ABSTRACT
This chapter offers a slightly different way of conceptualizing primary "reform" and presents three contrasting recent cases – a change in Idaho, a change in California, and the retention of the status quo in Arizona to better frame the choices parties make. American states have adopted and modified their election procedures through the complex interaction of party conflict at the state level, the interaction of national politics with state institutions, citizen initiatives and "good government" advocacy, and the intervention of the courts. The state legislature passed HB 351 to alter law to comply with the court's ruling. Provisions included adding partisan registration, allowing parties to "open" and "close" primaries to voters of their choosing, and improvising for the 2012 election, where voters would be allowed to formally affiliate with a state political party for the first time up to election day.
