In 2006, the Alaskan Independence Party filed a lawsuit in federal court, to force the state to recognize this party Bylaw: “In any election for public office where the Alaskan Independence Party is authorized by law to nominate a candidate, the State Committee shall be empowered to present a nominee in the name of the Alaskan Independence Party, or to reject any candidate not in compliance with these bylaws. Only those candidates endorsed by the Alaskan Independence Party may run as Alaskan Independence Party’s candidates in the primary or general election in the State of Alaska.”
The U.S. District Court brushed off the party’s lawsuit in a brief decision on February 20, 2007. The party appealed to the 9th circuit. It will probably be argued in August 2008. The question presented by this lawsuit is of great importance. Federal and state courts in Alabama, Georgia, and Hawaii have upheld the right of parties to exclude candidates from their primaries on the basis of the clash between the party’s platform and the candidate’s principles. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions which imply that parties do have a right to exclude candidates from their own primaries, but has never squarely decided the issue.
The Alaskan Independence Party has tried to keep Daniel DeNardo off its primary ballots, because it considers him hostile to the party. DeNardo sued the party for $10,000,000 in 2005. He recently lost that case but he is appealing. In the meantime, he continues to file to run in the party’s primary. This year he is running for State House in the AIP’s primary.
The 9th circuit case is Alaskan Independence Party v State, 07-35186.
we just discussed this here in maine, and it sounds like basically if a yahoo tries to run for office with your party, the party needs to field someone to beat them in the primary, and that is the mechanism by which parties can legitimately protect their lineup. If not that, a NOTA line item may be the most appropriate mechanism?
allowing a committee, rather than the party membership, to just axe candidates at will seems a little anti-democratic, no?
Nominations for PUBLIC office is PUBLIC business by PUBLIC Electors.
Sorry – not tolerable to have party hack monarchs / oligarchs determining general election candidates.
NO need for any party hack stuff whatever — primaries, caucuses, conventions.
Direct nominating petitions by ALL Electors for general election candidates.
P.R. and A.V.
Political *science* moves on — regardless of Stone Age brains stuck in the evil bad old days.
The Helsinki Accords provide that participating governments (and we are a participating government) provide for “a clear separation between the State and political parties; in particular, political parties will not be merged with the State.”
Re: #3. Are you saying that the State should not maintain membership rolls for political parties or conduct their nomination activities for them?
It sounds like Washington’s Top 2 system is the way out of this dilemma.
Alaska– unlike Hawaii, Georgia, and Alabama– registers voters by party. It doesn’t make sense for a party to prevent one of its registered members from seeking its nomination.
Furthermore, the AIP voluntarily participates in a blanket primary with the Democrats and another minor party, which makes it possible for non-members to out-vote AIP members in choosing an AIP nominee.
The voters would not take kindly to a party replacing and/or rejecting a candidate who had won the party’s primary.
This suit really seems to be directed totally at DeNardo.
The “top two” will solve many of the world’s problems, won’t it, Jim R?
STEVE WE NEED TO TALK GIVE ME YOUR PHONE NUMBER. THIS IS VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT.
patsy gail: You can e-mail me at oldsouthwest(at)aol.com.
thanks for the information but i want to talk.
steve and patsy gail this is supposed to be a political blog.