GOP Requires Loyalty Oath in VA Primary

[livius drusus]

If you want to vote in the Virginia Republican primary, you'll have to sign an oath swearing to vote for the Republican presidential candidate in the general election, whoever he might be. No, I'm not kidding.

Since the Virginia primaries are open -- you don't have to register as belonging to a party in order to vote in its primary -- the GOP is worried about Democratic spoilers messing with the results. This unenforceable and bizarre oath is supposed to prevent that somehow.

[godfry n. glad]

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the following:..."

Tailgunner Joe would be proud.

[livius drusus]

I actually think it's even worse than that, because it's not asking people to swear that they're Republicans, but rather to swear that they will vote for the Republican candidate for president, even if they oppose him utterly.

Even the most avowed hand-over-flame, swear-in-blood Republican could have a problem with the final GOP candidate. There's a huge difference between a Ron Paul and a Rudy Giuliani or a Mike Huckabee, after all. This oath eviscerates Republican diversity and individual choice too.

[godfry n. glad]

It's flippin' illegal.

All it needs is an aggrieved citizen and a hungry lawyer (and somebody with plenty of cash). The state (a multi-partisan non-partisan entity) operates the elections. The party is an afterthought. They cannot dictate (and should not even attempt) to the citizen voter how they will or will not cast their votes in public elections. Their only immediate power would seem to be that they could prevent a citizen from voting in the primary if they won't sign the loyalty oath....how? Without breaking the law?

It's an attempt to intimidate the voter.

Regardless of meaningless paper declarations, I solemnly vow before my conscience and my Gods to vote for whomever I damned well please for whatever bloody reason comes to mind in that decisive moment.

Amen.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

It's flippin' illegal.

All it needs is an aggrieved citizen and a hungry lawyer (and somebody with plenty of cash). The state (a multi-partisan non-partisan entity) operates the elections. The party is an afterthought. They cannot dictate (and should not even attempt) to the citizen voter how they will or will not cast their votes in public elections.

I question the legality of it as well, and yet, the State Board of Elections approved this request, so unless people get suing pronto and the decision is overturned, the oath requirement will stand on primary day.

Their only immediate power would seem to be that they could prevent a citizen from voting in the primary if they won't sign the loyalty oath....how? Without breaking the law?

The primary staff just won't hand over a ballot unless a voter signs the oath first, I imagine.

It's an attempt to intimidate the voter.

That's for damn sure.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I question the legality of it as well, and yet, the State Board of Elections approved this request, so unless people get suing pronto and the decision is overturned, the oath requirement will stand on primary day.

So... I presume the Virginia Attorney General is a loyal Republican?

I would certainly hope that the Virginia Supreme Court would disagree.

If not, I, were I a Virginia citizen, would demand that the state no longer support the cost of the primaries. That should be the function, and liability, of the parties.

ETA: Hmmm... Maybe they do.

It seems to me that the federal government has a dog in this fight, as well. As if...

ETA: Well, if it's just a little private club thing, then...maybe not.

I suspect the Democrats are getting a good laugh about it. ETA: Huge laughs.

[California Tanker]

the GOP is worried about Democratic spoilers messing with the results

With some validity, it is to be said. There have been enthusiastic suggestions on both left and right wing sites about concerted voting in the other party's primaries in order to further the success of the nominatable candidate least likely to to win nationally. It's why I dislike fully open primaries.

Semi-open (i.e. independents can vote in whichever primary they want) does me nicely, and does a reasonable job of reducing the possibilities of opposition interference.

Obviously the oath is utterly unenforcable, and rather bad form, but I understand the sentiments behind it.

NTM

[livius drusus]

I don't. If the Virginia GOP wants closed primaries, then they should advocate for closed primaries, not resort to this ugly, offensive and laughably ineffective oath.

