Hell, a better argument could probably be made that DENYING people the ability to vote in an election and voice their approval for one candidate over another simply based on their party identification could be the thing that's infringing upon their speech
If you want to say you have a problem with the open primary notion or that it's a corruption of the system...fine, that's debatable. I would probably even agree with that to a certain degree. But you're trying to suggeset that:
1. Their vote is nullified
2. Their "speech" is being surpressed
And factually those things are just not true. Disliking the process doesn't make them true.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
To her Wall Street owners: Hillary Clinton: “But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. so, you need both a public and a private position.” - Hillary Clinton: "I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the Middle Class"
And the reason many of us oppose the latest batch of Photo Voter ID laws is they are a solution in desperate search of a problem to solve. I also get a little tired of right wingers conflating "Voter ID" with "Special Photo Voter ID." Fact is in TN we've had to show ID forever. What changed is the type of ID allowed - instead of a broad list of acceptable ID, in addition to the normal checks during registration, the polls only accept a narrow list, with many forms of ID accepted for years without ANY issues no longer allowed.