By PAUL T. DAVID

The primary ballot: simplify, simplify

ILLINOIS became one of the first states to provide by law for a presidential primary when, in 1912, the state legislature provided for an advisory presidential preference vote. In 1913, the law was amended to provide for a separate election of delegates to the national party conventions. The presidential preference vote has changed little since then and is still only advisory. The provisions for delegate election have been amended intermittently. Originally, the delegates were required to state on the ballot either their preference among the presidential candidates or that they had no preference. After a few years this preference provision was repealed, and what is now called a "blind primary" prevailed in both parties for many years. In 1971, the blind primary feature was repealed, and the candidates for delegate in both parties showed their presidential preference on the ballot. In 1979, an amendment was passed under which the state central committee of either major party could provide for a blind primary, and the Republican State Central Committee exercised the blind primary option in 1980. The result was an outcry among Republican voters.

There is plenty of time, of course, to revise and amend the Illinois legislation on presidential primaries before the next election in 1984. The question is whether this somewhat archaic body of law should not be changed more comprehensively than has so far been considered. The nature of the presidential nominating campaigns has changed, but the law has not.

Previously in Illinois, the presidential primary was seldom a contest between leading candidates of either party. Instead, the party organizations were allowed to organize the delegate slates, which usually won and went off to the conventions with great freedom of action. But now, competing national candidates of both parties come into the state and organize their own slates of delegates. These candidates find the Illinois election laws cumbersome for both themselves and the voters. For better or worse, the nominating campaigns have come to be dominated by the candidates who campaign across the nation. Some adjustments of the election laws should be made in order to come to terms with this reality.

The first and most obvious step would be to abolish the presidential preference vote since it is merely advisory. Twenty years ago in concluding a major study, I wrote: "All presidential preference polls that are merely advisory or that are separated from the election of delegates should be eliminated because of the gratuitous confusion that they introduce into the system" (The Politics of National Party Conventions, pp. 491-92). In Illinois, as in other states with the same situation, the results of the advisory preference poll have often been out of accord with the commitments of the delegates who are elected. The advisory preference vote carries no mandate; the delegates naturally give preference at their conventions to the commitments involved in their own election. Of course, the results of the preference vote could be the same as the outcome of the delegate election, but there is no guarantee.

A second step in revising the legislation on primaries would be to provide for organized slates of delegates, grouped together on the ballot and headed by the presidential candidate that the slate prefers — or headed "no preference" if the slate desires to run on an uncommitted basis and finds it feasible to do so. Such a change would simplify the ballot for voters and increase the visibility of a candidate's slate. Under this proposal, the slates for each presidential candidate should be put together by the candidate's organization in the state, in cooperation with the local party organization where possible, as is much the

August 1980/Illinois Issues/9

case already. The change would formalize what is now informal and would clarify the ballot. The voter would be given the opportunity to vote directly for his or her preferred presidential candidate and by so doing would vote for a preferred slate of delegates. In a case where two or more slates should wish to run under the name of the same presidential candidate, the candidate should be given the choice of which slate goes on the ballot. Maverick candidates would not longer be allowed to run for delegate independent of an organized slate, thus eliminating a frequent source of ballot complexity and voter confusion.

This framework would fit the rules of both national parties. It would be possible to permit the Republican party to elect its delegates on a winner-take-all basis if it so desires, while applying proportional representation on the Democratic side, as required by national Democratic rules. On a proportional representation basis when there are two or more presidential delegate slates on a ballot in a congressional district, the delegate winners would be determined by the proportion of the vote for each candidate. For example, if candidate Jones beat candidate Smith 60 to 40; then 60 percent of the delegates elected in the district would be from candidate Jones' slate, counting from the top down on the slate as listed on the ballot. The Democratic rule requiring equal numbers of women and men as delegates could also be honored by alternating the sexes when composing each slate before the election. The resulting slate-making and ballot construction would be very much like the pattern arrived at in Pennsylvania for 1980. The Pennsylvania system was held to be in compliance with national Democratic party rules on proportional representation. Illinois has not been in compliance, but for 1980 the state was granted an exception under the national Democratic rules (see Illinois Issues, December 1979, p. 32). The Democratic party appears to be firmly committed to the principle of proportional representation of presidential candidate strength in electing convention delegates, and has been successful in achieving compliance with the rule in every state except Illinois and West Virginia. It remains to be seen whether such exceptions can be continued indefinitely.

The Illinois Democratic party is only one of two state parties granted exceptions to national rules this year. Can it continue to resist compliance?

Another feature of the Illinois primary which is out of line with the spirit — if not the letter — of the national Democratic rules is the combination of provisions by which voters may switch or "crossover" from one political party to the other from primary to primary. For several years the Democratic party has sought to enforce a national rule to the effect that only Democrats may vote in a Democratic primary or participate in a Democratic caucus procedure. The open primary in Wisconsin is in clear violation of this rule and has been the source of active contention between the Wisconsin party and the national party for the last six years. The Wisconsin authorities have refused to change their system and have threatened litigation if state laws were disregarded, although rulings of the United States Supreme Court have made it clear that the national party can take steps to protect its internal integrity if it strongly insists. The national party gave up on Wisconsin both in 1976 and 1980, and recently assured Wisconsin Democrats that the delegation elected in the state's open primary would not be challenged at the 1980 national convention.

A different outcome has occurred in Michigan, which has had an open primary similar to that in Wisconsin. In Michigan the state party authorities were in sympathy with the national rules, and when they were unable to secure changes in the Michigan legislation, the Michigan party opted to elect all of its delegates through a caucus and convention procedure. With 16,048 certified Democrats attending party meetings on April 26, the Kennedy campaign won 71 national convention delegates to Carter's 70. The resulting delegation, selected entirely outside the provisions of state law, is clearly in accord with the national rules and will be seated at the national convention. The Democratic primary provided for by Michigan law was held on May 20 with neither President Carter nor Senator Kennedy on the ballot and no delegates at stake for either. Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Lyndon LaRouche were the only candidates on the ballot; both were defeated by "Uncommitted."

These illustrations suggest that if the Democratic party in Illinois is to achieve complete compliance with national party rules, it must either secure changes in state law to provide for party registration in advance of the primary or it must revert to the selection of its entire delegation for the national convention through a caucus and convention procedure. Under present conditions, neither option seems likely to be popular with the voters in the state.

Each Democratic National Convention since 1968 has provided for a post-convention commission to consider changes in party rules for delegate selection, and the Democratic National Committee has announced new rules each time it issued the call for the successive conventions of 1972, 1976, and 1980. Now, the national rules of the Democratic party seem to be stabilized, and major rules changes are not expected at the 1980 convention. A compliance review commission, however, will undoubtedly be appointed to prepare for the next convention, and further efforts can be expected to bring the Illinois party into accord with the national rules. The Illinois party can continue to resist these efforts, but there is the obvious question of whether this is the wisest course.

Republican efforts to change their national rules during the last 12 years have not been as extensive as the Democratic. Republicans have stressed persuasion rather than compulsion in their efforts to achieve greater representation of women, young people and other minorities. They have been deeply respectful of state law even when it seemed out of accord with what the national party would have preferred. This attitude seems likely to continue for some time and is a significant difference between the two national parties.

With continuing differences between the parties in their approach to the rules of delegate selection, permissive state laws that allow each party to follow its own couse are becoming common around the country. Illinois statutes already permit the parties to differ considerably in their practices. In the future, it may be necessary to push this tendency even further. This can undoubtedly be done without impairing the legislation and may help to strengthen both political parties as they continue their competition within the state.

Paul T. David is visiting professor of public affairs at Sangamon State University and professor emeritus of the University of Virginia. He is the author or coauthor of several works on presidential nominating politics, including The Politics of National Party Conventions (Vintage paperback, 1964) and, most recently, Proportional Representation in Presidential Nominating Politics (University Press of Virginia, 1980).

10/August 1980/Illinois Issues