Nigeria slashes fuel prices over strike
Press TV – January 16, 2012
Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan has ordered a decrease in fuel prices in a bid to end a nationwide strike heading into a second week.
President Jonathan said that the government decided to reduce petrol prices by 30 percent to 97 naira (about 60 US cents) per liter “after due consideration and consultations with state governors and the leadership of the National Assembly.”
“[The] government will continue to pursue full deregulation of the downstream petroleum sector,” he said in a televised address on Monday.
Jonathan made the remarks after the latest round of talks between the government and trade unions ended with no sign of a compromise over the removal of fuel subsidies.
On January 1, the government hiked petrol prices to more than double from 65 naira (40 cents) per liter to about 150 naira (92 cents).
The decision sparked nationwide strikes and protests that paralyzed the oil-rich country since January 9. The strikes also cost the economy billions of dollars in lost revenue.
The unions on Sunday vowed in a statement to continue the strikes and protests if the government did not reverse its decision on the subsidies.
The unions had demanded the government to restore an estimated USD 8 billion a year in fuel subsidies, but the government only promised to slightly lower the prices.
Nigeria produces over 2 million barrels of crude per day and is a key supplier to the US, Europe, and Asia.
The developments come as concerns over Nigerian oil supplies have pushed up global oil prices.
~
Occupy Nigeria – Week 2!
FlorinSandu | January 16, 2012
Surprising enough for many, the strike over the removal of fuel subsidy is entering its second week today despite the announcement made early this morning by president Goodluck Jonathan through national newspapers that the official price of fuel is now 97 naira, down from 141 naira.
It seems that labor unions and civil society activists are holding their ground for now and respecting one of the main mottos of the Occupy Nigeria movement: “down to 65 or no deal!”. At the same time, the various scattered episodes of street violence across the country has made the unions call off street protests while still continuing with the strike.
The FG , in an attempt to prevent more street protests in Lagos today, has sent military troops and created various checkpoints across the important meeting points of protesters throughout the past week, such as the Ojota area and Ikorodu road. However, protesters are now meeting at the famous Afrika Shrine in Ikeja to continue with their protest in a peaceful manner.
The president is expected to adress the nation today, and rumours of the strike coming to an end soon are in the air.
Talks to end Nigeria fuel crisis fail
Press TV – January 15, 2012
Talks between Nigerian government and union leaders over the state’s controversial decision of removing the fuel subsidies have ended without an agreement.
Union leaders held talks with government officials in the capital Abuja over the weekend to reverse the decision on the elimination of fuel subsidies.
The negotiations came after unions temporarily suspended protests sparked by soaring petrol prices.
The talks were also meant to end a week-long strike over skyrocketing fuel prices that has virtually shut down the country.
The unions had warned that they would continue protests and threatened to halt oil production activities if the government did not reverse its decision.
Labor union leaders and government officials are now expected to hold further talks.
On January 1, the Nigerian government announced that it had eliminated fuel subsidies, a measure that led to the doubling of petrol prices and transport fares. Fuel prices increased from 65 naira (40 cents) per liter to at least 140 naira (86 cents) at gas stations.
Over the past few days, tens of thousands of people took to the streets across Nigeria to protest the government’s decision.
Japan not ready for Iran oil sanctions
Press TV – January 15, 2012
Despite an earlier pledge by Japan to join US sanctions against Iran’s oil exports, the country’s foreign minister says no final decision has been made on this issue.
Koichiro Gemba’s remarks came after Japan’s Finance Minister Jun Azumi indicated that Tokyo was falling in line with US demands to impose sanctions on Iran’s oil sector.
“The United States would like to impose sanctions. We believe it is necessary to be extremely circumspect about this matter,” Gemba told a news conference along with his visiting French counterpart, Alain Juppe.
The Japanese foreign minister said his country has reduced its dependence on Iranian crude over the last five years and Iran’s oil consignments currently make up around one-tenth of Japan’s oil imports.
