Ian, as someone who has been immersed in this issue for years, I have to congratulate you for presenting it so fairly and thoroughly. I'd like to emphasize a point you have made, the case was NOT decided upon the merits of the core legal argument presented by Gill, that an open primary excessively intrudes upon our "associational rights." The court ruled against Gill's contention that the Hawaii Party should not have to present evidence of actual harm.

You say the push for a closed primary within the party had been supported by the more "activist" wing of the party, with the elected officials (and, let me add, the unions) preferring to leave decisions to voters who take a Democratic ballot.

The influx of Bernie supporters has shaken that up, as Bernie favors open primaries. As a "Bernie guy" myself, I think the past attitude of Hawaii party activists rested upon an assumption that independents were "centrist," equidistant between the two major parties. That appears to be mistaken.