Mark Caserta: Making the Case for Reopening the West Virginia Republican Primary – The Comprehensive Case Overview

15 Aug

THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

Facts & Numbers Over Emotion

This is a series of exhibits making the case for reopening West Virginia’s Republican primary. Each exhibit will produce facts with supportive data and is open to respectful rebuttal and factual dissent.

Opening:

Why I’m Raising the Question

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be making the case for reopening West Virginia’s Republican primary.

Before I begin, I want to make one thing very clear.

I am not questioning the motives of those who support a closed primary. I believe many sincere conservatives adopted that position because they wanted to protect the integrity of our elections and the Republican Party.

I respect that.

My purpose is simply to ask whether the facts and the mathematics still support that policy in today’s West Virginia.

I’ll present official voter registration data, explain my reasoning, and cite my sources.

If someone presents evidence that proves my conclusions are wrong, I’ll gladly consider it. My goal isn’t to win an argument. My goal is to arrive at the right answer.

The strength of our Republic depends on our willingness to follow the facts wherever they lead.

I hope you’ll keep an open mind during this series, so we examine this issue together.

Tomorrow: The numbers have changed—and they tell an important story.

THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

Facts & Numbers Over Emotion – Mark Allen Caserta

Exhibit #1

The Numbers Have Changed

Every good decision begins with good information.

According to the latest voter registration data from the West Virginia Secretary of State, as of July 31, 2026, West Virginia has:

West Virginia Voter Registration Totals | WV Secretary of State

🔴 524,202 Republicans

🔵 326,497 Democrats

⚪ 304,775 voters with no party affiliation

🟢 48,665 voters registered with other political parties

That means 353,440 West Virginians—more than 29% of all registered voters (29.35%, to be exact)—are registered outside the two major parties.

Those numbers matter.

West Virginia has changed dramatically over the past two decades. Republicans are now the state’s largest voting bloc by a wide margin.

Yet 3 out of 10 registered voters have chosen not to affiliate with either major party. Many have simply chosen principle over party.

Those favoring a closed primary are concerned that voters outside the Republican Party may use their primary vote strategically to help nominate a weaker Republican candidate, rather than simply voting for the candidate they genuinely believe would best represent them in government.

Disenfranchising a particular voter bloc because of what “may or may not” happen doesn’t seem logically sound to me—especially when that bloc represents such a significant percentage of West Virginia’s registered voters.

Additionally, we need to examine the mathematics behind that concern.

With 524,202 registered Republicans compared with 326,497 registered Democrats, Republicans hold a registration advantage of 197,705 voters. Registration totals alone cannot tell us how voters will participate in any particular primary, but they do provide important perspective when evaluating the concern that Democrats could substantially influence Republican nominations.

There is another factor to consider.

If unaffiliated voters who share constitutional, conservative values are permitted to participate in the Republican primary and choose to do so, they would further expand the pool of voters from which Republican nominees are selected making it even more mathematically difficult for Democrats to influence the outcome.

That raises what I believe is the more important question:

Should our focus be on fearing how someone might vote—or on giving more conservative-minded West Virginians a reason to vote with us?

If we’re going to discuss whether Republican primaries should remain closed, we should begin with today’s facts—not yesterday’s assumptions.

Our goal should be to attract those 353,440 potential voters—not estrange them. The risk of disenfranchising and alienating nearly 30 percent of the electorate far exceeds the risk posed by an arguably much smaller percentage of Democrats who might use their primary vote strategically to help nominate a weaker Republican candidate.

Tomorrow – Exhibit #2: Who are the 353,440?

THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

Facts & Numbers Over Emotion – Mark Allen Caserta

Exhibit #2

Who Are the 353,440 West Virginia Voters Registered Outside the Two Major Parties?

Linda Killian, journalist, political analyst, and author of The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents, has written extensively about the influence of independent and swing voters:

“These are the swing voters. Disaffected with the two parties but deciding elections all over the country.”

— Linda Killian, The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents

The Pew Research Center has similarly observed:

“Independents are the swing voters in every presidential election.”

One of the biggest misconceptions in this debate is that voters outside the two major parties are somehow “the opposition.”

That simply isn’t true.

I’ve followed political campaigns throughout my adult life, and major political campaigns routinely place tremendous emphasis on winning independent and swing voters.

Now, to be clear, independent voters are not automatically swing voters. But independents can include persuadable voters who help determine the outcome of closely contested elections. A political party interested in expanding its coalition therefore has good reason to compete for voters outside its formal membership rather than simply assuming they belong to the opposition.

How often do we hear about presidential candidates fighting to win the “swing states”?

More now than ever, I believe many voters outside the two major parties share constitutional and conservative values but have become disillusioned with the parties themselves. Battles, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies within both major parties have given voters plenty of reasons to question party loyalty.

We’re seeing this now more than ever.

Among those 353,440 West Virginians registered outside the Republican and Democrat parties are undoubtedly people with a wide range of political philosophies. They include voters who identify as conservatives, libertarians and independents, as well as citizens who simply prefer political independence rather than adopting the entire platform offered by either major party.

Choosing not to join the Republican Party does not necessarily mean someone has abandoned conservative principles. A voter can support conservative candidates and policies without choosing to put an “R” beside his or her name.

Some also feel it is unreasonable to require a voter to change political affiliation and become a “card-carrying” Republican simply to vote for the candidate they believe would represent them best. Closing the Republican primary to these voters risks leaving some feeling excluded or alienated—and potentially far less inclined to support Republican candidates in the general election.

Supporters of a closed primary argue that restricting participation to registered Republicans protects the party’s ability to choose its own nominees and reduces the possibility that voters outside the party could strategically influence the outcome.

More specifically, the concern is that some registered Democrats might forgo voting for their own party’s preferred nominee and instead use their primary vote to support a weaker Republican candidate—one they believe would be easier for the Democrat nominee to defeat in the general election.

