It’s Primary Day in D.C., but My Vote Won’t Count

Seventeen percent of District voters don’t identify with a party. Thanks to closed primaries, they won’t have much of a say in selecting the city’s new mayor.

Citizens vote on Election Day at Fire Station #71 in Alhambra, Los Angeles County, on November 6, 2012 in California.
National Journal
Sarah Mimms
Add to Briefcase
Sarah Mimms
April 1, 2014, 8:59 a.m.

As a D.C. res­id­ent for the past sev­en years, I’ve been denied rep­res­ent­a­tion in Con­gress. Today, I was denied the right to vote — or at least to have it coun­ted.

After ar­riv­ing at my polling place in sunny East­ern Mar­ket on Tues­day morn­ing, I in­tro­duced my­self as a non­par­tis­an voter, one of the in­de­pend­ents whom na­tion­al polit­ic­al parties are so eager to track down dur­ing con­gres­sion­al elec­tion years. I was giv­en a spe­cial bal­lot and told to choose a party primary to vote in. A call to the Board of Elec­tions after I cast my bal­lot, however, con­firmed my sus­pi­cions: My bal­lot will not be coun­ted.

Wash­ing­ton is hold­ing its may­or­al primary elec­tion, in which scan­dal-fraught Vin­cent Gray is seek­ing the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion for a second term against sev­en oth­er can­did­ates. The Dis­trict is over­whelm­ingly Demo­crat­ic, with nearly 76 per­cent of Dis­trict voters re­gistered with the Demo­crat­ic Party.

Giv­en that elect­or­al makeup, the win­ner of the Demo­crat­ic primary is typ­ic­ally guar­an­teed to be­come may­or, mak­ing the gen­er­al elec­tion in Novem­ber, which is open to mem­bers of all parties (and even no party), a moot point. This year, giv­en the in­cum­bent’s his­tory, if Gray re­ceives the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion, polling shows that in­de­pend­ent Coun­cil­man Dav­id Catania could give him a run for his money in Novem­ber.

After Demo­crats, the next highest num­ber of re­gistered voters are in­de­pend­ents. Fully 17 per­cent of Wash­ing­ton’s voters are not re­gistered with any party. In oth­er words, thanks to the Dis­trict’s closed primary sys­tem, more than a sixth of the city’s voters will not have a real choice for may­or.

Wash­ing­ton has had a closed primary since it began hold­ing loc­al elec­tions in 1974, mean­ing that only voters re­gistered with a par­tic­u­lar party can vote in that party’s primary. In D.C., al­though you can re­gister to vote at a polling sta­tion on Elec­tion Day, voters can­not change their party af­fil­i­ation with­in 30 days be­fore the elec­tion — around the time the av­er­age voter ac­tu­ally real­izes that an elec­tion is ap­proach­ing. The former op­tion, it should be noted, of­fers a sol­id work-around for col­lege stu­dents and oth­ers re­gistered as in­de­pend­ents in oth­er states.

Former May­or Ad­ri­an Fenty fought in 2010 to change the rules to al­low un­af­fili­ated voters to switch their party re­gis­tra­tion on Elec­tion Day, but lost. That pro­pos­al was op­posed by his then-op­pon­ent Vin­cent Gray, and we all know how that turned out. City Coun­cil mem­ber Dav­id Grosso pro­posed a sim­il­ar meas­ure this month — not­ably with the sup­port­ive of may­or­al can­did­ates Tommy Wells, a Demo­crat, and Catania, a Re­pub­lic­an-turned-in­de­pend­ent. But that bill didn’t go any­where either.

Closed primary elec­tions are hardly unique to the Dis­trict of Columbia. Twenty-three states in ad­di­tion to the Dis­trict of Columbia have closed primar­ies (al­though in Alaska, Idaho, Kan­sas, and South Dakota, only the Re­pub­lic­an primar­ies are closed).