“We are examining whether there is any advantage in a further reduction. But it is important to know what impact any reduction would have on the price of crude,” the Japanese minister added.
On December 31, US President Barack Obama signed into law fresh economic sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank in a bid to punish foreign companies and banks that do business with the Iranian financial institutions, including the purchase of the country’s crude oil.
The bill requires foreign financial firms to make a choice between doing business with Iran’s Central Bank and oil sector or with the US financial sector.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner launched a tour of East Asian nations last week to convince major importers of Iranian oil, including South Korea, China, India, and Japan to cut Iran oil imports.
Geithner came away empty-handed from Beijing, which refused to join the sanctions against Iran’s oil sector.
India, which buys about USD 12 billion worth of oil from Iran a year, also said it had not told refiners to reduce supplies, while South Korea said it would ask the US to allow it not to cut imports.
The United States, however, continues mounting pressure on foreign firms to stop buying Iranian crude to force Tehran to halt its nuclear energy program.
US sanctions, as well as unilateral embargoes imposed on Iran’s energy and financial sectors by Britain and Canada came after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its latest report on Iran’s nuclear program on November 8, accusing Tehran of seeking to weaponize its nuclear technology.
Tehran argues that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the IAEA, it has the right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful objectives.
Any conflict on Iran is a direct threat to Russia’s security – Rogozin
RT | 13 January, 2012
The escalating conflict around Iran should be contained by common effort, otherwise the promising Arab Spring will grow into a “scorching Arab Summer,” says Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s deputy prime minister and former envoy to NATO.
“Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,” stressed Rogozin.
Dmitry Rogozin, who served as Russia’s special envoy to NATO in 2008-2011, was appointed deputy prime minister by Vladimir Putin in December. On Friday he was bidding farewell to his NATO colleagues in the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels.
As for Syria, if NATO persists in interfering in its affairs, a catastrophe will be hard to avoid, said Rogozin, talking to journalists on the premises of the Russian mission to the alliance.
“The example of Libya should have cooled everybody down in matters dealing with foreign civil wars,” he said, stressing that this is his personal point of view.
“Syria must be left alone and the sides to the conflict must be assisted in breaking the stand-off and starting negotiations. No one must interfere with Syria. This is dangerous,” added Rogozin.
The West’s attempts to improve democracy in the Middle East and North Africa have resulted in Islamists coming to power. It is now up to the West to decide how comfortable they feel with neighbors who determine their politics with Sharia law, says Rogozin.
“If we add the escalating tensions around Iran to the situation in Syria and the consequences of the Libyan war, then the upcoming ‘scorching’ Arab Summer, which is following the Arab Spring, will hardly be to anyone’s taste.”
Russia’s response will make AMD ‘a waste of money’
Despite his recent promotion, Rogozin is still in charge of Russia-NATO discussions on anti-missile defense (AMD) issues.
A legal binding that the European and American missile defense systems will not target Russia has not been taken off the table, Rogozin pointed out.
“It seems strange that it is Russia who is required to show flexibility. This is not our project. If an architect is building a house, it is up to him to offer a design which would not violate property rights, area design and neighbors’ interests. So it is our US colleagues who should demonstrate miraculous flexibility to ensure that their AMD system does not violate the interests of other countries if it is to be located in Europe.”
Rogozin also called on European leaders to stop being “political puppets” in the AMD game, adding that everyone should stand for their own interests, not for some “Atlantic solidarity.”
If Moscow’s position is ignored and the range of the US anti-missile defense system covers the European part of Russia, this will be considered a situation requiring defensive action.
“I will certainly ensure Russia will give a corresponding technical response if the AMD system endangers our national interests. This will result in the American AMD being considered a waste of money,” said Rogozin.
Russia has everything needed to annihilate any attempt “to strip” its strategic potential, he added. This also means the era of imported weapons is coming to an end.
