Opinion editor's note: This article was submitted on behalf of the leaders of several Minnesota organizations. They are listed below.
On March 3, Minnesota voters have an important decision to make.
But before they can decide who they will support in the state's first presidential primary in 28 years, they will have to decide if they even want to participate in the primary in the first place.
This spring, Minnesotans are returning to a presidential primary after 28 years of using the caucus system to select their preferred presidential candidates. As you may recall, four years ago, the caucus system was a case study in organized chaos, and it launched a groundswell of support for moving back to the simpler primary voting process. Rather than dedicate hours of a day to slowly winnow down platform planks and candidates, now Minnesota voters simply have to show up at their polling place and cast a vote.
But there is a catch.
The law that brought the primary back also included a provision that will require election judges to add which party you choose to support into a database. This database will then be provided to the leaders of the state's four major parties. (In addition to the DFL and Republican parties, the Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party and the Legal Marijuana Now Party are each considered to be major parties given their results in recent elections.) And with this new database, there are no strings attached for how parties are allowed to use it.
Want to use it for party-building? Sure. Want to sell it to the highest bidder and let them do with it what they will? No problem. Want to post it online so that everyone in Minnesota can know which party you voted for in the primary? Not out of the question.
While the state is home to many proud partisans, it is also home to an even greater number of people who prefer to keep their politics close to their vest. Most businesses and nonprofits have learned not to wade too deep in on political issues because of the blowback they could receive from the half of society that likely disagrees with any hot button issue. Journalists and judges are similarly bound by the appearances of impartiality. And imagine how different family holiday gatherings would be if an internet connection was all that separated your voting preference from becoming the focus of dinnertime conversation?