Who should vote in the primary of party’s election? It seems a simple question, but not in California. There was a movement afoot in that state’s Republican party, an effort to ensure that only Republicans were voting for Republicans come election day. Despite the “votes being there” to pass the measure, Jon Fleischman, the California Republican Vice Chair who proposed the change, has pulled it from consideration. If there were enough votes among the party to pass the reform proposal, why did Fleischman halt the reform effort? This is a question that is now being raised among several CA GOP faithful.

The nation’s most populous state is at the heart of a larger debate in the Grand Old Party as to what it means to be a Republican. Party members from Washington to Texas to California are facing elections in 2010 that boil down to a battle between the more conservative elements of the party reminding their fellow Republicans about the principles that the party was founded on and those in the moderate wing who want compromise in an effort to “grow” the party in new directions. California faces this choice in a U.S. Senate race between conservative Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and moderate former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina. Some in the state’s GOP are now speculating that it was the moderate wing lead by Fiorina and gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman who pressured Fleischman to withdraw the proposal.

Currently, one in every five California voters is registered as a “decline-to-state”, meaning they refuse to choose a party when registering to vote. When Fleischman proposed the reform initiative he said he thought it would strengthen the Republican party in California and would have encouraged some of the uncommitted voters to actually register as members of the GOP. He also made a point that if someone wanted to be a leader of the Republican party, as a nominee for Governor or Senate for instance, that, “they would believe the choosing of a nominee should be the work of Republicans.” However, in both California and in other states that face similar battles this cycle, these moderate GOP candidates must rely on the votes of the uncommitted voters in order to get elected. Is that what led to the cancelation of this reform initiative? Was Fleischman pressured by threats from the moderate wing of his party?

San Franciso Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci reported recently that, “big names in the party have privately warned us a ‘bloody battle’ will take place at the convention over this idea.” In his blog post announcing the cancelation of his plans to bring this proposal up for debate, Jon Fleischman cited that the plan had become, “extremely divisive due to a lot of misinformation being spread.” Was this misinformation campaign being guided by the Whitman/Fiorina segment of California Republicans? Whoever is responsible, what does it say of their commitment to their party, that they are willing to use the same sort of Chicago-style political tactics being employed by the Obama administration in Washington in order to keep a debate about this issue off the table at their September convention?