Notes from GOP State Executive Committee Meeting
Part II of the big Republican weekend was the party’s State Executive Committee Meeting.
Just a couple of notes…
State party chair Mike Hubbard announced again the upcoming Campaign 2010, the “largest campaign” to raise funds the state party has seen. The goal is to raise a minimum of $4 million to help elect Republicans. (That is to say that the money will be used for campaigns, not for party operations.)
The one agenda item that people were talking about most was a proposed change to the by-laws.
A committee brought a proposed change regarding denying ballot access:
Denying Ballot Access - This Committee [i.e., the State Executive Committee] reserves the right to deny ballot access to a candidate for public office if in a prior election that person was a Republican office holder and either publicly participated in the primary election of another political party or publicly supported a nominee of another political party. The provisions of this Rule shall apply for a period of six years after such person so participated.
This proposal easily generated the most discussion from the floor of any item all day, and passed overwhelmingly. There were perhaps six votes against it.
Related Articles:
Didn’t Riley cut some robo calls for Gerald Dial in the primary against Benefield? Wouldn’t that be “publicly participating in the primary election of another political party”?
Comment by Anonymous — June 19, 2007 @ 8:36 am
What about the GOP hero of the week Sen. Bishop? Didn’t he run for Governor as a Democrat in 2002? Maybe that’s why there’s a 6 year statute of limitations.
Comment by JD Hogg — June 19, 2007 @ 8:43 am
So under the current rules, Bishop wouldn’t have been allowed to run?
Comment by Anonymous — June 19, 2007 @ 9:06 am
Don’t the Democrats have a similar rule?
Comment by Roy — June 19, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Actually, the rule is not a problem for party-switchers like Bishop.
The rule is aimed at “Republican office holders” who participate in another party’s primary or support a nominee of another party. Bishop of course was not a Republican office holder in 2002.
Roy Moore ran for president on the Constitution Party while he was a Republican office-holder. Now that I think about it, maybe he just considered it.
If Riley did make robo-calls for Dial, I think that would have been a no-no, but I don’t think he did. There was rumor that was discredited that Riley had made robo-calls for Democrat Jim Preuitt against primary challenger Larry Barton.
Democrats have the Radney Rule which is similar, but it, I believe it is fair to say, is more restrictive.
The wiggle room in this new Republican rule is that it is not iron-clad. It says that “This Committee reserves the right to deny ballot access…”
BTW, the party’s counsel said that this rule adopted by the state party committee would not and could not apply to county races. County races come under the authority of county party committees who could choose to adopt similar rules.
Comment by Danny — June 19, 2007 @ 9:48 am
I think either party is pushing the limits constitutionally when they talk about denying ballot access. The rules have to be clearly laid out when they can do this and usually in very limited circumstances. I believe either party has to let a candidate on their party’s ballot initially, then the party can have the candidate removed from the ballot later. This goes for state as well as individual county races. One of the more serious violations of these type of rules actually occurred last year in a Jefferson County Judgeship.
Comment by Anonymous — June 19, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Anonymous, see the Kelly McGinley case. She filed qualifying papers to run as a Republican for the SBOE while she had a
talk radio show and a web site where she was actively asking people to vote for the Constitution Party instead of the
Republican Party (she had also recently resigned from hr local Republican Party and sent a ltter explaining why she was no
longer a Republican. She was denied ballot access by the ALGOP and sued. The ALGOP’s decision to deny her ballot access was
upheld at every level. Remember that in a primary, it is the party that can determines who is qualified to run on their
ballot.
Comment by Susan — June 19, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
I am not familiar with the situation you are talking about, but it sounds like she did break one of their rules, which I do not agree with, by actively campaigning against the republican party, which gave them grounds to do what they did. Like I said, I do not agree with this and she should have been allowed to run. On the other hand, what happened in the race for the Jefferson County judgeship was completely different. The person denied ballot access had never campaigned on behalf of the opposing party and was never given a reason for being denied. Also, that decision would rest with the executive committee of the party and not one or two people that has handpicked a particular candidate.
Comment by Anonymous — June 19, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
I don’t know any details of the Jefferson County judgeship you are discussing.
Comment by Susan — June 20, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Susan,
It happened last year within the Jefferson County Democratic Party during the last days of qualifying. The potential candidate’s application fee and paperwork were refused so the handpicked candidiate would have a 100% chance of being the democratic nominee. As it turned out as planned, the handpicked candidiate was the only democrat running for an open seat judgeship that did not have a single challenger in the primary campaign.
