Parties should pay for their primaries

Regarding the recent guest column by Kim Wyman regarding a presidential primary election, I have one strong objection and one observation.

I object to the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, as approved by the Legislature, for a primary election that is on behalf of any political party. Both political parties have more than enough money to fund such a primary, or to reimburse the state if a primary is desirable by that party and must be held by the Secretary of State’s Office. That money should be used by the state for better purposes than supporting political parties.

My observation is that while Ms. Wyman advocates maximum voter participation, she seems seriously out of step with the majority of her party, which throughout the country is engaged in actions that will have the effect of reducing voter turnout in the general elections, such as reducing voting hours and early voting, and additional identification procedures.

While these are touted by the Republicans as attempts to reduce voter fraud, such fraud has been shown to be virtually non-existent, and it is clear that these actions are solely for the purpose of reducing voter participation by persons that might not vote Republican.

Ms. Wyman states that she has heard both parties express a desire to engage the broadest possible share of the electorate, and states, “We shouldn’t suppress any voice.” It would be nice if Ms. Wyman’s view of expanding the voting opportunity, rather than restricting it, would be embraced by the rest of her party.

This story was originally published August 17, 2015 at 5:01 PM with the headline "Parties should pay for their primaries."