That concern deserves consideration.

But so does the consequence of addressing that possibility by excluding hundreds of thousands of West Virginians who are registered outside the two major parties. In Exhibit #3, we’ll examine how that exclusion changes the mathematics of the voting equation.

At face value, requiring Republican Party membership to participate in a Republican primary may seem reasonable. But we are talking about locking out a group representing nearly 30 percent of West Virginia’s overall electorate.

At the very least, one has to question the wisdom of that decision.

If our objective is to identify and elect strong constitutional conservatives to help strengthen and preserve our Republic, we should consider whether excluding voters who may already share many of those values actually helps accomplish that goal.

Tomorrow: Exhibit #3 – The Mathematics

THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

Facts & Numbers Over Emotion – Mark Allen Caserta

Exhibit #3

The Mathematics

Before making the case for reopening West Virginia’s Republican primary, it’s only fair that we understand why many Republicans support keeping it closed.

Their concern is straightforward.

They worry that Democrats—or other voters who are not committed Republicans—could strategically vote in a Republican primary to influence the outcome by supporting the candidate they believe would be easier to defeat or who better aligns with their agenda.

Protecting the integrity of the Republican Party is a legitimate goal, and I respect those who hold that view.

I believe most supporters of closed primaries are acting in good faith. They sincerely want to preserve conservative principles and prevent outside interference.

Those concerns deserve to be heard—not dismissed.

But good public policy should always be tested against the facts.

The question isn’t whether the concern is sincere.

The question is whether today’s voter registration numbers suggest that this concern is large enough to justify excluding 353,440 West Virginians who are registered outside the two major parties from participating in Republican primaries.

That’s where the conversation becomes less about emotion… and more about mathematics.

Let’s really examine the math of a closed primary. I submit that if more conservative independents are allowed to vote in the Republican primary, it makes it more difficult for a percentage of Democrats who are willing to sacrifice their primary vote to bolster a Republican candidate they are more likely to defeat in the general election or help elect a candidate they feel would support the less conservative, Democrat agenda.

Consider the mathematics. If 5,000 Democrats chose to vote strategically in a Republican primary with 50,000 Republican and conservative voters participating, those 5,000 votes would equal 10 percent of that voting pool. But if opening the primary attracted another 25,000 conservative-minded independent voters, expanding that pool to 75,000, those same 5,000 strategic votes would represent only 6.7 percent.

The number of crossover votes hasn’t changed. Their proportional influence has.

Simply put: the larger the pool of conservative voters, the more difficult it becomes for a fixed number of strategic crossover voters to influence the outcome.

There is also a second mathematical consideration. If excluding independent and unaffiliated voters from the Republican primary alienates even a portion of conservative-leaning voters enough that they stay home or support a Democrat in November, the effect becomes twofold: Republicans lose a potential vote while Democrats may gain one.

And that has a troubling mathematical consequence!

If one voter simply stays home, Republicans are minus one potential vote.

If that same voter switches from the Republican candidate to the Democrat candidate, the margin between the candidates changes by two votes: Republican −1 and Democrat +1.

Cause and effect, mathematically speaking:

Dilution effect: A larger conservative primary electorate reduces the proportional influence of a fixed number of strategic crossover voters.

  Coalition effect: Opening participation could bring conservative-leaning unaffiliated voters into the Republican nominating process.

  Alienation effect: If closing the primary causes some otherwise Republican-leaning voters to defect in November, each actual R-to-D switch produces a two-vote change in the Republican-versus-Democrat margin.

The numbers don’t lie.

Tomorrow – Exhibit #4: Does Closing the Primary Create More Problems Than It Solves?

THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

Facts & Numbers Over Emotion – Mark Allen Caserta

Exhibit #4

Does Closing the Primary Create More Problems Than It Solves?

In a March 24, 2026 interview with WCHS-TV Eyewitness News reporter Bethany Jarrell, West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner discussed the Republican Party’s decision to close its primary to unaffiliated voters after years of allowing them to participate.

“We had 23,627 unaffiliated voters that voted a Republican ballot,” Warner said. “That means there are over 23,000 people, if those numbers remain consistent, who will not be able to vote in the Republican primary unless they switch their party registration.”

WCHS News interview with Secretary of State Kris Warner – March 24, 2026

Folks, that’s a very, very large number of voters who had previously chosen to cast a Republican primary ballot and were suddenly told that, unless they changed their party registration, they could no longer do so.

Ouch!

I understand the reasoning behind trying to prevent voters from another political party from strategically using their primary votes to influence the opposing party’s nominee for the general election. But that is a significant price to pay to address a concern whose actual scope and impact in West Virginia deserve closer examination.

We must be careful not to allow emotion to cloud our judgment. I encourage Republicans who favor a closed primary to look carefully at all the facts and consequences.

I also find it interesting that the Democrat Party did not close its primary to unaffiliated voters. Should Democrats not have the same theoretical concern—that Republicans or other voters might attempt to influence their primary?

Let’s take a candid look at some of the potential unintended consequences of a closed Republican primary:

• Alienation: Conservative-minded unaffiliated voters may feel Republicans don’t want their participation. I’ve personally spoken with several independent voters who felt alienated—even angry—after showing up at the polls intending to vote in the Republican primary, only to learn they could no longer participate.

• Coalition size: Republicans are voluntarily reducing the pool of voters eligible to participate in choosing Republican nominees.

The response is often, “If they want to vote Republican, let them switch parties.”

That’s a pretty bold position considering how difficult it already can be to get registered voters to participate in primary elections. Additionally, many unaffiliated voters have chosen not to affiliate with a political party for a reason. Some prefer to adhere to their individual principles rather than adopt an entire party platform they may find inconsistent with some of their values and beliefs.

• General-election consequences: If excluded conservative-leaning voters become less inclined to support the eventual Republican nominee, the primary policy could work against Republicans in November.

