John Bambenek is at it again. He's "filed a complaint with" (i.e. written a letter to) the Michigan Attorney General complaining about the suggestion made by kos of Daily Kos that Michigan Democratic voters vote for Romney in Michigan's open primary. TheSquire pretty much eviscerated his complaint by looking at what Michigan law actually says, as does Adam B.
I'm not posting about the silliness that is Mr. Bambenek's latest attempt at notability, but rather about some things he's said elsewhere. He is also a "freelance columnist" at a Kankakee paper, where he wrote this about a possible Illinois Constitutional Convention:
Open ballot access should be implemented. Every person should have equal ballot access regardless of political affiliation or nonaffiliation and a true democracy requires nothing less. The freedom to vote does not mean much if there is no real choice.
So I find that difficult to reconcile with what Mr. Bambenek says here:
FYI, open primaries are unconstitutional, see:
NAACP v. Alabama
Gitlow v. New York
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut
Miller v. Brown
So he's arguing that open primaries are unconstitutional based on federal cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and therefore based on the U.S. Constitution.
But then there's this:
In theory, parties could open up of their own accord, but forcing by law is unconstitutional... so fine, to be strictly technical, a legally-imposed open primary is unconstitutional which is exactly what you came up with.
On one hand, he's arguing that we need an Illinois state constitutional convention to require open primaries, but on the other hand, he's arguing that the U.S. Constitution prohibits making open primaries mandatory.
Inconsistency, thy name is Bambenek.
(Cross-posted from Narciblog.)