Posted by Here is some follow-up to the Radney Rule challenge of Charley Grimsley’s candidacy for state Treasurer.
Bottom line: the Executive Board of the State Democratic Executive Committee is tentatively scheduled to meet the afternoon of February 19 to meet Charley Grimsley’s request for a show of cause hearing. Here in .pdf format is the preliminary order issued Monday by the SDEC sub-committee that heard the challenge on Friday.
Someone familiar with the challenge proceedings offers this perspective to the Political Parlor:
The committee met Friday morning at the State Dem. Party headquarters. A five-member committee consisting of Barbara Bobo, Greg Graves, Monica Arrington, Glenn Allen, and Dr. Joe Reed (chair) heard the challenge.
Grimsley attempted to rest on his laurels pertaining to his work as Conservation Director for former Lt. Gov. Folsom during the 1980’s, and defended his work while on staff for Lt. Gov. Windom. Grimsley stated he was a life long Democrat, and attempted to explain away his 2006 contribution to Beth Chapman – which was after the primaries, when Nancy Worley was the Democratic nominee – was that they were personal friends and mutual fans of gospel music.
On cross examination by Pam Miles’ attorney, Grimsley contradicted himself by stating that his ‘gift’ was in fact a political contribution to Chapman’s campaign, placing him in specific violation of the Radney rule. Later, point by point, contribution by contribution, Grimsley admitted to all, but stated he still considered himself a Democrat while making political contributions to Beth Chapman, Roy Moore, Bob Riley, George Bush, Steve Windom, etc. and while in the service of former Lt. Gov. Steve Windom.
Over the course of the hearing, it became clear that the strict language of the bylaws and facts were against Grimsley.
Near the conclusion of the hearing, the Subcommittee clarified with both challenger and defendant the entire challenge process contained within the bylaws. Specifically, the subcommittee detailed the show of cause process, by which an ineligible candidate might be subsequently qualified as a candidate by the State Democratic Executive Board, if the Board determines the ineligible candidate to be an “asset” to the Party if allowed to stand on the Democratic ticket.
The Radney rule was created for situations just as this. The standard of being a party’s candidate and possible nominee is higher than that for a rank and file voter or activist. As a candidate or nominee, you represent the entire party, its values and its laws. As a voter or activist, you represent your own interests. The Radney rule simply imposes a four year probationary period on any prospective candidate who might have, within the previous four years, advocated interests which opposed those of the party – simple as that. Respective to Radney, Grimsley should be allowed to run two years from now, or later (unless he proceeds with his past conduct). However, for this four year cycle, there’s no doubt that the committee should have outright disqualified him. Essentially, the subcommittee laid out a pathway so as not to disqualify Grimsley, and then possibly requalifying him through a show of cause hearing.
In short, if Grimsley had been viewed by the subcommittee as not violating the Radney rule, there would be no show of cause hearing. Regardless of the show of cause hearing’s outcome, questions of indeterminable significance have been raised regarding Grimsley’s qualifications as a Democrat entering into the upcoming primary season.
This sentence in the last paragraph sounds about right: “if Grimsley had been viewed by the subcommittee as not violating the Radney rule, there would be no show of cause hearing.” If I’m a betting man (note to Governor: I’m not), I’d bet that Grimsley is ultimately qualified by the state party to run.
Related Articles:
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
So Dems let Herman Thomas, Larry Barton (convicted felon), Larry Darby (professional racist / Holocaust denier) all run, and are giving grief to Grimsley whose Dem credentials aren’t perfect but are pretty good.
Yeesh.
What about Johnny Ford, who switched parties and advocated directly against Democratic principles as a Republican legislator?
I think your analysis is dead on, Danny.
The questions for the democrats are these: do they want to be the exclusionary party?; do they want to tell Republicans, who may vote for candidates from both parties, they, and their votes, are not welcome?
The answer, for internal Dem politics, might be yes. For external politics (the politics that actually puts someone in office), the obvious answer is no.
all that matters is whether reed wants him on the ballot or not. the sub-committee will do as its told.
I agree that the canidate with the most to loose from a radney challenge is johnny ford. Surely one of his opponents will raise the issue.
I think the obvious question is whether someone who has openly supported extremist Republicans and GOP political action committees – contributions which violate Democratic Party by-laws – should be allowed to run on the Democratic ticket.
Grimsley’s Democratic credentials aren’t “pretty good.” They’re pretty lousy and his chief qualification seems to be that he’s buddies with lots of party insiders who want to give Old Charley a break.
Either enforce the rules and by-laws or change them. Don’t make exceptions because so-and-so is buddies with Reed, Folsom, Windom, Moore, or anyone else.
The fact that Larry Darby was allowed on the ballot is proof positive that Democrats need to vet candidates more carefully. And Parker Griffith’s little two-step should remind the party insiders who were so gung-ho on his candidacy that there’s more to being a good Democrat than a fat bank account and good old boy demeanor.
I was waiting for someone to mention Larry Darby. That debacle raises the question — pertinent to voters, though apparently not to insiders and professionals — of what if anything the party stands for, and what difference it makes which party nominated a candidate.
No wonder there are so many “independent” voters in this two-party system, and so little love for either party.
The SDEC Executive Board already accepted Johnny Ford back into the party fold last July. There was a story in the Montgomery Advertiser after the fact. I don’t know if anyone objected, or if Ford just followed the rule and went in and said he was ready to come back to the party. But that one is over.
I just read on LIA that Steve Raby’s Democratness is being questioned. Don’t know if anyone has filed the purity challenge on him, but it’s something elese to watch.