Comment by Anonymous — June 20, 2007 @ 11:38 am
They’re talking about Sunny Smallwood getting stonewalled trying to run for Probate Judge as a Dem. The voters had the final word on that and Sherri Friday won easily.
Comment by Anonymous — June 20, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Democrats are trying to do something similar over in Mississippi. They kicked the Democrat Insurance Commish off their ballot this spring but a Judge put him and a state rep back on a few weeks ago.
Comment by jason — June 20, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
An interesting question is how many of those voters who had the final word had knowledge of that “stonewalling”. I know two people in Jefferson County that voted for her who have told me they would not have if they had known about this before the election.
Comment by Brian — June 21, 2007 @ 2:27 am
Anyone that is capable of getting a party to reserve a nomination in that manner exclusively for themself within a political party is not going to “lose” an election.
Comment by Barbara — June 25, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Barbara aka Brian aka Anonymous Poster (excluding commenter #11),
I frown on commenters using different personas to have conversations with themselves in an attempt to make it appear that more people have interest in a topic or perspective than actually do. Had you left a valid email address, I would have sent this warning to you privately in email instead of embarrassing you in the comments section.
I didn’t say anything when you did this before by using an anonymous question to prompt yourself to explain this same issue further. However, now you are on the verge of having further comments go through moderation before they appear here.
Comment by Danny — June 25, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Hmmmm. It appears you know more about this than you will ever let your readers know. In order to divert readers from the subject, you feel the need to, what you call embarrass and then suggest the topic is uninteresting to warrant any discussion. You then go on to say other comments on the topic will be censored. According to you though,the first sentence in post #11 validates other comments on this subject. Of course, this is your blog and you can do what you wish.
Comment by Barbara — June 27, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Barbara,
Let me be clear. I have zero interest in censoring you or anyone else, but if you continue to use multiple names to post comments on this topic, then I will address that. (That does not necessarily mean your comments will be blocked.)
As for your other comments to me…
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have no interest in diverting readers from the subject. I do feel like readers are entitled to an honest discussion without someone posting comments under multiple names.
I thought perhaps you might be embarrassed to be called out for pretending to be more than one person in the conversation. Perhaps that is not your nature.
I never said that. I never suggested the topic was uninteresting and never tried to discourage further discussion.
I never said that. I never said I would censor further comments.
I never said that. You are mistaken to attribute that to me.
I believe this to be the only sentence in your entire comment that made sense.
I also believe that readers may question whether your complete misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what I said in my comment calls into question your own critical thinking on other issues.
Regardless, let me be clear. If you continue to use multiple names to post comments on this topic, I will address that.
Comment by Danny — June 27, 2007 @ 11:15 am
All this really boils down to one thing, so I will be clear. You do not like it because it was finally exposed on this blog what happened before the primaries in the Jefferson County probate race last year. You know that is the truth.
Comment by Barbara — June 28, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Barbara,
I understand your desire to deflect attention away from your attempts to manipulate the discussion and your own blatant prevarications. However…
You tried to put words in my mouth that simply were not true, and you are doing it again when you write, “You do not like it because it was finally exposed on this blog what happened before the primaries in the Jefferson County probate race last year.”
I have never indicated in any form or fashion that I want to hide the truth of this or any other matter. More information is good.
In fact, because I want to get to the bottom of the story, I have asked you more than once (for example, here and here) for evidence or corroboration for your story so that I could have more than the insistence of an anonymous commenter, but you have never provided it. I have asked you directly for names of people that I could talk to that would support things you have said, but you never responded. All you have done is post multiple comments under multiple names. That’s not evidence, and it hurts your credibility.
I have shown desire and initiative to get to the bottom of this story, and you have not been helpful. You are mistaken (again) to say that I don’t want the truth “exposed.” I have demonstrated otherwise.
Comment by Danny — June 28, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Danny, I do believe you want the truth, and I am sure there are people that know about this a lot more than me, therefore, I suggest you create a whole new subject matter posting about this like you do everything else. I am sure someone will see it that has more information that can help you.
Comment by Barbara — July 13, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Re 14: “Anyone that is capable of getting a party to reserve a nomination in that manner exclusively for themself within a political party is not going to “lose” an election.”
Pat Moore R had no primary opposition in Jefferson County for a Circuit Court Judge position. Her D opponent? Mike Graffeo-He had a brutal 3 way primary AND a hotly contested run-off.
Result? Graffeo trounced Moore in November–(Jefferson County too)
so much for the theory in post 14
Comment by Skeptic — August 7, 2007 @ 8:02 pm