We examined the mathematics in the previous exhibit. If a voter who otherwise would have voted Republican instead votes Democrat, the margin between the two candidates changes by two votes:

Republican −1. Democrat +1.

That doesn’t mean closing the primary will cause voters to switch sides. But the mathematical consequence is real if they do.

• Candidate incentives: A closed electorate may encourage candidates to concentrate primarily on registered party voters rather than building a broader conservative coalition.

What incentive does a candidate have during the primary to persuade an unaffiliated voter when that voter cannot participate in selecting the nominee?

How do Republicans continue expanding their coalition if candidates have less reason during the nominating process to reach beyond existing party registration?

• Party growth: Requiring affiliation before participation creates an additional barrier between the GOP and voters it might otherwise persuade to become Republicans.

It is important to remember that Republicans did not become West Virginia’s dominant political party simply by relying on people who had always been registered Republicans. The political transformation of West Virginia required persuading voters to support Republican candidates and conservative policies.

Political majorities are built by addition—not subtraction.

• The perceived problem still isn’t eliminated: A closed primary cannot guarantee that every registered Republican is genuinely conservative, nor can it prevent a voter from changing party registration before the applicable deadline specifically to participate in a Republican primary.

A closed primary can control the letter beside a voter’s name.

It cannot control the voter’s philosophy, motivation, or intent.

• Republicans risk being seen as turning their backs on voters who helped build the majority: Republicans have become West Virginia’s dominant political party by attracting voters to the GOP coalition over many years.

Does concern over what some voters might attempt to do justify excluding thousands of unaffiliated voters who have previously demonstrated a willingness to participate in Republican primaries?

Secretary Warner cited 23,627 unaffiliated voters who had chosen a Republican primary ballot in a prior election.

Those voters should not simply disappear from the equation.

When weighing these potential downsides against one of the principal arguments for closing the primary—preventing voters outside the Republican Party from strategically influencing the selection of Republican nominees—I believe all of the consequences deserve careful consideration.

The question isn’t simply whether closing the primary can reduce crossover voting.

The larger question is whether the benefits of closing the primary outweigh the potential consequences of excluding voters who might otherwise become part of the Republican coalition.

After examining the numbers, the mathematics, and these potential unintended consequences, my position remains clear:

Reopen West Virginia’s Republican primary.

Tomorrow – What really happened when Republicans closed the primary after nearly 4 decades?

This is Exhibit 5 in a series making the case for reopening West Virginia’s Republican primary. Each exhibit has produced facts with supportive data and is open to respectful rebuttal and factual dissent after reading the exhibit in its entirety.

THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

Facts & Numbers Over Emotion — Mark Allen Caserta

Exhibit #5

Let’s Look at the Evidence: “What Happened to Republican Primary Participation After the Primary Closed?”

Throughout this case, I have acknowledged what I believe is the strongest argument offered by supporters of a closed Republican primary and countered it with facts, data and sources.

Now, let’s stop talking about what “might happen” and take a look at the hard evidence of what “did happen” the first time Republicans closed the primary in more than four decades!

According to official data recently acquired from the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office, here is what happened in Republican House and Senate primary races when comparing 2022 with 2026—and it isn’t pretty. The decline in Republican primary votes was not isolated to a handful of races. The decline was broad!

Here are the findings for the House of Delegates:

  • Republican primary vote totals in House races declined by 28,812 votes from 2022 to 2026.
  • Some of the individual losses were substantial. House District 84 dropped from 2,600 votes in 2022 to 1,572 in 2026—a decline of 1,028 votes.
  • House District 100 dropped from 1,672 to 824—a decline of 848 votes.
  • House District 19 dropped from 1,841 to 1,059—a decline of 782 votes.
  • House District 88 dropped from 2,005 to 1,254—a decline of 751 votes.
  • House District 43 dropped from 1,713 to 966—a decline of 747 votes.

The Senate tells a similar story!

  •  Republican primary vote totals in Senate races declined by 17,983 votes from 2022 to 2026.
  • Senate District 3 dropped from 12,855 votes in 2022 to 9,554 in 2026—a decline of 3,301 votes.
  • Senate District 14 dropped from 12,111 to 8,945—a decline of 3,166 votes.
  • Senate District 16 dropped from 8,203 to 5,556—a decline of 2,647 votes.
  • Senate District 13 dropped from 5,630 to 3,464—a decline of 2,166 votes.
  • Senate District 1 dropped from 8,928 to 6,843—a decline of 2,085 votes.

So, what does the official data tell us?

Republican primary vote totals declined substantially in both House and Senate races from 2022 to 2026.

  • The House of Delegates declined by 28,812 Republican primary votes.
  • The Senate declined by 17,983 Republican primary votes.

Those are not projections, estimates or opinions. They are the totals reported in the data provided by the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office.

Let that sink in, supporters of a closed GOP primary!

The evidence shows that following the closing of the Republican primary, Republican primary vote totals declined substantially. The numbers certainly raise an important question: If the purpose of closing the primary was to strengthen the Republican nomination process, why did Republican primary participation move so dramatically in the opposite direction?

Additionally, closing the primary risks alienating unaffiliated voters who represent nearly 30% of West Virginia’s electorate—including nearly 24,000 unaffiliated voters who chose a Republican ballot in the 2024 primary election, as previously documented in this case through the WCHS interview.

This evidence establishes that Republican primary vote totals declined substantially following the closing of the primary, while a significant bloc of unaffiliated voters who had previously chosen to participate in the Republican primary was no longer eligible to do so without changing party registration.

To date, I have not seen a valid rebuttal to this extensive body of evidence, only emotional, hardline statements.  The door is still open to respectful, valid rebuttal.

At this point, I submit that the common-sense move is to reopen West Virginia’s Republican primary elections.  It helps the party.  It helps the true conservative candidates.  And it helps constitutional conservatives to be able to choose who they wish to represent them in our Republic.

