North Dakota’s unique election process may soon bode ill for its future

Many North Dakotans may not be aware of something that sets the state apart from all others… and now, more than ever, it may not be a good distinction. 

Ours is the only state in the nation without voter registration. On its face, that’s not necessarily a bad thing and, for some, it’s been a tradition in which they’ve taken pride. For others, it’s an oddity which they’ve long sought to change, without success, at least so far.

The advantages of voter registration are that voters must identify their party affiliation or declare none. In other words, they register as Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, etc., or as Independents. That registration, then, allows them to vote in the primary elections for candidates of their party.

How does it work in the only state without voter registration, where no known party affiliation is declared by voters? 

Simply stated, anyone can vote for anyone, as long as they vote any party’s straight ticket (not necessarily their own actual favored party’s) in primary elections. 

As most North Dakota voters may recall, in primary elections, they are told that they can vote for any party’s candidates but that they may not cross over to vote for candidates of different parties. If they do, their ballot is cancelled as a “spoiled ballot”. The method seeks to ensure that each voter is presumably voting only for candidates in his or her party.

For a long time, that seemed to make sense but, with multiple candidates in primary elections in recent years, it makes far less sense. Observers have long believed that savvy members of either major party have “crossed over” in primary elections in order to “nominate” the candidate of the other party which they believed would be easier to defeat. There appears to be some evidence that some elections have even been swayed or decided by such a practice — if not resulting in the defeat of the lesser candidate, perhaps resulting in the nomination and election of the opposition’s preferred candidate.

Since North Dakota is a strong Republican state, for example, Democrats could (and some would submit have) “crossed over” to vote in Republican primaries for their preferred candidate on the Republican ticket — not necessarily to ultimately elect a member of their own party, when it may be unlikely, but, assuming that a member of the other party would ultimately win, helping elect what they deemed “the lesser of evils” (i.e. the candidate of the other party with views and positions closer to their own. 

There was a time when primary challenges were rare 

When North Dakota Democrats experienced one in 1992, it became so ugly — badly fractured the once-dominant party, and so injuring the once-favored ultimate nominee, Attorney General Nicolas Spaeth, that he lost the election and Republican Gov. Ed Schafer was elected in what many previously believed was an unlikely outcome.

Learning from the other party’s brutal experience, Republicans long avoided primary challenges respecting, instead, party endorsements at district and state conventions. Often, competing candidates who lost at conventions would concede and join their former opponents, arm-in-arm, to move on to the fall election united. That began to change several years ago. 

In 2012, Congressional candidate Kevin Cramer, long a state party official and perennial candidate himself, surprised many by skipping the state convention completely and going directly to the primary, where he won and was ultimately elected in the general election. He later ran successfully ran for the US Senate, where he continues to serve with broad party and popular support.

A few years later, businessman Doug Burgum competed at the convention, in a losing effort, with Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem winning the party’s gubernatorial endorsement.  Burgum chose not to respect the party’s endorsement and, instead, run against the party’s endorsed candidate in the primary, where he won. That placed his name on the fall general election ballot as the Republican candidate. He won the election and went on to serve as the state’s two-term Governor.

Two factors have led to increased primary challenges — the apparent success of some, as well as increased division and fracturing, particularly in the state’s Republican Party.

With both parties having been injured by primary battles, a growing number of North Dakotan politicos and citizens are left questioning the wisdom, practicality, and effectiveness of the state’s unique electoral process.

Should the state now join the other 49 in adopting voter registration, despite Secretaries of State long warning against it because of the baggage federal law would then mandate for the state? The positive ostensible result would be that voters who identify with political parties would at least be those actually deciding who their parties’ candidates are.

What are the other options to ensure that the state’s political parties actually enjoy the privilege to which they’re obviously entitled — having candidates of their choosing (not those chosen by the general public of any political stripe) carry their banner at election time? Spurning the voter registration option, some have suggested simply doing away with primary elections and allowing those who are active in the political parties actually select the candidates they choose to run against those of other parties in North Dakota’s general elections. 

Some favor other extremes — simply ignoring political parties and their conventions or other endorsing processes and allowing the general public (not the members of each party) to select those who will carry each party’s label in general elections. That would entail anyone simply gathering signatures from the general public to be placed on the primary ballot under the party label of their choosing. Indeed, that is the course reportedly being chosen or contemplated this year by several candidates, both on the state level and in legislative districts.

The looming question is what this means for North Dakota voters, who will then have little confidence that the party label they read for candidates on general election ballot will actually represent the views and principles that party espouses. What that will mean for the governance of a state whose citizens have long clearly identified as conservative will likely hang in the balance.