From the party’s per­spect­ive, this sys­tem makes per­fect sense. The parties want their most faith­ful voters de­cid­ing which can­did­ate will face the op­pos­ing party in the gen­er­al elec­tion. What’s more, the Re­pub­lic­an Party, for ex­ample, wor­ries that Demo­crat­ic voters will cast bal­lots in their primary elec­tion in fa­vor of the can­did­ate who doesn’t stand a chance against the lead­ing Demo­crat. And vice versa.

This happened mem­or­ably in Michigan in 2012, when about 10 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­an primary voters were ac­tu­ally re­gistered as Demo­crats. Former Sen. Rick San­tor­um even paid for robo-calls in the state that urged Demo­crats to vote for him in the Re­pub­lic­an primary in or­der to take a stand against Mitt Rom­ney, who was well on his way to nab­bing the party’s pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tion.

Clearly, that’s less of an is­sue in the Dis­trict of Columbia where the vast ma­jor­ity of re­gistered voters are Demo­crats. Wash­ing­ton’s few re­gistered Re­pub­lic­ans, eas­ily re­cog­nized by their Stand With Rand stick­ers and their Ted Cruz tat­toos (here’s look­ing at you, Scott Green­berg), could hardly sway an elec­tion. About 6 per­cent of re­gistered voters in the city (roughly 27,000 people) identi­fy them­selves as Re­pub­lic­ans.

Giv­en that this is Wash­ing­ton (or should we say, “This Town”), hun­dreds, if not thou­sands, of those in­de­pend­ent voters are likely journ­al­ists, like my­self, who of­ten re­gister sans party in or­der to avoid con­cerns about par­tis­an­ship in their work. Some, par­tic­u­larly of the old school, don’t vote at all.

In truth, my in­de­pend­ent status has noth­ing to do with my ca­reer. As a seni­or in high school fas­cin­ated by elect­or­al polit­ics, I chose to re­gister un­af­fili­ated (through MTV’s Rock the Vote web­site, nat­ur­ally) as a small protest of my home state of Wash­ing­ton’s closed primary sys­tem. The state has since done away with closed primar­ies in fa­vor of a top-two sys­tem. As I like to tell my friends and cowork­ers, I showed them.

But many in­de­pend­ents are just av­er­age voters, frus­trated with the party sys­tem. There are even some true in­de­pend­ents, who find them­selves some­where in the gray area between the Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic parties. Should they not be able to vote for a Re­pub­lic­an when they feel the party is best aligned with their feel­ings or a Demo­crat when a can­did­ate truly speaks to them?

When I ex­plained to my room­mate, who moved from Lon­don to Wash­ing­ton last year, why I wouldn’t be able to vote in the elec­tion we’ve been dis­cuss­ing all week, she called it “un­demo­crat­ic.” Yes, a Brit­ish per­son called an Amer­ic­an vot­ing sys­tem un­demo­crat­ic. And she has a point. Walk­ing down to the Tid­al Basin this af­ter­noon, I wouldn’t be sur­prised to see that the statue of Thomas Jef­fer­son had fallen over on its back.

What We're Following See More »
SAYS TRUMP JUST ATTACKING REPUBLICANS
Former Top Aide to McConnell Says GOPers Should Abandon Trump
14 hours ago
THE LATEST
“YOU CAN’T CHANGE HISTORY, BUT YOU CAN LEARN FROM IT”
Trump Defends Confederate Statues in Tweetstorm
18 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
CEOS HAVE BEEN FLEEING FOR THE EXITS
Trump to End Business Councils
1 days ago
THE LATEST
FROM STATEMENT
McConnell: “No Good Neo-Nazis”
1 days ago
THE LATEST
NO FORMAL LEGISLATIVE EFFORT
CBC Members Call for Removal of Confederate Statues from Capitol
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are reviving calls to remove Confederate statues from the Capitol following the violence at a white nationalist rally in Virginia." Rep. Cedric Richmond, the group's chair, told ABC News that "we will never solve America's race problem if we continue to honor traitors who fought against the United States." And Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson said, “Confederate memorabilia have no place in this country and especially not in the United States Capitol." But a CBC spokesperson said no formal legislative effort is afoot.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login