Tomorrow: Summation and Closing

THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

Facts & Numbers Over Emotion — Mark Allen Caserta

SUMMATION

Over the course of this series, I have attempted to make a case—not against the Republican Party, nor against those who sincerely believe a closed primary is best—but for taking another look at the decision based on the facts, the numbers, the mathematics, and the potential consequences.

The evidence has now been presented.

Let’s review the case in the order it was made.

THE OPENING

We began with a simple premise:

Good decisions should be based on facts rather than fear of what might happen.

Supporters of a closed Republican primary have a legitimate concern. They fear that voters outside the Republican Party—particularly Democrats—could strategically participate in a Republican primary to help nominate a weaker Republican candidate or one more favorable to their political interests.

That concern deserves consideration.

But the opening question was whether excluding a substantial portion of West Virginia’s electorate is a proportionate response to that possibility.

And from the beginning, the goal was clear:

Facts & Numbers Over Emotion.

EXHIBIT #1

We examined the fundamental purpose of a political party and the importance of building a coalition.

Political parties become stronger by persuading voters, earning support, and expanding their base—not simply by protecting the voters they already have.

West Virginia’s political landscape has changed dramatically over the years, and the Republican Party became dominant by attracting voters who once identified differently.

The central principle was straightforward:

You don’t strengthen a party by shrinking it.

EXHIBIT #2 — THE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED

Next, we examined the voter-registration numbers.

West Virginia has:

• 524,202 registered Republicans
• 326,497 registered Democrats
• 304,775 voters with no party affiliation
• 48,665 voters registered with other political parties

That means 353,440 West Virginians—29.35 percent of the registered electorate—are registered outside the Republican and Democrat parties.

Nearly 3 out of every 10 registered voters.

Republicans also hold a registration advantage of 197,705 voters over Democrats.

Registration totals alone cannot tell us how people will vote in a particular primary, but they provide important perspective when evaluating the fear that Democrats could substantially influence Republican nominations.

The question raised by the numbers was:

Should Republicans be attempting to attract those 353,440 potential voters—or placing another barrier between those voters and Republican candidates?

EXHIBIT #3 — WHO ARE THE 353,440, AND WHAT DOES THE MATH TELL US?

We then examined the people behind the numbers.

Voters outside the two major parties are not automatically Democrats, liberals, or political opponents.

Among them are West Virginians who share conservative principles but choose political independence rather than formal party affiliation.

Not having an “R” beside a voter’s name does not necessarily mean that voter has rejected constitutional or conservative values.

We also examined the mathematics of strategic crossover voting.

If a fixed number of Democrats attempted to strategically influence a Republican primary, increasing the number of conservative-minded voters participating makes those crossover votes a smaller percentage of the overall voting pool.

The number of crossover votes hasn’t changed. Their proportional influence has.

We also considered the potential general-election mathematics.

If a voter who otherwise would have supported the Republican nominee instead votes for the Democrat nominee, the margin between the two candidates changes by two votes:

Republican −1. Democrat +1.

That does not mean closing the primary will cause voters to switch sides.

But if we are going to consider what Democrats might do in a Republican primary, intellectual consistency requires us to also consider what excluded conservative-minded voters might do in the general election.

EXHIBIT #4 — DOES CLOSING THE PRIMARY CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES?

Finally, we examined the potential unintended consequences of the policy itself.

Alienation: Conservative-minded unaffiliated voters may feel unwelcome or excluded.

Coalition size: Closing the primary reduces the pool of voters eligible to participate in choosing Republican nominees.

General-election consequences: Alienated voters may become less inclined to support Republican nominees in November.

Candidate incentives: Candidates have less reason during the primary to persuade voters who are prohibited from participating.

Party growth: Requiring affiliation before participation creates another barrier between the Republican Party and voters it hopes to attract.

And perhaps most importantly:

Closing the primary does not guarantee the political philosophy, motivation, or intent of the voters who remain eligible.

A registered Republican is not necessarily conservative.

A determined voter can change party registration before the applicable deadline.

Which led us to one of the central conclusions of the entire case:

A closed primary can control the letter beside a voter’s name. It cannot control the voter’s philosophy, motivation, or intent.

Secretary of State Kris Warner also cited 23,627 unaffiliated voters who had previously chosen a Republican primary ballot.

Those voters existed.

They participated.

And under the closed-primary policy, voters like them must now change their party registration before they can again participate in selecting a Republican nominee.

EXHIBIT #5 — WHAT HAPPENED TO REPUBLICAN PRIMARY PARTICIPATION AFTER THE PRIMARY CLOSED?

Finally, we stopped talking about what might happen and examined what actually happened in the first closed Republican primary in more than four decades.

According to data provided by the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office, Republican primary vote totals declined substantially from 2022 to 2026.

House of Delegates Republican primary vote totals declined by 28,812 votes.

State Senate Republican primary vote totals declined by 17,983 votes.

And the decline was not confined to one isolated race or one part of the state.

Individual House districts experienced substantial decreases, including District 84, down 1,028 votes; District 100, down 848; District 19, down 782; District 88, down 751; and District 43, down 747.

Senate races showed substantial declines as well, including District 3, down 3,301 votes; District 14, down 3,166; District 16, down 2,647; District 13, down 2,166; and District 1, down 2,085.

We should be precise about what those numbers prove.

They do not prove that closing the primary caused every lost vote. Many factors can influence primary turnout.

But they establish an important fact that cannot simply be dismissed:

After West Virginia closed its Republican primary to unaffiliated voters, Republican primary vote totals declined substantially in both House and Senate races.

At the same time, we already know that 23,627 unaffiliated voters had previously chosen to participate by selecting a Republican primary ballot.

We must ask ourselves whether excluding a demonstrated pool of previously participating voters was wise when the first election under the new policy produced substantially fewer Republican primary votes.

THE SUMMATION

So now the evidence must be weighed together.

