미국의 프라이머리(예비선거) 제도에 관한 연구
Study of the Primary Election System of the United States
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
So-called ‘open primary’ has been a hotly discussed topic in Korea recent years. Though politicians in both sides have been talked about the open primary, there has never been serious concern of its possible conflict with the political party’s right for the self-determination and self-regulation which is guaranteed by the Constitution. This article analyzes the origin and development of primary election system of the United States with special emphasis on the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Primary replaced the caucus as a mechanism to select parties’ candidate during late 1890’s and early 1900’s. Most states adopted ‘closed primary’, and later many states adopted ‘open primary’. Some states, notably the State of Washington adopted ‘blanket primary’ which allows people to vote for any body in any party. As blanket primary permits so-called ‘split vote’ and ‘cross-voting, it raised controversies. Political parties argued the blanket primary violates their rights of association guaranteed by the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution. The State of California later adopted the blanket primary only to be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the State of Washington changed its primary system to ‘top two primary’ which has been first invented by the State of Lousiana. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the new kind of non-partisan primary as constitutional in 2008. Then the State of California adopted the top two primary in 2010 which will be used from the election of 2012. The State of Louisina also decided to use this system again in 2010. This is a very interesting phenomenon in the U.S. primary system. The articles concludes that ‘top two primary’ is very ideal for Korea as the system is non-partisan and run by the government. It is especially meaningful as a tool to curtail the parties’ bosses’ undue influence which is a major problem in Korean politics.
Abstract
So-called ‘open primary’ has been a hotly discussed topic in Korea recent years. Though politicians in both sides have been talked about the open primary, there has never been serious concern of its possible conflict with the political party’s right for the self-determination and self-regulation which is guaranteed by the Constitution. This article analyzes the origin and development of primary election system of the United States with special emphasis on the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Primary replaced the caucus as a mechanism to select parties’ candidate during late 1890’s and early 1900’s. Most states adopted ‘closed primary’, and later many states adopted ‘open primary’. Some states, notably the State of Washington adopted ‘blanket primary’ which allows people to vote for any body in any party. As blanket primary permits so-called ‘split vote’ and ‘cross-voting, it raised controversies. Political parties argued the blanket primary violates their rights of association guaranteed by the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution. The State of California later adopted the blanket primary only to be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the State of Washington changed its primary system to ‘top two primary’ which has been first invented by the State of Lousiana. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the new kind of non-partisan primary as constitutional in 2008. Then the State of California adopted the top two primary in 2010 which will be used from the election of 2012. The State of Louisina also decided to use this system again in 2010. This is a very interesting phenomenon in the U.S. primary system. The articles concludes that ‘top two primary’ is very ideal for Korea as the system is non-partisan and run by the government. It is especially meaningful as a tool to curtail the parties’ bosses’ undue influence which is a major problem in Korean politics.
참고문헌 (34)
- 김종갑, "오픈프라이머리 도입 논의와 한국적 수용 가능성", 사회과학연구, 15(2), pp.214~235 (2007), 사회과학연구소
- 안순철, "미국의 예비선거" (2005), 단국대출판부
- James W. Fox., Jr., "Citizenship, Poverty, and Ferderalism : 1787~1882", U. Pitt. L. Rev., 60, pp.421~ (1999)
- Jacob Katz Cogan, "The Look Within : Property, Capacity, and Suffrage in Nineteenth Century America", Yale L. J., 107, pp.473~ (1997)
- Ronald P. Formisano, "‘Party Period’ Revisited", Journal of American History, 86, pp.93~ (1999)
- Glenn C. Altschuler, "Limits of Political Engagement in Antebellum America : A New Look at the Golden Age of Participatory Democracy", Journal of American History, 84, pp.855~ (1997)
- Danya L. Cunningham, "Who Are to be the Electors ? A Reflection on the History of the Voter Registration in the United Sates", Yale L. & Policy Rev., 9, pp.370~ (1991)
- Gary D. Allison, "Protecting Party in the Selection of Nominees for Public Office : The Supremes Strikes Down California’s Blanket Primaries and Endanger the Open Primaries of Many States", Tulsa L. J., 36, pp.59~ (2005)
- Elisabeth R. Gerber, "Primary Election System and Representation", J. Law, Eco. & Org., 14, pp.304~ (1998)
- Trevor Potter, "Barrier to Participation", U. Mich. J. L. Reform, 36, pp.547~ (2003)
- Deidra A. Foster, "Partisanship Redefined : Why Blanket Primaries Are Constitutional", Seattle U. L. Rev., 29, pp.449~ (2005)
- Guy Danilowitz, "The Party or the People : Whose Ballot Choice Does the Constitution Protect ?", U. Cal. Davis, 41, pp.713~ (2007)
- John R. Laabbe, "Louisiana’s Blanket Primary After California Democratic Party v. Jones", Nw. U. L. Rev., 96, pp.721~ (2002)
- Stella Z. Theodoulou, "The Impact of the Open Election System and Runoff Primary : A Case Study of Louisiana Electoral Politics, 1975-1984", Urb. Law., 17, pp.457~ (1985)
- Note, "Primary Elections and the Collective Right of Freedom of Association", Yale L. J., 94, pp.117~ (1984)
- Note, "The White Primary in Texas Since Nixon v. Condon", Harv. L. Rev., 46, pp.812~ (1933)
- Paul Allen Beck, "Party Politics in America. 6th ed." (1988), Harper Collins
- Nixon v. Herdon, "273 U.S. 536", ~ (1927)
- Nixon v. Condon, "286 U.S. 73", ~ (1932)
- Oregon v. Mitchlell, "400 U.S. 112", ~ (1970)
- Nader v. Schaffer, "429 U.S. 980", ~ (1976)
- "Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107", ~ (1981)
- "Tashjian v. Republican Party, 479 U.S. 208", ~ (1986)
- "Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67", ~ (1997)
- "California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 US 567", ~ (2000)
- "Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, et al., 552 U.S. 2008", ~ (2008)
- "Law and Progressive Era, Part 1 : The Good Government Movement in Wisconsin, 1891~1921, Wisconsin Lawyer 2010"[URL]
- "Washington State, Secratey of State, ‘History of the Blanket Primary in Washington’"[URL]
- "Nonpartisan Blanket Primary"[URL]
- "Louisiana’s Nonpartisan Primary : Model or Travesty of Reform ?"[URL]
- "California Proposition 14, Top Two Primaries Act (June 2010)"[URL]
- "California’s new primary system expected to change political landscape"[URL]
- "California’s new primary system faces court challenge"[URL]
- "Prop. 14 open primary survives first challenge"[URL]