The oath won't stop or even hinder Democratic spoilers. If it's really such a huge problem -- and I have seen no evidence that it is anything but a chimera -- then the honest thing to do is work to close the primaries, not to force their brethren to vote against their conscience or not at all.

Besides, the Democratic primary is susceptible to the same oh-so-scary spoiling, so it looks like a wash to me, unless the GOP is trying to claim that the Democratic spoilers will overwhelm the Republican ones in number. I'd love to see any evidence of that which isn't a purely speculative at best, paranoid fantasy at worst.

[Dingfod]

Since the oath is not legally binding in any way at all, I actually would have no trouble signing it. That's just me, I guess. There is absolutely no way for them to know how you voted in the general election.

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

With some validity, it is to be said. There have been enthusiastic suggestions on both left and right wing sites about concerted voting in the other party's primaries in order to further the success of the nominatable candidate least likely to to win nationally. It's why I dislike fully open primaries.

Semi-open (i.e. independents can vote in whichever primary they want) does me nicely, and does a reasonable job of reducing the possibilities of opposition interference.

Obviously the oath is utterly unenforcable, and rather bad form, but I understand the sentiments behind it.

NTM

I was once registered as a Republican to do just this in a particularly contentious San Francisco election some years back.

What bothers me a lot is that both parties have done all they can to prevent third party candidates to even get onto the ballot. A lot of that has been Democratic Party operatives going in and waging costly and time-consuming signature challenges (which we experienced a lot in the last cycle).

Here, we had bi-partisan one introduction and support and ultimate passage of a bill which said that if you voted for a Party in the primary you could not sign a petition to nominate a third or independent party candidate. Made qualifying very dificult.

I know it's a different issue, but it is bound up with election politics which are, largely, becoming more closed off over the last few cycles.

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I don't. If the Virginia GOP wants closed primaries, then they should advocate for closed primaries, not resort to this ugly, offensive and laughably ineffective oath.

The oath won't stop or even hinder Democratic spoilers. If it's really such a huge problem -- and I have seen no evidence that it is anything but a chimera -- then the honest thing to do is work to close the primaries, not to force their brethren to vote against their conscience or not at all.

Besides, the Democratic primary is susceptible to the same oh-so-scary spoiling, so it looks like a wash to me, unless the GOP is trying to claim that the Democratic spoilers will overwhelm the Republican ones in number. I'd love to see any evidence of that which isn't a purely speculative at best, paranoid fantasy at worst.

Ah, but real Republicans are God fearing and honest, so they would never stoop to such a thing... unlike those lyin' thievin Libtards.

[godfry n. glad]

Aw, fer crêpes' sake....

Whether the voters aligned with one party will cross over to vote in the other party's primary in order to skew those results depends heavily upon what is going on in the voter's own party. With a sizeable and contentious set of candidates on the Democrat side, it's extremely unlikely any voter associated with any particular Democratic candidate will abandon their candidate in their party's primary. That is the situation which prevails in the coming election.

Primary crossing happens only when there is an unchallenged or very clear leading candidate in your own party (usually an incumbent). When you needn't worry about your party favorite, only then can you feel as though you can meddle in the other party's primary to help pick the worst of their lot (in the voters' eyes). And then it would take a significant number of crossovers to make a difference.

This can happen even in closed primary states. Here in this part of Cascadia, we have closed elections and can change our registration up to a month prior to the election. The above situation could still occur through massive re-registration. The thing is, I don't think too many voters will ever go through that much work to vote for the worst candidate of the "other party".

Since I re-registered as a NAWAPP, I don't get to vote in the primaries, except on non-partisan offices and ballot measures. Coming up will be the first primary ever that I've not voted for party candidates. We'll see how it goes, but right now, I don't think it's going to be much of a disappointment to me. I doubt that Bill Richardson will do much better with me out of the primary.

[Kyuss Apollo]

They should also make them take an IQ test.

[Qingdai]

Perhaps they could allow votes based on savings, "One dollar, one vote." Let the richest man win.

