It’s Official: Libertarians Kicked Off the Republican and Democratic Primaries
Celia Cohen had the scoop yesterday, and the news was published in today’s News Journal. The Libertarian candidate Will McVay (RD32) will not be allowed to run in either the Democratic party primary nor the Republican primary. Brent Wangen (DE-AL) will not be allowed to run in the Republican primary. Both will still be on the Libertarian line in the general election.
The decision to cut them out of the party primaries was made by Deputy Attorney General Ann Woolfolk, who is assigned to the ElectionsOffice. Woolfolk said candidates are barred from filing to run on multiple party ballot lines, according to a 1994 court decision, an earlier attorney general’s report and the phrase “political party” in state law.
Candidates can be listed on the ballot under multiple parties if they are nominated by at least one of the parties, but not when they file without party backing.
Woolfolk said the Election Office received letters from both political parties stating that McVay is neither “affiliated” with their party nor nominated by them. The parties had begun to raise objections when McVay announced he was entering both primaries. The Republicans submitted an identical letter for Wangen.
Yes, to me this is the key difference with the Margaret Rose Henry situation. Henry was nominated by the Republican party. Neither Wangen nor McVay were nominated by the Republicans or the Democrats, in fact, I don’t know if they even knew them.
As Celia Cohen’s post said, the decision came down to a statement issued by the Attorney General’s office in 1994. This came from a reading of the election law.
Forsten and Woolfolk point to a court ruling and separate attorney general’s opinion from 1994 as the justification for removing McVay and Wangen.
State law requires a primary candidate to notify the chairman of “their respective political party” when filing to run.
Commenter The Straight Scoop posted the relevant portion of the state election law in an earlier thread:
Comment by The Straight Scoop on 10 July 2010 at 11:42 am:
OK, here’s something from the Delaware Code that might shed some light…Title 15, Chapter 31 (Primary Elections)
3106(a)(2) Candidates for all other offices:
a. All candidates for county or countywide office, members of the General Assembly and/or municipal office for any municipality holding its election at the time of the general election shall notify the county chair, or the county chair’s designee, in writing (or the city chair, or the city chair’s designee, if applicable for municipal candidates) of their respective political party in their county of residence on forms prescribed by the State Election Commissioner on or before the deadline set forth in § 3101(1) of this title.
Let’s strip away the excess language and get to the heart of it:
All candidates for non-statewide office shall notify the county chair of their respective political party in their county of residence before the deadline. (emphasis mine)
This is an extremely rudimentary reading of the code, but doesn’t that imply that to be a candidate in a primary election, you must be a member of that political party?
Also, the next subsection says that filing fees must be “payable to the county committee of the candidate’s political party…”
Again, a direct reference to the candidate’s political party in a primary. I’m not an attorney, but I have to imagine that adds fuel to the debate. And it accommodates Anon’s request to read the code and post a specific example that might this candidacy.
Feel free to discuss…
Apparently the decision was partly based on a judge’s ruling. There was a candidate that previously tried to run on two lines:
A few weeks after Ridgely’s decision, the Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion when John Reda tried to run for the state Legislature as a Libertarian and a Republican.
“The question is whether a candidate may have more than one respective party. We conclude that he may not,” the opinion states, denying Reda the ability to run under both banners.
My understanding after reading is that candidates can run on multiples lines as a fusion candidate, but they must be nominated by that party if they aren’t registered with that party. This makes sense to me. If this is the understanding the state has of the election law, I really see no need for further legislation addressing the issue.
Tags: DE-AL, Delaware, General Assembly, Libertarians, RD32
“shall notify the county chair, or the county chair’s designee, in writing (or the city chair, or the city chair’s designee, if applicable for municipal candidates) of their respective political party”
The key word here is “their.” If you read that as applying to the candidates, then Beth Miller – unaffiliated – should not be allowed to run on the Republican line for the Legislature. She is not a member of the GOP, and thus cannot file paperwork with her “respective political party.” I hope the Libertarians challenge her candidacy, because the major parties can’t have it both ways.
But if you read “their” as referring to the party chairmen, as I do, then the whole issue becomes moot, and anyone can run on any ballot line.
UI wrote; “they must be nominated by that party if they aren’t registered with that party.” You either miss or misunderstand a critical point. A primary election is held for the express purpose of nominating a candidate. The party has turned the selection process over to the voters.
You miss a critical point. Modern Libertarians are Republican wannabes who are only differentiated by the fact that they don’t mind gays.
Miller has the backing of the Republican party chairmen despite not being a registered Republican. Wangen and McVay did not. So really I read the rules as:
1) you have to be a registered member of the party
OR
2) if not a registered member, you must have the backing of the party to get on the ballot
So in my mind the Miller case and the McVay/Wangen case are different, mainly because Republicans asked that McVay and Wangen be removed but not Miller. I think you’re right that McVay could use Miller as a challenge but I don’t think the Libertarians have the money to contest the ruling.
