Iowa Does Not Need ‘Revolutionary’ Election Changes That Violate Voters’ Associational Rights | The American Spectator

Iowa should not abandon its primary system for a complicated, multiple-choice voting process that would blur party lines and weaken voters’ right to freely associate through the political party of their choice.

The Iowa legislature has, in recent years, passed a series of measures to strengthen election integrity that put the Hawkeye State in the top tier when it comes to election security, according to the Heritage Foundation’s Election Integrity Scorecard. This includes passing an election reform measure prohibiting ranked choice or instant runoff voting, a confusing and chaotic process created by liberal academics that effectively disenfranchises voters and is intended to allow marginal candidates to be elected even though they are not supported by a majority of voters. (RELATED: Voters Wisely Dropped Ranked-Choice Voting)

Now, however, Iowa’s party primary and caucus system is being unfairly criticized by liberals for supposedly not being “democratic,” when it is the very essence of democracy.

In a closed primary and caucus system, as Iowa has, registered voters must be declared members of a specific political party to participate in that party’s decision-making. Crossover voting is prohibited; that is, a Democrat cannot vote in a Republican primary or caucus and vice versa.

This system protects voters and their right to associate with the political parties they support. Otherwise, crossover voters can interfere with and take away the political choices the voters of a specific party want to make when selecting the candidates whose views and positions they support. Republican voters should not have the power to nominate Democrat Party candidates, and Democrats should not have the ability to choose the nominees of the Republican or Libertarian Parties.

Iowa’s current system prevents that and protects the rights of voters and their political parties to choose the candidates they believe best represent them.

Critics of Iowa’s primary and caucus system claim that independents are left out of the process, but this claim does not hold water. Iowa law not only permits voters to switch their party preference, but they can even do so on Election Day. The same situation applies to the presidential caucuses, which are actually party-run affairs. Iowa’s caucuses may be “closed,” but voters can easily change their party affiliation and participate in a caucus. Afterwards, voters can switch back and declare themselves to be independent if they so choose.

The process is not burdensome and does not create any roadblocks to participation. Neither is it a violation of an independent voter’s constitutional rights, as the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held in March in Polelle v. Florida, a case that challenged Florida’s closed primary system. (RELATED: SCOTUS Just Missed a Big Opportunity to Stop Election Meddling)

Arguments are being made that Iowa’s current primary system should be replaced by “a single public primary” where all voters, regardless of political party, can vote, otherwise known as a jungle primary. The top two candidates — even if they represent the same political party — would face each other in the general election. This would be similar to an open primary where voters can engage in crossover balloting.

This type of system fundamentally violates the associational rights of political parties and their members and is really intended to harm political parties, reducing their influence and ability to support their candidates.

However, this supposed reform does not stop with an open primary. Advocates are also calling for Iowa to adopt “approval voting.”

Approval voting is just another variation of ranked choice voting. Voters vote for multiple candidates or give all their votes to one candidate, and whoever receives the most votes is declared the winner. Ranked choice and approval voting are so confusing that even election officials have a hard time understanding and administering such elections. The process creates unnecessary complexity, disenfranchises voters due to a recognized phenomenon called “ballot exhaustion,” and leads to lengthy ballot counts and recounts.

Apparently, supporters of these measures want to make it harder to vote, not easier.

Liberals have for many decades tried to replace the Constitution’s principles of limited government, checks and balances, and federalism with majoritarian democracy and an expanded, centralized government with overwhelming control over our lives.

The same situation applies at the state and local level with the calls for “democratic” reforms that are anything but democratic. Since 2018, under the leadership of Governor Reynolds, Iowa has been advancing sound, conservative fiscal and social policies. A majority of Iowans support this commonsense agenda by electing conservatives to office.

Liberals and progressives may be upset with these policies, but they ought to remember that it was not too long ago that Iowa was a “purple” state. Iowa’s system of elections is not broken, and neither is the political party system. They just don’t like the fact that lately they have been losing elections because voters don’t like the radical policies they are advancing.

Iowa’s primary and caucus system works just fine and does not need to be changed. Iowans should be very concerned whenever “revolutionary” changes are proposed that are really intended to manipulate the system to alter outcomes to benefit one particular political party.

“Approval voting” and “single primaries” are those kinds of scheming changes.

READ MORE from John Hendrickson:

Honoring Patrick J. Buchanan

Iowa Needs to Constitutionalize Taxpayer Protections

John Hendrickson is the policy director for the Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation. Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and host of the “Case in Point” podcast.