Is strategic crossover voting a legitimate concern?

Yes.

Should Republicans care about protecting the integrity of their nominating process?

Absolutely.

But the question before us is larger.

Does the potential benefit of preventing strategic crossover voting outweigh the consequences of excluding nearly 30 percent of West Virginia’s registered electorate from participating in the Republican nominating process?

We have seen that closing the primary may reduce participation.

It may alienate conservative-minded voters.

It may create barriers to coalition growth.

It may reduce incentives for Republican candidates to persuade voters outside existing party registration.

And after all of that, it still cannot guarantee the philosophy, motivation, or intent of those who remain eligible to vote.

Meanwhile, the Democrat Party continues allowing unaffiliated voters to request its primary ballot.

So after the Opening and four exhibits, three principles continue to stand out:

Political majorities are built by addition—not subtraction.

A closed primary can control the letter beside a voter’s name. It cannot control the voter’s philosophy, motivation, or intent.

And finally:

You don’t strengthen a party by shrinking it.

The Republican Party became West Virginia’s dominant political party by persuading voters, attracting people to conservative principles, and building a broader coalition.

I submit that should remain our strategy.

Open the doors.

Make the conservative case.

Earn their votes.

This case has never been about winning an argument.

It has been about examining the evidence and doing what we believe is right as we work together to preserve and protect our Republic.

The Opening has been made.

Exhibits #1 through #4 have been presented.

The evidence is now before you – all 3,860 words of it.

We will await the verdict.

Mark Caserta: Open the Republican Primary — Don’t Close the Door on Common-Sense Conservatives

4 Aug

West Virginia has changed dramatically over the past two decades.

There was a time when a candidate almost had to be a Democrat to win statewide office. Today, the political landscape has flipped. In many races, the Republican primary has become the election that ultimately decides who will represent us.

That reality raises an important question:

Should nearly one-third of West Virginia’s registered voters be locked out of the election that often determines who will govern them?

I don’t believe they should.

Choosing to register as an Independent isn’t necessarily a rejection of conservative values. For many people, it’s a decision to simply place principle above party. 

Many Independent voters are simply frustrated with both major political parties. They are hardworking, taxpaying West Virginians who believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and common sense. They simply don’t want a political label to define them.

Yet today, if those same citizens want to vote for the Republican candidate they believe best represents conservative, common sense values, they are told they cannot.

That doesn’t make much sense.

The argument for a closed Republican primary is that Democrats could cross over and intentionally vote for a weaker Republican candidate in hopes of making the general election easier to win.

I understand that concern. But where is the evidence that it is occurring on any meaningful scale in West Virginia?

More importantly, even if that possibility exists, should we punish thousands of Independent voters because of what might happen?

The practical effect of a closed primary is certain: thousands of Independent voters who share conservative values are denied a voice in choosing the Republican nominee.

During this year’s primary election, many Independent voters arrived at the polls expecting to vote for a Republican candidate, only to discover they couldn’t. Some left frustrated. Some left angry. Others simply accepted a Democrat ballot without even asking for one. 

Instead of creating new Republican voters, we created disappointed citizens.

Ask yourself this:

Is that really how we grow the conservative movement?

If someone consistently supports conservative ideas, believes in constitutional government, wants lower taxes, supports law enforcement, believes in personal responsibility, and shares our values, why should we tell them they are not welcome to help choose our nominee?

Political parties should earn support through sound ideas, principled leadership, and faithful representation—not by requiring voters to change their registration before they can participate.

If Republican ideas are truly the best ideas, we shouldn’t fear more conservative-minded voters participating in the process.

We should persuade them—not exclude them.

West Virginia’s voter registration has changed dramatically. 

The days when Democrats dominated our elections are gone. Today, many people who once identified as Democrats have become Republicans. Others have simply become Independents—not because they’ve abandoned conservative values, but because they’ve grown weary of partisan politics.

Ironically, some observers have noted that candidates with traditionally Democrat viewpoints have chosen to register as Republicans because that’s where today’s electoral advantage exists. 

Whether or not that’s widespread, it illustrates a larger point: party registration is no longer a reliable measure of a person’s beliefs!

What should matter is the principles they support—not the label beside their name.

I would also submit it’s worth asking a constitutional and fairness question.

Yes, courts have generally recognized a political party’s right to determine who may participate in its nominating process. 

But should a publicly funded election exclude thousands of taxpaying West Virginians from participating in the contest that, in many races, effectively decides who will represent them?

That isn’t just a legal question. It’s a question of good government, representative democracy, and plain common sense.

This is also a matter of political and mathematical reality.

We cannot lock out nearly one-third of the electorate and then expect those same voters to enthusiastically support our nominees in November. 

If our goal is to build a stronger Republican Party, we should be inviting conservative-minded Independents into the process—not pushing them away.  

There isn’t a single major political faction or campaign in America that would simply concede the independent vote. They absolutely know they need it to win!

Winning elections isn’t about building smaller circles.

It’s about building larger movements.

I believe it’s time for the West Virginia Republican Party to reconsider its decision and reopen its primary to unaffiliated voters.

Let’s compete for their votes.

Let’s earn their trust.

Let’s persuade them with conservative principles, constitutional and Biblical values, and strong candidates.

Because in the end, a stronger Republican Party won’t be built by locking people out.

It will be built by welcoming every freedom-loving West Virginian who wants to help shape our future.

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: It’s time to re-open the WV GOP Primaries

1 Aug
The dynamics have changed. It’s time to allow independent-minded voters to make their voices heard in the GOP primary elections.

Roughly 1/3 of registered voters in West Virginia align with Independent or a party outside of the 2 major parties.


They exceed the percentage of registered Democrats now.


The dynamics have changed. People are upset with both major parties and are aligning with Independent voters.


We must re-open the GOP primaries.


We can’t disenfranchise these voters and expect them to vote GOP in the general election.