In a farewell gesture, Rogozin said he was considering planting a tree in the alliance’s headquarters. Symbolically enough, this would be a poplar, or “topol” in Russian, which brings up associations with Russia’s modern intercontinental ballistic missiles Topol-M.
But NATO replied that planting a tree within the headquarters perimeter “is not possible,” so the tree will have to be planted nearby.
Condemn Use of U.S. Military to Escort Scab Grain Ship in Longview WA
Philly Workers’ Voice Blog
San Francisco Labor Council Resolution – Adopted January 9, 2012 by unanimous vote
Whereas, EGT, a joint venture led by multinational grain giant Bunge, agreed to hire union Longshoremen when accepting millions in taxpayer funds to build a huge new grain exporting terminal at the Port of Longview WA, but once the terminal was built has tried to void its contract and refused to hire ILWU labor. With the use of brutal police and courts and 220 arrests in the 225 member ILWU Local 21, EGT has managed to get enough scab grain across picket lines into the new terminal that EGT appears poised to load a ship soon in violation of their agreement with the port; and
Whereas, a solidarity caravan of thousands of union members and community activists – endorsed by ILWU Locals 10 and 21, the S.F. and Cowlitz County (Longview) labor councils and many others – is being organized to support our brothers and sisters in Longview, for an emergency mass protest when requested to do so, to confront union-busting by Wall Street on the Waterfront; and
Whereas, according to Longshore & Shipping News, within a month, the empty grain ship will be escorted by armed U.S. Coast Guard vessels and helicopters, from the mouth of the Columbia River to the EGT facility. The Coast Guard is an integral part of the US Armed Forces, operating under the Department of Homeland Security (except when engaged in combat operations abroad, as it did in Iraq, when it operates under the Navy); and
Whereas, this is the first known use of the US military to intervene in a labor dispute on the side of management in 40 years – not since the Great 1970 Postal Strike when President Nixon called out the Army and National Guard in an (unsuccessful) attempt to break the strike. The use of the Armed Forces against labor unions is something you expect to see in a police state. This is part of a disturbing trend where the US military, acting as enforcers for the 1%, is poised to be used against our own people, as exemplified by the new law allowing the military to imprison US citizens indefinitely without trial; and
Whereas, now the US military, which has been oppressing, bombing and threatening other nations [a military that’s paid for with the workers’ taxes] is now being used against us, against American working people and our unions. To quote ILWU international President McEllrath: “ILWU’s labor dispute with EGT is symbolic of what is wrong in the United States today. Corporations, no matter how harmful the conduct to society, enjoy full state and federal protection while workers and the middle class get treated as criminals for trying to protect their jobs and communities.”
Therefore be it Resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council condemn in the strongest terms the announced use of US Armed Forces (Coast Guard) to provide an armed sea and air escort for the empty grain ship, which is due to call at the new EGT grain terminal, Port of Longview, Washington, to load scab grain for export to Asia. We condemn this use of the military as part of a union-busting campaign to lower the cost of labor on the waterfront and destroy the union;
And be it further Resolved, that the San Francisco Labor Council join with allies in other cities on the West Coast to participate in any press conferences and demonstrations that are organized to denounce this use of the military to intervene in a labor dispute on the side of Wall Street on the Waterfront;
And be it finally Resolved, that the Council circulate this resolution to affiliated unions, Bay Area labor councils, the California Labor Federation, as well as labor bodies in Oregon and Washington, for concurrence and action, and urge labor leaders including Richard Trumka and Mary Kay Henry to take a strong stand against this brazen assault on our labor rights and civil liberties.
Iran shrugs EU oil ban, looks to Asia
Al Akhbar, Reuters, AFP | January 5, 2012
Iran shrugged off the impact of new European and American sanctions targeting its oil sector a day after EU governments agreed to move ahead with an oil embargo on Tehran.
