US Senate.Before the 17th Amendment(per Article 1,Section 3,Paragraghs 2 & 3 of the Constitution)US Senators were choosen by the state legislators.

From the devils in the details..unintended consequence department.A frend of mine's always saying..you create an effect & then fight the effect.

Say this thing passes..file as an independent candidate/run as a party primary write-in candidate for the nomination.So the Republicans create the effect that Speaker William's can be the Republican nominee in the Speaker's re-election bid.

But how does the Republican Party fight the effect of Tea Party folks..doing the same?

1.Tea Party candidates file as independent candidates & run as write-in candidates for the Republican nominations for state house & senate.The establishment Republican Party ie the incumbent Republican Party..would be forced to campaign HARD vs their Tea Party flank,in the Republican primary..& if the incumbent Republicans won the primary..do it all over again..vs the same Tea Party candidate..running as an independent in the general election..& the independent Tea Party candidate would be on the ballot in the general.

2.Tea Party candidates file as independent candidates & run,in seats where there is no Democratic candidates running, vs Republican incumbents & run as as write-ins for the Democratic nomination..& even if the Tennessee Democratic Party..exercising the Party's "constitutionally protected rights"..deny those Tea Party candidates the Democratic nomination..the Republican Party would still be forced to run HARD vs their Tea Party flank..in the general because those Tea Party candidates would qualify as independent candidates.

COME ON TEA PARTY PATRIOTS..IF THIS THING PASSES..

RISE UP & RUN!!!!!

FOLKS YOU WILL FIND OUT PDQ..THE REPUBLICANS HAVE NO INTEREST
IN YOUR CONCERNS...THEY JUST WANT YOUR VOTES!!!!!