In fact, Independents who showed up to vote Republican were automatically given a Democrat ballot in some polling locations.

RINOs are going to vote for their candidate, regardless.


Originally I agreed with the concept of a closed primary,


Times have changed.

We must change with them if we expect to win.

The GOP can attract the independent voter because the left has gone totally insane!

Open the GOP primaries.

Mark Caserta: Many Americans are literally giving our country away. Are you one of them?

30 Jul

Mark Caserta has been an opinion columnist for 26 years and was candidate for WV House of Delegates in Wayne County in 2026

Many Americans—including many Christians—are literally giving their country away.

Get angry with me if you want, but don’t complain about what you permit to happen.

Voter apathy is killing our nation.

According to multiple sources, only about 75 percent of Christians are registered to vote. Remember, your vote is your voice.

Of those Christians who are registered, only an estimated 75 percent actually vote. That means, roughly speaking, only a little over 56 percent of those who identify as Christians cast a ballot. Turnout among the rest of the eligible voting population is even lower, which is equally troubling.

And that’s during a presidential election year. In off-year elections, voter participation drops even further.

Nearly every day, I talk with people who tell me they are sick of politics and have lost faith that their vote makes any difference.

Politicians bear a great deal of responsibility for that.

In a constitutional republic, elected officials work for the people. They are hired by the voters for one purpose: to represent their constituents.

Too many politicians have forgotten that. They say what they need to say to get elected, then spend their time advancing their own ideological agenda or that of their party’s leadership instead of faithfully representing the people who sent them to office.

So, how do we begin to change this?

I believe it starts with three simple steps:

1. Politicians must return to the foundational principle of our republic: represent the people who elected you—even when their views do not align perfectly with your own.

2. Congress should act to strengthen election integrity, including measures such as the SAVE Act, which supporters say would ensure that only American citizens vote in federal elections.

3. Every eligible voter—including every Christian—must study the candidates, make an informed decision, and vote.

Just as important, if your elected representative fails to do the job, fire them at the next election.

These ideas are not complicated. In fact, our Founding Fathers intentionally designed our system to be this straightforward.

I still believe there is hope for America.

But hope alone has never changed a nation.

Action does.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Unwarranted government surveillance under the guise of protection is only the beginning.

20 Jul

History records the progressive movement will use this foothold to advance their agenda!

My entire adult life, I have observed, studied, and written about the progressive movement. What began as a movement that many viewed as advancing society has, over time, evolved into an effort to transform society itself.

In 1973, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutional right to abortion while also acknowledging limits intended to protect the health of the pregnant woman and what the Court described as “potential life.” Under the Court’s original framework, abortions after viability could generally be prohibited, except when necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.

Over the years, however, the national debate expanded dramatically. Controversial procedures, including what became known as “partial-birth abortion,” and even “live-birth abortions were performed, heinously murdering an innocent life.  The original decision was the catalyst for disaster.

The cultural shift did not stop there.

In the 1970s, network television was vastly different from what we see today. Sexual content was limited. Profanity was heavily restricted. Violence, while present, was generally restrained. Families could sit down together during prime time with a reasonable expectation that the programming would be suitable for everyone.

Today, I don’t need to describe how different things have become. What is now considered mainstream entertainment would have been unthinkable on network television in that era.

Likewise, legal and social debates surrounding LGBTQ issues have continued to evolve over the decades. Questions involving marriage, employment protections, military service, and gender identity have all developed on different timelines.

Today, we have biological males competing in women’s sports and having access to women’s locker rooms—issues that would have seemed unimaginable to many Americans just a generation ago.

The same pattern is emerging in another area that should concern every citizen: government surveillance.

The Fourth Amendment has protected Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures since 1791. Yet today, many progressives casually support warrantless camera systems, such as Flock cameras, that record and track the movements of law-abiding citizens without individualized suspicion.

Some argue that this type of surveillance is not specifically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. But the Framers anticipated that future generations might attempt to narrow the people’s liberties by exploiting technicalities. That is precisely why they included the Ninth Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment makes clear that just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution does not mean the people do not possess that right. It was intended to prevent the federal government from claiming authority over every aspect of our lives simply because a particular liberty was not expressly enumerated.

This is how progressivism often advances. Change rarely comes all at once. It begins with policies that appear modest, reasonable, or even beneficial. Then the boundaries continue to move. What was once described as an exception becomes the norm. What was once considered unacceptable gradually becomes expected.

It’s the desensitization of Americans.

The objective is not merely to reform society but to redefine it.

There comes a point when every generation must decide whether it will preserve the principles it inherited or surrender them one compromise at a time.

For me, that decision is clear.

It is time to exercise common sense. It is time to stand for the enduring principles found in the Holy Bible and the Constitution of the United States. If we fail to defend them today, we should not be surprised to find that future generations no longer enjoy the freedoms we inherited.

How to Fight Deployment of Flock and Other Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers in Your Community | American Civil Liberties Union

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: The Price of Freedom

18 Jul

“Today, the threats to liberty may not come in the form of muskets and cannon fire. More often they arrive quietly—through complacency, the steady erosion of constitutional freedoms, or the willingness to trade liberty for convenience, security, or political expediency. Who are we to casually relinquish our freedoms brave men and women have died to protect?“

Young George Washington was suddenly awakened by the deafening roar of muskets and cannon fire. He had been unconscious, suffering from a severe case of dysentery, but the thunder of battle gave him the strength to rise and discover what was happening around him.

Having failed in his first military command against the French and their Native American allies, Washington had resigned his commission. Yet when the call came again, he volunteered to serve in any capacity he could, determined to do his part in defending the future of the New World.

Amid the thick powder smoke and chaos of battle, Washington mounted his horse to assess the situation.

“The battle is lost,” he was warned. “Turn back, Washington. Save yourself. It isn’t worth the risk.”