The National Iranian Oil Company said demand was so high for Iranian oil that it would have no trouble selling it elsewhere.
“We hope that Iran’s oil is not sanctioned officially but if so we have taken the needed arrangements,” the company’s director of international affairs, Mohsen Qamsari, was quoted as saying in a report on Iran’s oil ministry website.
The 27-nation European Union struck “an agreement in principle” to ban Iranian oil imports on Wednesday, according to an EU diplomat in Brussels.
Negotiations were ongoing to determine when the ban should start, though France is pushing for an announcement at an EU foreign ministers’ meeting at the end of January.
Objections to an EU oil embargo on Iran were reportedly dropped, most notably by Greece, which relies heavily on Iranian oil imports and fears repercussions on its debt-ridden economy.
Details of reassurances that won Greece’s support for the sanctions were not disclosed.
Washington welcomed the EU’s decision to press ahead with new sanctions on Iran.
“These (EU measures) are the kinds of steps that we would like to see not just from our close allies and partners in places like Europe but from countries around the world,” US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.
“We do believe that this is consistent with tightening the noose on Iran economically,” she said. “We think that the place to get Iran’s attention is with regard to its oil sector.”
Iran exports about 18 percent of its oil to the European Union, making the bloc the second-biggest destination after China. Oil revenues make up 80 percent of Iran’s foreign currency earnings.
But four of Iran’s top five oil export destinations are in Asia, giving weight to claims by Iran’s leaders and its oil company that it can easily offset an EU ban by simply shifting exports to Asia.
Japan and Turkey are seeking US waivers that would still enable them to import oil from OPEC’s second largest oil producer.
To that end, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will travel to China and Japan next week to discuss sanctions “coordination,” but a deal with Tokyo is unlikely to be achieved, a Japanese government source speaking on condition of anonymity told Reuters.
Beijing on Wednesday said it opposed “unilateral sanctions” against Iran. But Washington is hoping that, at the very least, China will extract deep discounts if it continues to buy Iranian oil. … Full article
Favourable Verdict for Venezuelan Government on Exxon Nationalisation Case
By Rachael Boothroyd | Venezuelanalysis | January 2, 2011
Caracas – The Venezuelan government has described its arbitration hearing at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) as a “successful defence” after it was told to pay just US$907 million to the Texas-based oil company Exxon in return for the nationalisation of one of its projects in Venezuela.
In an official statement, Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA confirmed that of the US$907 now owed to Exxon, it would be obliged to pay just $255 million, after subtracting various debts owed by the corporation from the amount.
According to figures from PDVSA, the oil company had debts of US$191 million which will be subtracted, as well as US$160 million that the ICC awarded to PDVSA in counterclaims. The US$300 million in PDVSA’s New York bank account which was frozen by Exxon following the nationalisation will also be deducted.
“If ExxonMobil had been willing to accept a reasonable compensation, which the arbitration tribunal has confirmed, arbitration would not have been necessary” read an official statement released this Monday by PDVSA.
US oil giant Exxon withdrew from Venezuela in 2007 when the Chavez government effectively nationalised the oil rich Orinoco river belt. At the time, Exxon had a 41.6% stake worth $US750 million in the Venezuelan oil fields, specifically in the Cerro Negro project.
Since then, both Exxon and the Venezuelan government have been locked in a legal battle, with Exxon originally demanding over US$12 billion in compensation – a sum previously described as an “abusive amount” by Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez, who also condemned Exxon for demanding over ten times what it had invested in the project.
“This (the verdict) confirms that the amount demanded at the beginning of the case, 12 billion dollars plus accrued interest since 2007, was completely exaggerated and beyond all logic,” continued the statement.
Aside from the ICC’s recent verdict, the US oil company also has a claim pending for the same nationalisation with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (CIADI).
PDVSA has stated that should Exxon continue with the second arbitration, then the Venezuelan government will “take all necessary steps to defend itself, as PDVSA has done in this arbitration case with the ICC”. PDVSA now has 60 days to pay the compensation in full.
