Dennis The Menace: Why Is Lennox (And Others) Lying About A Closed Prmary? Who Benefits?

Dennis Lennox (Photo By Chetly Zarko)

By Brandon Hall
(Email him at WestMiPolitics@Gmail.com)

Make no mistake, if you took the issue of whether or not to have an open primary, or to adopt a closed primary, or an Iowaesque caucus system with caucus sites statewide, available only to Republicans, having a caucus system would win big. Seniors and Veterans could mail in their ballots.

So it's quite curious to see a recent conspiracy theory floated that all of the talk regarding a more closed system is originating solely from John Yob. The truth is that Yob is only one of many who have LONG advocated for reform.
In a statement to Chad Selweski, Yob said of the rumors:

"I have long felt that the rules of our state and our party shouldn’t allow known Democrats to participate in our primary process. From the perspective of the Rand Paul campaign, public polling shows that he is the strongest nominee against Hillary Clinton because of his appeal to younger voters, independents, and libertarians who might not pre-register in a closed primary process. He also has strong appeal to conservatives.

Therefore, the campaign is comfortable with an open primary, or a closed system such as a closed primary, caucus, or convention. I won’t be attending the meeting this weekend and we look forward to participating in Michigan regardless of process."

Dennis Lennox has even claimed that 

"While pretty much all Michigan Republicans want a more closed process there's just no real mechanism to do this for next year, not least because the rules are in place and the game is already underway. The real crisis is going to emerge after the presidential primary, when a well-organized campaign could win the delegates to the national convention even if they lost the primary election vote."

That is an absolute lie, 100% not true. To say our county parties couldn't find a few caucus sites over the next 10 months is laughable. The rules are in place and the game is underway? Walker, Bush, Santorum, and others haven't even declared yet!

As far as that BS "crisis" Lennox talks about, so what? Those are the rules, And rules ARE rules, right, Dennis? Should we amend that, even though "the game is already underway?" And if a candidate doesn't win yet gets more delegates, does that tell us that non Republicans are voting on primary day, but then real ones are showing up later to undo the damage? Or that we should indeed adjust our rules-and many of them.

It's also interesting to see people say voters would be "disenfranchised." How? Dozens of states have caucus systems. Iowa's works great-I have been there, they are a TON of fun! The only people it "disenfranchises" are Dems looking to meddle in GOP affairs.

Some are saying that it is an issue for the legislature and that the party is powerless. However, in a recent letter, State Rep. Gary Glenn writes in a letter to Tom McMillin that the party is legally bound to set the tone, and that it must do so this weekend.

"Legally, it’s within your sole legal authority to give direction to the Legislature on this issue, not the other way around.

I urge you this weekend to adopt new rules that send a clear message to legislators to implement whatever steps are necessary to ensure that in 2016 and beyond, the Republican Party’s nominees are selected solely by Republicans, no longer impacted by non-Republican voters whose motivation may be to manipulate our selection process to weaken Republican prospects in 2016 and beyond."

Just breaking within the hour: Chad Selweski is trying to completely distort what Tom McMillin said in a story reported by WMP yesterday. Selweski, who I like and who is often on point, gets it dead wrong here. This article is trash.

He writes:

"McMillin, who favors scrapping the March 8 open primary created by the GOP-controlled Legislature, said that a closed-party process carries costs but “any party-driven system that is chosen could include a ballot access fee that would pay for the implementation of the system.”

That sounds like a poll tax, which would likely face a legal challenge."

McMillin was referring to what states like South Carolina do: charge a fee for a campaign to have its name offset ballot. This helps pay for the election, so taxpayers don't have to. It's very common, very legal, and far from the disgusting "poll tax" days, which individual voters-usually black-were forced to pay a "tax" in order to vote.

One could argue forcing all Michigandrs to pay for a primary 95% won't vote in is a poll tax, and having campaigns pay for the election is in fact far more proper.

Who benefits from distorting and lying about a caucus or closed primary? Those who want to be able to call in the Dems when a conservative candidate they feel is "unwinnable" is doing too well, or one they simply don't like. Reagan was "unwinnable," ya know. Look how that turned out...

>>>Passions RAGE In Heated Facebook Fight Over 2016 Presidential Primary (Make Your Voice Heard NOW!)

>>>Full Glenn letter to mcMillin:

Dear Tom:

The Legislature recently passed legislation approving an Open Presidential Primary on March 8th in which any voter — Republican, Democrat, or Independent — can vote to select our party’s presidential nominee.

I hope that this weekend at Boyne, the MIGOP State Committee — who speak for the thousands of GOP activists and Republican precinct delegates across the state — will do what Michigan voters did this past Tuesday regarding Proposal 1: be very clear where our Party stands on having an Open Primary Process or a Closed Primary Process.

If the MIGOP State Committee wants an Open Primary as currently allows Democrats to vote in and impact our selection of the GOP nominee, then no action is required.

However, if you believe, as I do, that we should no longer allow our organized political opposition the opportunity to manipulate our party’s nominee selection process, please adopt a new policy that limits participation in future Republican primaries — presidential and otherwise — to registered Republican voters only.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the decision of how a party selects its nominees at every level is solely up to the party itself, not the Legislature. This was most recently litigated and confirmed when the Idaho Republican Party changed its party rules to limit GOP primary voters in 2014 to registered Republicans only.

(It’s noteworthy that the predictions of those who opposed limiting Idaho’s Republican Primary to Republicans only — that voter turnout would be negatively affected, and that voters would “punish” GOP candidates at the ballot box for no longer allowing non-Republicans to vote in the Republican primary — proved entirely baseless and false.)

Legally, it’s within your sole legal authority to give direction to the Legislature on this issue, not the other way around.

I urge you this weekend to adopt new rules that send a clear message to legislators to implement whatever steps are necessary to ensure that in 2016 and beyond, the Republican Party’s nominees are selected solely by Republicans, no longer impacted by non-Republican voters whose motivation may be to manipulate our selection process to weaken Republican prospects in 2016 and beyond.

Thank you for your consideration.


Respectfully,

Rep. Gary Glenn, R-Midland
House District 98

 __________________________________________________________

Brandon Hall is a lifelong political nerd from Grand Haven, and is the Managing Editor of West Michigan Politics.
>>>Email him at WestMiPolitics@Gmail.com 

Facebook

Twitter

Photo By Darlene Dowling Thompson

Glenn's full letter to Tom McMillin: