On March 12, Dennis Kucinich filed this brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th circuit, in his Texas primary ballot access case.
Kucinich had been excluded from the Texas Democratic presidential primary because he wouldn’t sign an oath, pledging to “fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be.” The Texas Democratic Party wrote this oath, but does not impose a similar oath for anyone running in its primaries for office other than president. No other state Democratic Party, and no state unit of the Republican Party, has a similar oath.
Among the points made by Kucinich are: “The oath is either meaningless and thus protects no interest, or it is so meaningful that it can be the sole basis for excluding a candidate from appearing on the ballot.” The District Court had said the oath is legally meaningless and that someone in Kucinich’s position therefore had no real complaint against the oath. Kucinich vigorously contests the idea that the oath is meaningless.
Kucinich also argues, “If left unchecked, the district court’s analysis would permit a nefarious state political committee to promulgate rules designed to exclude certain candidates from the opportunity to win any of the state’s convention delegates.”
Kucinich also points out that in Jenness v Fortson, the U.S. Supreme Court said in footnote 25 that anyone with any political views is free to run in any major party primary. Therefore, it wasn’t so serious that third parties and independent candidates couldn’t get on the general election ballot. Footnote 25 of Jenness v Fortson is completely outmoded, given the more recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions protecting the right of political parties to run their own nominations process. Kucinich is doing a great service by reminding the 5th Circuit (and, perhaps, ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court itself) about this outmoded part of Jenness v Fortson.
How many brain dead MORONS are there in election stuff ???
Nominations for PUBLIC office is PUBLIC business.
PUBLIC Electors in political parties are subgroups of ALL PUBLIC Electors.
ALL ballot access cases in the Supremes since 1968 (a mere 40 years) have been SCREWED UP by MORON lawyers — including the 1971 Jenness piece of junk.
Well Demo Rep, if its all so PUBLIC and anybody should be able to join any political party, why don’t you join the Greens, or the Socialist Workers, or the Republicans?
First Michigan and Florida and then this Texas “loyalty oath”? The sooner the DNC gets it through their heads that Americans wants a free and transparent democracy without any of this boss tweed/ward politics crap, the sooner the democrats will regain the trust and support of the public…especially the youth!!!
DK had the spine and refused to support a warmongering DEM selling out to corporate greed.He deserves a peace award instead of what the texans gave him.It was disappointing when his presidential run ended.The progressives at least are happy that he won his heavily contested congressional primary.He goes toe to toe with corporate greed and not a bit bashful about it.We definitely more congressmen with Dennis Kucinich’s values and not less.Too many DEMS are selling out to coroprate greed.
I’ll be interested to read the Secretary of State’s and Texas Democratic Party’s briefs on this one. Kucinich’s brief raises some very interesting questions and puts Texas’ oath in an interesting contrast of what other states require.
The Secretary of State will argue that the conflict is between the Texas Democratic Party and Kucinich.
The State of Texas does not conduct primaries. It does require certain parties (GOP and Democrats, currently) to nominate state and county officers by primary. It also requires those parties to hold a presidential primary if the party wants to place its presidential nominees on the general election ballot.
Primaries are not conducted statewide, but only in those counties where there is a county party. Neither the GOP or Democratic Party held a primary in all 254 counties.
Texas law specifies that: “candidates qualify to have their names placed on the presidential primary election ballot in the manner provided by
party rule, subject to this section.” The limitations in the section are related to qualification by petition, which neither party requires, and so qualification is determined entirely by party rule.
Candidates for presidential nomination file with the state chair. The state chair is required to send the list of candidates to the Secretary of State, but his role is merely custodial. The Secretary of State is also required to prescribe the form of the ballots used in primaries.
The state chair sends the list of candidates to the county party chairs, who administer the primary election in their respective counties. There are provisions that permit the county election authorities to administer primaries, but this is entirely voluntary. If a county does so, the lists of candidates are provided by the county parties. Votes are canvassed by the county party and state party. In the case of primaries for state and county office, the state party then certifies its nominees to the Secretary of State so that they can be placed on the general election ballot. This does not happen for the presidential primary, since its results are only used for determining delegates to the national convention.
The State of Texas does not determine which candidates are placed on the presidential primary ballot of their party. It does not conduct the presidential primary. The presidential primary does not determine which candidates are placed on the general election ballot in Texas.
The Texas Democratic Party is required to file their presidential primary election plan with the Secretary of State. The 2008 plan, at least as far as the TDP’s presidential candidate oath, has not changed from previous elections. In 2004, Dennis Kucinich was a presidential candidate and ran in Texas after taking the same oath he objects to today.
The DNC approved the delegate selection plan of the TDP. Kucinich should include the DNC in his lawsuit.
When I ran for Congress in 1992, Kentucky had a similar law. I don’t know if it is still there or not.
Kentucky had a law that permitted parties to set the rules for being placed on their primary ballot?
What rules did your party set?
I was refering to the requirement that you had to endorse and vote for the winner of the primary in the fall. I don’t agree with Kucinich on much, but I agree with him on this matter.
The state (any/all) may take to official stance (except to bow out) on this case, but it would be in it’s best interest, the best interests of it’s people, to take action and ensure no political party uses legal finagling to deny it’s citizens a fair honest transparent voting system. Their lost soldiers Demand it, Their mothers and fathers Demand it, Their graduating classes Demand it, Their babes in arms Demand It!