China rejects US-led sanctions on Iran
Press TV – January 4, 2012
China has voiced strong opposition to the US-led push for unilateral sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, reiterating that Tehran’s nuclear issue must be resolved diplomatically.
“China has consistently believed that sanctions are not the correct way to ease tensions or resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a news briefing in Beijing on Wednesday.
“The correct path is dialogue and negotiations. China opposes putting domestic law above international law to impose unilateral sanctions on another country,” he said.
Hong also defended China’s oil and trade ties with Iran and criticized the Western sanctions that could frustrate such relations.
“China and Iran have normal and transparent trade and energy exchanges that do not contravene UN Security Council resolutions. The dealings in question should not be affected (by sanctions),” the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman pointed out.
On December 31, US President Barack Obama signed into law fresh economic sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank in a bid to punish foreign companies and banks that do business with the Iranian financial institution.
The legislation requires foreign financial firms to make a choice between doing business with Iran’s Central Bank and oil sector or with the US financial sector.
It will not, however, go into effect for six months in order to provide oil markets with time to adjust.
It also includes a “waiver” allowing the president to suspend the sanctions in case he decides that the anti-Iran attempt will adversely impact national security interests of the US.
The inclusion of the “waiver” in the bill reflects major concerns among American lawmakers that the bullying approach of the US against the Islamic Republic will backfire across the globe.
Meanwhile, energy experts say the sanctions could lead to a major hike in crude oil prices and disrupt the interests of the US and its allies that depend on oil imports from Iran.
The United States has already barred its own banks from dealing with the Iranian Central Bank.
Glenn Greenwald presents 25 reasons to register as a Republican
Glenn Greenwald:
The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama … holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.
Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed “a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes… Full article at Salon.com
~
In almost half of all states the only way that you can voice your opposition to these despicable policies is to register as a Republican 30 days (in some states less) prior to the primary election. As a registered Republican you have the privilege of voting for the candidate that has taken a contrary position on all of these issues, Ron Paul.
You can also help send Romney or Gingrich packing as an added perk. But be sure to re-register as a Republican in time.
From The Center for Voting and Democracy:
Here are the types of Primaries in the states
Open primary:
Voters of any affiliation may vote for the candidate of whatever party they choose. Some of these open primary states may not have party registration at all; however open primary states do prohibit voters in X primary from going on to participate in Y’s primary or runoff. Yet, this prohibition can be difficult to enforce.
The crucial issue in open primary states is “crossover” voting, which can contribute to the victory of a nominee closer to the center or radically further away. It most often involves members of Party Y (either in an area dominated by Party X or when Party Y’s nominee is a foregone conclusion) voting for the Party X candidate whose views are the most reconciliable with their own. Though this brings the race closer to the center, Democratic and Republican party establishments generally dislike open primaries.
Occasionally, there are concerns about sabotage, or “party crashing,” which involves voting for the most polarizing candidate in the other party’s primary to bolster the chances that it will nominate someone “unelectable” to general election voters in November. An example is Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary.
Closed primary:
Only voters registered with a given party can vote in the primary. Parties may have the option to invite unaffiliated voters to participate. Typically, however, independent voters are left out of the process entirely unless they choose to sacrifice their freedom of association for the opportunity to have their say in who represents them. Closed primaries may also exacerbate the radicalization that often occurs at the primary stage, when candidates must cater to the “base,” yet the “fringe” of the party are typically more motivated to turn out.
In a few states, independent voters may register with a party on Election Day. However, they must remain registered with that party until they change their affiliation again. A couple of states even allow voters registered with one party to switch their registration at the polls to vote in another party’s primary. In these rare instances, a closed primary can more closely resemble open or semi-closed primaries than the closed primaries of other states.
