The bill is not for open primaries, but for jungle primaries. The article smears the Democratic Party by falsely presenting Democrats' opposition as a betrayal of their stated platform.
Two different concepts here.
Open primary refers to who may vote in the primary. Each party holds a primary and nominates its candidate. Party primaries can be closed (only people registered to that party may vote), semi-open (open to people registered in that party and to people registered as independent/unaffiliated/no party preference, but not open to people registered in another party), or open (anyone may vote in any primary). The winners of the primaries face off in the general election.
This bill would actually implement something completely different, the jungle primary. All candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear on the same ballot. The top two, even if they're both Republicans or both Democrats, go on to the general election (unless a candidate in the original jungle primary gets more than 50% of the vote, in which case there is no further voting).
Consider a jungle primary in a district that is 60% Democratic and 40% Republican. There could be five or ten Democrats running and only a couple of Republicans. If no one Democrat has a big lead over the field, the Democrats could split the 60% fairly evenly, and the two Republicans, pulling 22% and 18%, take the top two spots. A Republican is guaranteed to win even if any of the Democrats could have beaten either of the Republicans head-to-head.
Consider also that, for all the RGJ's crocodile tears about voter participation, the jungle primary system can award the office based solely on voting in the primary, which usually has lower turnout.
There are good arguments for and against open primaries, but there is no good argument for this kind of shoddy journalism.
= new reply since forum marked as read