I may be mistaken, but I could swear that we had a closed primary system in Texas when I turned 18. In fact, I was registered for the democratic primary, and had a party affiliation printed on my voter registration card. Do you recall that? Am I just imagining this?

The whole time I voted in Texas (1990-1998), it had a system of open primaries.

I would have to consult some materials in my office, but I think it has been that way for some time.

What you might be remembering is that once you vote in the primaries (Dem or Rep) they stamp your card with the name of the party in which you voted, so that you can't go vote in the other party's primary--in Texas you have to show your voter registration card to vote, and in Travis County, anyway, the Rep and Dem primaries were always held in different locations (unlikes Alabama, which is also open, but you have to ask for the Dem or Rep ballot).

However, in both cases it is an election-day decision, and hence, "open."

I would prefer having a system of what are called Closed Primaries

There are inherent problems with a closed primary. We had them in Louisiana for decades and it caused 1 party rule.

The dem candidate always won the general so if you wanted your vote to count you had to register as a dem. Since every one wanted their vote to count they all registered dem which (bizarrely enough) made democrats always win the general and the circle continued.

TO THIS DAY if you talk to anyone over (say) 60 they are all registered Democrat. If you ask them why they all say "we wanted our vote to count."

Most all of the Dems under 60 when asked why they are Dems will tell you the same thing, "My parents were Democrats and their parents were Democrats so I'm a Democrat." This is why Louisiana still has 2 Dem senators and a Dem Gov despite being a "red" state.

Few people in the state agree with the Dem party on much of anything.. They are "cultural Dems." It is a throw back to 100 years ago.

--in Texas you have to show your voter registration card to vote

Steven this stuff is certainly your expertise and not mine, but didn't "motor voter" make this illegal?

I know you can vote in this state without even showing ID.

Paul,

Two things:

1) Closed primaries don't cause one party rule. Indeed, one party rule came first in LA, like the rest of the South. The system LA currently uses isn't really even a primary, but rather a two-round system in which the first round allows basically all comers. I must admit I am not fond of the system as it takes our already weak parties and makes them even weaker. LA has a system that is almost entirely driven by candidates. This was especially true during the years of Democratic dominance.

2) Motor Voter does not preclude the use of identification. Indeed, the issue of id is a state-level affair. Some state require photo ids, some require a voter reg card, some just require something with your name and address on it (like a utility bill), while other require nothing.

Closed primaries... fine... reasonable... it is a 'party'... and association of those of a similar mind prioritizing their ideals... fine...

Loyalty oath to party over country? A clear symptom of a problem... Comrade.

Primaries hould be closed. You know why? Because I have never voted for a Democrat in my life except in a primary. I am registered independent who is voting for Kucinich in Arizona!!! I should never be able to do that. But, I can, it's legal, so I am going to.

Don't misunderstand me: the loyalty oath thing is ridiculous.

The special case of Louisiana (possibly) aside, I agree with Kevin - except I don't have any mixed feelimgs about it at all. I find the notion of open primaries patently offensive. Only members of the party nominating a candiate should have any say at all in who that candidate will be.