But George Washington knew his fellow soldiers were trapped on the front lines. He refused to abandon them. Instead, he spurred his horse toward the fiercest fighting, determined to lead from the front rather than seek safety in the rear.

History records that George Washington was remarkably protected that day. As bullets ripped through the air around him, he rode fearlessly across the battlefield, rallying frightened soldiers and helping as many as possible escape certain death. Though General Braddock’s army had been overwhelmed and the battle was ultimately lost, Washington’s courage prevented an even greater catastrophe.

With General Braddock mortally wounded and panic spreading through the ranks, Washington organized the retreat, encouraged his exhausted troops, and directed them to use the cover of the trees rather than continue fighting in the open. His calm leadership amid chaos saved countless lives and transformed what could have been a complete annihilation into an orderly withdrawal.

By the end of the battle, hundreds of brave men had sacrificed their lives at the Battle of the Monongahela, also known as Braddock’s Defeat. Yet George Washington emerged from the battlefield untouched, despite having two horses shot from beneath him and multiple bullet holes through his coat.

Many who witnessed the battle believed Divine Providence had preserved his life for a greater purpose—a purpose that would eventually lead him to command the Continental Army, guide a fledgling nation to independence, and become the first President of the United States.

Freedom has never been free. It never has been, and it never will be.

Our nation’s liberty was purchased with the courage, sacrifice, and blood of men and women who believed there were principles worth dying for. They understood that freedom is never guaranteed. It survives only when ordinary people are willing to stand against extraordinary odds.

George Washington could have turned his horse and ridden to safety. Instead, he rode into the battle.

That decision did more than save lives. It revealed the character of a man who would later lead a revolution and help establish the greatest experiment in self-government the world has ever known.

Today, the threats to liberty may not come in the form of muskets and cannon fire. More often they arrive quietly—through complacency, the steady erosion of constitutional freedoms, or the willingness to trade liberty for convenience, security, or political expediency.

Every generation is called to defend freedom. Ours is no different. Who are we to casually relinquish our freedoms brave men and women have died to protect?

The question is not whether freedom will require sacrifice.

The question is whether we will have the courage to pay its price.

But even a pawn can take the King.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Voter question to politicians regarding 4th amendment rights.

16 Jul

“Do you support warrantless surveillance and a searchable record of a person’s every movement?”

Voters deserve to know where their elected officials and those running in November, stand concerning every issue!

So this is worthy of a share.

It’s our jobs to learn all there is to know about a candidate’s position on an issue. It is ALSO the candidate’s responsibility to be transparent about where they stand!

But the silence surrounding the constitutionality of warrantless surveillance through Flock cameras has been deafening…
…not only from some local elected officials, but also from those asking to become our next representatives.

What concerns me is when politicians avoid taking a position on important constitutional issues because they fear it may cost them votes. Too often, those positions don’t become clear until after Election Day.

We all understand that this is ultimately a city decision. That’s not the question.

The question is this:

Do you believe warrantless government surveillance through Flock cameras is consistent with the Constitution?

I would genuinely like to know “where our local elected officials—and every candidate on the November ballot—stand on this issue”.

The voters deserve an answer.

IRAN DEAL PROVIDES ENEMY TIME AND MONEY

10 Jul

Iran gamble gives Tehran time and money

Dec. 12, 2013 @ 12:00 AM

The Obama administration is gambling on the world stage, and the stakes are very high.

A deal was reached last month with Tehran and six major powers meant to freeze key components of the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

At the time the deal was signed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a “historic mistake” and one that made the world a “much more dangerous place.”

Consider first, the players at the table — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

An argument can be made that the interest of our closest ally and the nation with the most to lose from these negotiations was missing from the table. That is Israel.

Second, both China and Russia are known to be actively engaged in assisting Tehran in its nuclear and missile technology. In fact, the very foundation of Tehran’s nuclear program can be traced to extensive Chinese and Russian cooperation.

Tehran has received extensive missile testing and guidance assistance from China and Russia, according to multiple reports. In June 1996, the results of a Congressional hearing cited U.S. intelligence findings that China had already “delivered dozens, perhaps hundreds of missile guidance systems and computerized tools to Iran.”

With Russian help, Iranian scientists have set up two sites to use laser technology to “more efficiently” enrich uranium which could be used for a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports Tehran expects Russia to build two “additional” nuclear plants in the Bushehr province where they’ve been assisting the Iranians for years.

Two years ago, the IAEA released a comprehensive report on Tehran’s nuclear program based on intelligence from multiple countries, interviews with scientists who helped Tehran develop their program and the IAEA’s own investigations.

The report clearly indicated Iran engaged in “activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device.” These activities include:

Research on uranium cores and detonators for nuclear weapons.

Acquiring nuclear weapons information and documentation from a clandestine supply network.

Developing an indigenous nuclear weapons design and testing of the components.

Computer modeling of nuclear explosions and logistics for nuclear testing.

Engineering studies to adapt missiles for nuclear warheads.

The IAEA’s May 2013 report noted Tehran already had a sufficient stockpile of enriched uranium to produce weapons-grade uranium for seven nuclear bombs and was continuing to increase its capacity to enrich to weapons-grade.

Remember, Tehran is considered to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism, providing financial support and training for organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and others.

The United States seems to be the only nation with no “down cards” in this apocalyptic game. Inspections and “fail-safe” measures aside, once a rogue nation has technology, it cannot be extracted!

A good gambler knows when to walk away. Right now, President Obama is “all in,” wagering the safety of millions on the hope we can trust Tehran, China and Russia — and the odds aren’t favorable.

Staying in this game provides our enemies with the two resources they need most — time and money.

Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Democrat policies have heightened the appetite for Socialism/Communism

26 Jun

I remember a time when socialist-leaning politicians tried to hide their Marxist tendencies for fear of public rejection. Today, many are openly campaigning on those ideas — and in some places, they are winning.

How did this happen?

How could a nation that became the most economically powerful and prosperous country on earth through capitalism now have a growing segment of voters openly embracing socialism and even communism?