Semi-closed primary:
Independents may choose which party primary to vote in, but voters registered with a party may only vote in that party’s primary. The middle ground between the exclusion of independents in a closed primary and the free-for-all of open primaries, the semi-closed, primary mostly eliminates the concern about members registered to other parties “raiding” another’s election.
Of course people who align with Party X may theoretically still vote in Party Y’s primary if they just register as independent, but it appears most voters do not think that way. Moreover, the potential for sabotage through tactical party registration is also present in the strictest of closed primaries.
Top Two/ non-partisan primary:
This method puts all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters then face off in the general election. This type of system is used in California, Louisiana, and Washington, as well as in Nebraska for non-partisan election such as for the state’s legislature.
Note on terminology: “Top Two” primaries are often referred to as “open primaries,” but that terminology has long been used in reference to the type of party primaries in which all voters may choose in which party’s primary to participate. By contrast, the “Top Two” system eliminates party primaries altogether. It is more accurately described as “nonpartisan primaries.” It would be more precise and less confusing to at least call them “nonpartisan open primaries.”
The following is a running list of states by types of party primary, updated December 2011:
Here are the individual state rules
| State | Closed | Open | Semi-Closed | Source | Remarks | Presidential Primary or Caucus |
| Alabama | x | Ala. Code § 17-13- 7 | Open | |||
| Alaska | R | D | Alaska Stat. §§ 15.25.014, 15.25.060 | Parties select who may vote in their primaries. To vote in the GOP primary, a voter must be registered as a Republican 30 days before Election Day. | Open | |
| Arizona | x | Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. No. I99-025 (R99-049) | Arizona uses a “Presidential Preference” system instead of a traditional primary system. Voters must be registered for a party in order to receive a ballot. | Closed | ||
| Arkansas | x | Ark. Code Ann. § § 7-7-306- 308 | Open | |||
| California | N/A | N/A | N/A | Proposition 14; CA S.B. 28 | California uses the “Top Two” Plan. On June 8, 2010 voters passed Prop. 14 to create a nonpartisan blanket primary system in which all candidates are listed on the same primary ballot and the top two vote recipients face off in the general election. | R: Closed; D: Semi-Closed |
| Colorado | x | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-7-201 | Closed, but unaffiliated voters may, however, change their party registration up until Election Day. Affiliated voters must change affiliation 29 days prior to the election. | Closed | ||
| Connecticut | x | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-431, 9-59 | Parties may choose to allow for semi-closed elections if they make a change to their party rules; however, as of now, the primaries remain closed. | Closed | ||
| District of Columbia | x | D.C. Code Ann. § 1-1001.09(g)(1); 1-1001.05(b)(1) | Closed primary for D.C. elected officials such as Delegate, Mayor, Chairman, members of Council, and Board of Education. | Closed | ||
| Delaware | x | Del. Code Ann. § 3110 | Closed | |||
| Florida | x | Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.021 | Closed | |||
| Georgia | x | R: Semi-Closed; D: Open | ||||
| Hawaii | x | Haw. Rev. Stat § 12-31 | No party affiliation at registration. | Open | ||
| Idaho | R | D | Idaho Code Ann. § 34-904A | Until 2011, all Idaho primaries were open. After the GOP obtained a declaratory judgment that mandating open primaries violated freedom of association and was thus unconstitutional in Idaho Republican Party v. Ysura, the legislature passed a bill allowing parties to choose which type of primary they use. Democrats have chosen a semi-closed primary; unaffiliated voters may register a party at the polls on election day, but they are bound to that party affiliation at the next election. | R: Closed; D: Semi-Closed | |
| Illinois | x | 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-43, -45 | Voters declare their party affiliation at the polling place to a judge who must then announce it “in a distinct tone of voice, sufficiently loud to be heard by all persons in the polling place.” If there is no “challenge,” the voter is given the primary ballot for his or her declared party. | Semi-Closed | ||