[wildernesse]

I've voted in the Republican primary before--I'm registered as an Independent--but only because I had a deep dislike of one particular candidate and I wanted to vote against him. (I even voted again in the run-off!) Plus, nothing much was going on in the Dems' side. Heck, I'd even sign an oath and then do what I want--chalking it up to something akin to civil disobedience.

The decision doesn't necessarily have to be overturned to not be operable on election day--someone suing could possibly get an injunction and then the decision can be made whenever the courts get around to it. Or something. I guess.

[erimir]

What's NAWAPP?

[livius drusus]

Not affiliated with any political party?

[Freddy]

Here is an article that explains why this "loyalty oath" is indeed illegal and unconstitutional.
From the article:

"What is pretty clear is that the SBE is going to lose the inevitable lawsuit on this matter, and it should. This oath is an unconstitutional infringement on any GOP voter's right to vote given that it extracts a promise to vote in the general election for candidates unknown and unknowable as of the primary election day. Even if the oath is construed to require simply "loyalty," rather than an actual vote, it is an affront to private thought and conscience. Moreover, it probably violates the voter's First Amendment rights for a host of reasons. But try this one on for size: suppose a Catholic Republican, i.e., me, has to face the choice of voting for the former Mayor of New York City or the Senator from the State of New York. Given that both candidates have, well, let's just say problematic positions on the right to life and the integrity of the family, the moral imperatives may demand writing in another worthy candidate for president."

The American Spectator

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by erimir

What's NAWAPP?

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Not affiliated with any political party?

Or NAWAOPP, as Cowboy Philosopher Will Rogers put it "I'm a member of no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

[godfry n. glad]

Nope, Ding.

liv actually has it right.

It is how my state registers those who wish not to be associated with any political party, including the Independent Party. Folks 'round these parts used to file as independents, but then that runty little guy with the big ears who'd made a fortune ripping off the gubmint with computer contracts actually got an Independent Party registered here in the state.

I'm no longer a Democrat, I bolted late last year. It feels good, actually. I'd actually climbed as high as District Leader and was on pretty good terms with the legislator of the district. But that required attending county central committee meetings, and let me tell you, that's enough to motivate hard core members to get the hell out of the party. It's like a huge collection of wackjobs, each with their own speyshul agenda and absolutely no couth about pushing it forward. When I resigned, I told them they should create a gallery and sell tickets to county central committee meetings - that they could make money on those freak shows.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

Perhaps they could allow votes based on savings, "One dollar, one vote." Let the richest man win.

That's more like the libertarians. Seriously. I read an article in Reason magazine that proposed precisely that, under the 'logic' that wealth represents stake in the system. The more wealth you had, the more you had to lose, and therefore the greater say you ought to have.

Or we could just go back to divine right of kings. It amounts to the same thing.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

[

Obviously the oath is utterly unenforcable, and rather bad form, but I understand the sentiments behind it.

NTM

Unenforceable? It's unconstitutional, CT. Can't you muster up any stronger language than "rather bad form"?

Originally Posted by Sauron

That's more like the libertarians. Seriously. I read an article in Reason magazine that proposed precisely that, under the 'logic' that wealth represents stake in the system. The more wealth you had, the more you had to lose, and therefore the greater say you ought to have.

Or we could just go back to divine right of kings. It amounts to the same thing.

It was rubbish like that which pretty well ended my affiliation with the Libertarian Party. It finally took me biting off the head of one of them last to week to make the phone calls begging for money stop.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sauron

That's more like the libertarians. Seriously. I read an article in Reason magazine that proposed precisely that, under the 'logic' that wealth represents stake in the system. The more wealth you had, the more you had to lose, and therefore the greater say you ought to have.

Or we could just go back to divine right of kings. It amounts to the same thing.

Certainly back to one of the suffrage issues in our own history...property requirements. It used to be, right here in the US, that to vote, you had to own so much property...a given value.