Here is what happened — and far too few people are willing to say it.

The chickens have come home to roost for the Democrat Party.

For decades, far-left Democrats have worked to build voting blocs, not by inspiring independence, opportunity, and achievement, but by creating dependency, division, and grievance. Rather than earning votes through policies that strengthen families, create jobs, and restore hope, they have too often attempted to purchase loyalty through government control and political promises.

They have appealed to women through abortion politics and cultural movements. They have sought the LGBTQ vote by elevating identity politics above common sense. They have fanned the flames of racial resentment while claiming to represent the very communities their policies have failed for generations. They have expanded a nanny-state that weakens industry, eliminates good-paying jobs, and leaves too many families dependent on the very government that helped create their struggle.

They have also opened the door to millions entering this country illegally under the banner of compassion, while offering free housing, healthcare, benefits, and services that many hardworking American citizens can barely afford.

This did not happen by accident.

The far-left ideology of today’s Democrat Party has helped create a voter base that has not fully experienced the promise and discipline of true capitalism. Too many have not been encouraged to work, build, fail, learn, grow, and achieve the American Dream. Instead, they have been told that government is the source of success.

They were told, “You didn’t build that.”

Government did.

Now that culture has come to full fruition in many blue states and cities. People look around and see decline, chaos, poverty, crime, broken families, and a growing lack of hope. And sadly, many of the people voting for socialist Democrats are not bad people. Many are simply trying to survive in the very system they were handed.

When hope disappears, people become willing to try almost anything — even failed ideas that history has warned us about again and again.

Winston Churchill is often credited with saying:

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Whether one studies history, economics, or human nature, the lesson is clear: socialism does not lift people into prosperity. It spreads dependency, envy, and misery.

The failures of the Democrat Party have helped give birth to the very appetite for socialism they now pretend is compassion. Their policies have not produced strength. They have produced dependency. They have not produced unity. They have produced division. They have not produced hope. They have produced desperation.

I believe this movement will continue to grow unless it is confronted not merely with words, but with results. People do not just need speeches. They need jobs. They need safe communities. They need strong families. They need opportunity. They need leaders who are more interested in restoring hope than preserving political power.

Make no mistake: the appetite for socialism and communism in America did not appear overnight. It was cultivated through decades of failed policies, broken promises, and political dependency.

As this ideology spreads, I believe we will see the socio-economic gap grow even wider between states and cities that embrace freedom and those that embrace government control.

Perhaps it will take a massive failure — a real-time history lesson — for some voters to understand why America became the greatest nation on earth in the first place.

But I pray it does not come to that.

May God bless and protect this nation along the journey.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Democrat Party is failing Americans with their insane ideologies.

13 Jun

The Democrat Party has abdicated common sense, along with its responsibility to represent and protect its constituents and the American people.

I would describe it as intellectual dishonesty, but that would require at least some evidence of intellectual activity from the Left.

The recent insertion of four-letter expletives by Democratic leaders in their protests against our president only confirms what many Americans already know: their vocabulary is shrinking in direct proportion to their reasoning ability.

Their political methodology increasingly resembles kamikaze tactics. They seem perfectly willing to crash and burn on the hill of radical, ultra-left causes, while representation, responsibility, and loyalty to the founding principles of our Republic never even enter the conversation.

Frankly, it appears as though they have given up any serious hope of winning another election on merit. Instead, they flail about wildly like an inflatable, wacky, waving tube man, firing insults at Donald Trump while desperately trying to draw as much attention to themselves as possible.

It is sad that Democrats no longer seem capable of feeling humiliation. If a real leader does not emerge soon to provide a badly needed course correction, they may find themselves wandering even further into political irrelevance.

No doubt, Trump Derangement Syndrome — along with the stupefaction that Donald Trump not only survived their relentless and shameless attacks, but was re-elected president — has stripped them of the capacity to produce a rational thought.

They seem committed to taking the wrong side of every argument, even on the most obvious issues affecting the well-being of the American people.

On the issue of allowing men to participate in women’s sports, every single Democrat U.S. senator recently voted against legislation designed to protect the dignity, integrity, and safety of female athletes by banning men from competing in women’s sports.

The fact that this is even up for debate is a prime example of the progressive agenda in America. That agenda has had far too much success because of our apathy and our unwillingness to engage in defense of Biblical values.

Democrats are clearly comfortable with women being forced to share locker rooms with biological males.

They are aligned with males who, unable to successfully compete against men in men’s sports, redefine themselves as females in order to win trophies and deny deserving young women the opportunity to fulfill their dreams.

Democrats are also apparently fine with allowing stronger male athletes to compete physically against females, potentially risking both physical and emotional harm to female athletes.

Regarding your tax dollars, Democrats are defending the obvious waste, fraud, and abuse of your hard-earned money now being exposed daily by the Department of Government Efficiency.

I find it insulting that, year after year, Democrats predictably call for higher taxes simply to bankroll their greed and dereliction of duty — all while knowing that the money you need to feed your family, fuel your car, or pay your bills is being wasted, misused, or stolen.

One cannot help but wonder who and what will ultimately be exposed as complicit in this waste and fraud.

Democrats are proving to the American people that a vote to keep them in power is worth far more to them than your health, safety, and welfare. Their opposition to President Trump’s pledge to shut down illegal border crossings makes that painfully clear.

They would much rather see millions of illegal migrants — including some criminals of the highest order — enter our country unfettered. Their desired return on that investment is simple: future votes from those receiving food, housing, education, and healthcare at the expense of the American taxpayer.

The bottom line is this: the Democrat Party hates President Donald J. Trump far more than it loves our country or its citizens.

Their priorities have been exposed by their actions, and every American should take note.

Through it all, the re-election of Donald Trump has allowed the American people to recognize one thing liberal Democrats have truly mastered.

Lying to the American people.

← Older Entries