BTW, an independent backed by the party does not preclude a registered member of that party also getting in the race. At least, that’s how I read it.
Comment by jason330 on 15 July 2010 at 10:22 am:
You miss a critical point. Modern Libertarians are Republican wannabes who are only differentiated by the fact that they don’t mind gays”
Unless they are running for office in the south, or mid west. or alaska, arizona, parts of new england, bible belt.. etc. and need votes from the bigoted right.
True that. it occurs to me that another true observation would be that Modern Democrats are Republican wannabes who are only differentiated by the fact that thier fundraising materials rant about how terrible Republicans are.
Hmmm. One could read the law as saying that a Libertarian that wants to run as a Libertarian, Republican and/or a Democrat, must notify their respective party chair (in this case, the Libertarian chair). A Democrat that wanted to run as a Republican and a Democrat, may only be required to notify the Democratic chair.
I guess the question is whether or not the Libertarian party wants to spend the $500 that they have raised statewide for this cycle on a lawsuit to challenge the AG’s ruling.
This should be fun. McVay is going to court on Monday in an attempt to overturn the ruling.
UI, Anon and all,
The reason a lot of this is confusing is because we’re all talking about different things at the same time. The current situation (and the section of the code referenced (3106) as to why McVay can’t run) involves a primary.
Let’s try to bottom line this thing:
Margaret Rose Henry: Registered Democrat, approached by the Republicans about being their chosen/nominated candidate in a special election. Special elections only call for each party to choose a candidate, so it can be someone from any political party.
Karen Hartley Nagle: Registered Democrat, ran in 2006 Democratic primary, also endorsed by Indpendent Party of DE (IPOD). Note that she was a registered “D” running in the primary “of their respective political party.” The IPOD endorsement was additional, and it was for a slot on the general election ballot.
Karen Weldin Stewart, Bill Oberle, Dennis E. Williams: All ran with their registered parties (KWS winning a Democratic primary) in 2008, but also endorsed by the Working Families Party in the general in lieu of other candidates for each office.
Will McVay: Registered Libertarian, endorsed by Libertarian Party for general election. Filed for Republican and Democratic primaries despite not being registered or affiliated with either party.
State law is different for primaries than it is for general elections (read Title 15, Chapters 31 and 33). Primaries require you to be from your “respective political party,” while the general election simply requires the party to have endorsed you. Much as it pains me to agree with Forsten in the NJ article, imagine the gaming of the system you’d have if an “R” could primary a “D” just to keep them busy, and vice versa.
And to those screaming that it’s a conspiracy by the majority parties to shut people out of the political process, read all of Title 15. Only majority parties (those with at least 5 percent of registered voters) are required to even hold primaries if there are multiple candidates from their party. The minor parties simply go to a convention and nominate a candidate.
Call me crazy, but the majority parties’ primary system seems way more inclusive than the minority parties. This is why you have the Mike Protacks, Christine O’Donnells and Scott Spencers of the world: majority party primaries are open to any registered member of that party. Minor parties hold nominating conventions for their candidates, no primary for all voters. (Though I think I’ve read before that IPOD’s convention is open to all I’s.)
@jason330. You sir. and I say that very loosely. Have allot to learn about Libertarians. If you don’t know what your talking about and or rather just talk out your ass. Then by all means keep doing so. For you seem to have a gift for it. If not and would like to talk as if you have some kind of sense. Then please be shore to talk about Truth and Facts. Not your Ignorant opinions.
I calls ’em as I sees ’em.
@ jason330.
If you anything about Libertarian’s. You would know that we are nothing like the Dreaded Repubs.
However, our spelling, punctuation and capitalization is on par with David Anderson’s.
The court case referred to throughout this and other threads was Judge Ridgely specifically saying that “respective political party” means the party in which the candidate is filing for the primary, not the party they are registered to. The AG’s opinion looks for a couple of split hairs to find an excuse for the Department of Elections to kick candidates off the ballot, at the behest of the Democratic and Republican parties. This is exactly what has happened here.
The AG’s opinion is not based on the law or on Judge Ridgely’s decision and is not legally binding. It seems that the AG’s opinion is in fact an attempt to circumvent Ridgely’s decision on behalf of the major parties. I will be in the chancery court in Kent County on Monday at 2pm to hopefully address this issue.
There was also a comment earlier that my filing means I have money…I do not. I’m going to be representing myself and am very disappointed that it has so far cost me $600 in filing costs with the courts, not the Department of Elections or parties, to have the law enforced as it is written.
It should be the decision of the 32nd District’s party members, not the party machines, who they will nominate for the general election. By removing me from the primary ballots, they are being denied that right.
Thank you, Unstable Isotope, for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any further questions or suggestions.
302-670-1971
RE the 9:45PM comment: True Libertarianism died (or sold out) when the Bob Barr infantry infiltrated the camp. Then social conservatism found a way in to the platform and neo-Libertarianism was born. Social conservatism has no ground in traditional Libertarianism.