According to this news story, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter is about to change his registration from “Republican” to “Democrat.” Thanks to Jack Ross for this news.
If Senator Specter represented California, he could not have switched parties this month and run for re-election in 2010. California law on prior party affiliation is so restrictive, if someone switches parties in April of an odd year, he or she can not run in the following year’s primary, in any party. The 2010 June primary filing deadline is in March 2010, and candidates who switch parties less than a full year before the primary filing deadline are barred from all primary ballots. One would think the California law runs afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court decision U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, which said that states cannot keep people off the ballot for Congress if they meet the constitutional qualifications to hold the office.
His label does not matter. He is all ready a Dem. That is how he votes.
Well, the court in the term limits case made a silly little distiction between rules that are adding extra federal qualifications versus rules that are simply regulations. Reading it is good for a laugh.
Specter is probably more of a moderate then anything else. If you look at his record, he supported positions that may seem liberal or conservative.
He is generally pro-choice, but supports lots of legal restrictions. He is pro-death penalty and anti-gun control.e supports some gay rights bills, but not others and so forth.
This is some what rarer — with the rise of so many safe districts and other such incumbency protections, but it does occur.
His major GOP primary opponent was much more of a God-fearing, fire and brimstone conservative and now Specter avoids a touch primary, and gets lots of loving from the Democrats.
Interesting to note that several news items did mention the tough State rules regarding ballot access.
in a State that tends to support the Democratic Party candidate.
As many stories have pointed out, he was looking to lose the Republican primary this next election anyway.
This way, he can pretend to aspire to some “principles,” though he has never shown any before.
If I were a (spit, spit) Republican, I’d be saying, “Good riddance!”
Alas this shows that both major parties are the same thing. If they were different, then the Democratic Party would have stopped his switch.
Spector has always been a moderate leaning to the right in ideaology along the lines of Sen. Nelson, Baucus, Byah, etc. Just because he has a “D” next to his name doesn’t mean it’s a slam dunk for the Democratic policy agenda, but it is an interesting development in what it means for the future of the GOP.
The question is, with more and more voters not strongly identifiying with either of the two major parties in power, and paying less attention to party labels, could this be the start of more independents/non-partisans being elected?
Could this be the beginning of the start of a new political party emerging in Congress, and/or the start of the end of the two party duopoly?
Richard,
I’ve read in a number of places that Specter was likely not attracted to the idea of running an independent campaign due to various laws and restrictions in Pennsylvania, but many news sites obviously fail to supply the details. Why would an independent run have been so difficult even for someone like Specter in Penn?
Re: running as an independent… the poll numbers just didn’t make that an attractive alternative.
PYK: you got it. One is ‘hoehouse is much like the other.
That is “one more nail in the coffin” of the Republican Party. As I have been saying and writing for the past few years now, the GOP will be a minor-sized party by the year of 2012.
Just what the Dems need; more conservatives, as if they aren’t lame enough as it is. This may be another nail in the GOP’s coffin, but it is also another nail in the Democratic Party as a vehicle for progressivism, let alone a Left of Center agenda.