| Indiana | x | Ind. Code §§ 3-10- 1-6, 1-9 | Classified as a “modified open” primary.” A voter must have voted in the last general election for a majority of the nominees of the party holding the primary, or if that voter did not vote in the last general election, that voter must vote for a majority of the nominees of that party who is holding the primary. However, there is really no way to enforce this, and cross-over occurs often. The same modified open primary is used for the presidential primary. | Open | ||
| Iowa | x | Voters may change party on the day of the primary election. | Closed | |||
| Kansas | R | D | Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-3301 | Federal courts declared KS law unconstitutional and now the parties decide who will vote in their primaries. In 2012, Republicans will hold closed primaries; however, they will allow unaffiliated voters to register Republican on election day. Democrats will allow both affiliated and unaffiliated voters to vote. | Closed | |
| Kentucky | x | Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 116.055 | Closed | |||
| Louisiana | x | Act 570 | The congressional primaries changed from a closed system to an open system with the passage of Act 570, effective January 1, 2011 | Closed | ||
| Maine | x | Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, §§ 111, 340 | Closed | |||
| Maryland | x | Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law §§ 3- 303, 8-202 | Parties may choose to hold open primaries, but must notify the State Board of Elections 6 months prior. | Closed | ||
| Massachusetts | x | Mass. Gen. Laws ch.53 §37 | Semi-Closed | |||
| Michigan | x | Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.575; Public Act 163 | Voters do not have to declare a political party to vote; but must vote for all one party once they enter the voting booth. | Closed | ||
| Minnesota | x | Minn. Stat. § 204D.08 | Open | |||
| Mississippi | x | Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-575 | No registration by party affiliation. However, in order to participate in the primary, a voter must support the nominations made in that primary. | Open | ||
| Missouri | x | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.397 | R: Semi-Closed; D: Open | |||
| Montana | x | Mont. Code Ann. § 13-10-301 | No party registration in MT. Each voter has the choice which ballot to use on Election Day. | Open | ||
| Nebraska | x | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-702 | Partisan primaires are closed, meaning congressional primaries are closed; however unaffiliated voters may vote for a candidate of a particular party. | Semi-Closed | ||
| Nevada | x | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 293.287, 293.518 | Closed | |||
| New Hampshire | x | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 659:14 | Closed primaries in effect; but the statute allows for semi-closed primary if that party’s rules allow for it. | Semi-Closed | ||
| New Jersey | x | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:31-13.2 | Closed | |||
| New Mexico | x | N.M. Stat. §1-12-7.2 | Parties may choose to allow for semi-closed elections if they make a change to their party rules; however, as of now, the primaries remain closed. | Closed | ||
| New York | x | N.Y. Elec. Law § 5-304 | Closed | |||
| North Carolina | x | N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-59, -119 | State law provides for closed primaries, but both parties have opened them up to unaffiliated voters, who may choose on Election Day. | Semi-Closed | ||
| North Dakota | x | N.D. Cent. Code, § 40-21-06 | No party registration. | R: Closed; D: Open | ||
| Ohio | x | Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3513.19 | Voters’ right to vote in the primary may be challenged on the basis that they are not affiliated with the party for whom they are voting in the primary. | Closed | ||
| Oklahoma | x | Okla. Stat. §26-1-104 | Closed | |||
| Oregon | x | Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 247.203, 254.365 | Closed | |||
| Pennsylvania | x | 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2812 | Closed | |||
| Rhode Island | x | R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 17-9.1-23 | An unaffiliated voter for the past 90 days may designate his or her party affiliation on election day by voting for that party in the primary. | Semi-Closed | ||
