A Challenge to Hawaii's Open Primary System?

Do primary voters choose candidates or do they choose parties?  The Honolulu Advertiser posts an interesting story about a possible federal constitutional challenge to Hawaii's system of open primary voting, "Hawaii Democrats may sue to close primaries." 

Under article II, section 4 of the Hawaii Constitution:

no person shall be required to declare a party preference or nonpartisanship as a condition of voting in any primary or special primary election.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-31 provides more details:

Each voter shall be issued the primary or special primary ballot for each party and the nonpartisan primary or special primary ballot.  A voter shall be entitled to vote only for candidates of one party or only for nonpartisan candidates.

Hawaii's process, under which a voter is provided with several ballots, then chooses one secretly to vote is is known as an "open" primary.  Open primaries allow crossover voting since voters can participate in a party's primary election, without regard to the voter's affiliation.  This is in contrast to the "blanket" primary where the voter is free to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation, and a "closed" primary where the voter must choose party affiliation prior to election day and is provided only a party ballot.

The question posed by the lawsuit being considered is whether the U.S. Constitution mandates a particular form of primary election, one that allows the parties to determine who votes in their primaries, rather than having the state dictate the process.  The Court has held that California's blanket primary system unconstitutionally restricted political parties' First Amendment freedoms of association.  California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000).  However, the Court has also held that a closed primary system was unconstitutional, since it infringed upon the associational rights of a party that wished to open its primary to non-party voters.  Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 (1986). 

If filed, it could be a very interesting case.