George,

Many years ago, I had a small role in the case of Tashjian v. Republican PArty of Connecticut, which directly addressed this issue. Lowell Weicker was then the state's Senator, and he was certainly a progressive Republican.

Everyone in the state recognized that it would be very difficult for a Democrat to beat him in the general election, but that there was a pretty good chance that he might lose a closed Republican primary to a conservative opponent. To protect Weicker, the state Republican party challenged the state law mandating closed primaries, so that the Senator could continue to benefit from crossover votes in a primary. The party ultimately won the lawsuit, establishing the proposition that it is the party, not the state, that ultimately gets to decide the rules for selecting the party's candidates.

What strikes me as most unusual about Virginia's system, based on the story you posted, is that it gives the incumbent rather than the party the option of deciding how a party nominee will be selected. This strikes me as very problematic.

In the recent decision it appears that both the party and the incumbent wanted a closed primary, so the ruling on those facts may well be correct. But, at least as I understand Tashjian, where the party and the incumbent disagree, it is the party's wishes that should control. Such a principle might well work to the disadvantage of the more moderate Republican state senators who agreed with Governor Warner to increase taxes.

But, just as in Connecticut in the Weicker era (or for that matter this year in the Lieberman-Lamont race), it might pose the opposition party's best chance of ultimately picking up seats, if Republicans succeed in ousting these more moderate incumbents and putting more rabid conservatives on the ballot.

Lou Bograd (electronic mail, December 8, 2006)