| South Carolina | x | S.C.Code Ann. §§ 7-11-10 | A U.S. District Court judge ruled inGreenville County Republican Party Executive Committee v. South Carolina, that South Carolina’s open primary is constitutional. | Open | ||
| South Dakota | R | D | S.D. Codified Laws § 12-6-26 | Parties may choose to allow for semi-closed elections. Democrats have opened up their primaries to allow unaffiliated voters to vote. | R: Closed; D: Open | |
| Tennessee | x | Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-115 | Voters must affiliate with a party, but may choose to affiliate with that party on the election day. In Tennessee, voters are not registered with party affiliations. | Closed | ||
| Texas | x | Tex Elec. Code Ann. § 172.086 | No registration by party; voters are not held to affilation of past election. Each year, voters have a clean slate and must choose on primary day whether to vote by a party affilation or as unaffiliated; voters are held to that affiliation in the runoff. For the presidential primary, it is the same system as of December 19, 2011. | Open | ||
| Utah | R | D | Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-2-107.5 | Parties may choose to open up the primary. Currently, Republicans have a closed primary while Democrats have opened up the primary. | R: Closed; D: Open | |
| Vermont | x | Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2363 | No registration by party. For presidential primary, voters must declare which ballots they want. | Open | ||
| Virginia | x | Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-530 | If a primary is called, it will be open. | Open | ||
| Washington | N/A | N/A | N/A | Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.52.112, 29A.36.171 | Similar to California’s Top Two system. | R: Closed; D: Semi-Closed |
| West Virginia | x | W. Va. Code § 3-5- 4 | Technically a closed system, but all parties allow any voter who is not registered with an official party to request their ballot for the Primary Election. | Semi-Closed | ||
| Wisconsin | x | Wis. Stat. § 6.80 | Voters may vote for only one party, but do not have to be affiliated with any party before coming into vote on Election Day. | Open | ||
| Wyoming | x | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-5-212 | A voter can change his or her party affiliation on election day. |
Featured Video
Deep Dive Intel Briefing 6/20/2026 Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Because no animal reservoir has been found for SARS-CoV-2, it cannot properly be termed a zoonosis.* Should we call it a labnosis? And what does that mean?
By Meryl Nass, MD | July 12, 2021
After a year and a half of seeking but not finding SARS-2 in any wildlife anywhere (apart from domesticated or zoo animals that appear to have caught it from humans) is it time to say, yes, it didn’t just escape from a lab. It was created, built, assembled in a lab. Or many labs
Coronavirus scientists have been constructing new viruses out of bits and pieces of other viruses for a long time.
Why did they do it? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Story the Media — and the Government — Don’t Want You to Hear
- Deep Dive Intel Briefing 6/20/2026 Lt Col Daniel Davis
- The Targeted Assassination of Studies Showing Vaccines Cause Injury
- BMJ Probe Into Excess Mortality Study Drags On for Two Years With No Resolution
- Securing Peace with Iran Compels Trump to Divorce Israel
- Old Iraq war architects rise up to wag finger at Trump’s Iran deal
- Strait of Hormuz closed over Israeli aggression on Lebanon
- Keir Starmer arson mysteries multiply
- IRAN WAR “ON PAUSE” – w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen
- Zelensky threatens to attack Belarus
- If Americans Knew
- Israelis Invaded Lebanon And Then Cried Victim When Their Soldiers Got Killed
- FARA Docs: Israel is Spying On Millions Of Christian Americans In Their Churches
- Why US presidents from both parties end up cursing Benjamin Netanyahu
- Israel Asked Facebook to Censor Iran War Content, Internal Documents Show
- Deaths in Gaza undercounted, possibly by 100s of thousands; “Psychopath” Ben-Gvir talks trash – Daily Update
- UNICEF: “Trauma is woven into the very fabric of childhood in Gaza”
- 15 articles a day: The extent of the Israeli army’s media interference
- Greek Orthodox Patriarchate denounces Israeli seizure of church land in Jerusalem
- How Hillel International uses antisemitism training and ‘campus climate’ concerns to attack Palestine solidarity
- Old Iraq war architects rise up against Trump’s Iran deal
- No Tricks Zone
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
Aletho News 