On October 14, a U.S. District Court in Nashville ruled in favor of the Tennessee Democratic Party, and against State Senator Rosalind Kurita, in Kurita’s ballot access lawsuit. She says she will appeal to the 6th circuit. She had won the August Democratic primary but the Tennessee Democratic Party certified someone else to be the Democratic nominee. The case is Kurita v The State Primary Board of the Tennessee Democratic Party, 3:08cv-948. The decision is 41 pages. It depends on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that give substantial autonomy on political parties to run their own affairs (see pages 10-17). It also depends on the Tennessee statutory scheme, which does seem to give political parties a great deal of authority to settle primary election vote-counting disputes (although in this case, everyone agrees that Kurita won the primary, by the narrow margin of 19 votes).
This is one reason, one more example of why so many people prefer to call that old party “the Democrat Party,” because it is not at all democratic.
I remember how, back in 1992, President G.H.W. Bush was hitting into the 90s in approval ratings and it seriously looked as if no Democrat would run against him.
Finally a mayor, whose name escapes me at the moment, who had been elected in a heavily Republican Orange County, California, town, threw his hat into the ring.
After he broke the ice, a few other Democrats decided to take a chance and entered the primaries, too.
Not only did that poor mayor never get any help from the national Democrat Committee, he actually got thrown into jail for trying to participate in a primary debate.
“Elitist,” maybe, “dictatorial,” yes, but “democratic”? No, it is a totally inaccurate name for that party.
Since party hierarchies can disregard the outcomes of party primary elections, then such elections are reduced to mere publicity events like “televised debates”. Such being the case it would seem advantageous for candidates who are not selected by the party machine to run as Independents or affiliate with another party whose hierarchy does not have a veto over elections.
I speak as loser of a party primary election, but it was not the fault the party hierarchy – its was mine. But if the party officials had attempted to intervene on my behalf to overturn the result, I would have refused the nomination. Obviously, Ms. Kurita’s opponent has less integrity.
SAD DAY IN TENNESSEE,TO HELL WITH THE DEMICRAPS.
Is there a link to the 6th circuit decision?
There’s a lesson here for those Ron Paul Republicans who think they can work within their party to effect change.
O.W.
How dare Tim Barnes be a swore loser. Senator Kurita has a backbone and not a conformist, therefore she is paying for it now. I mean please we really know what this is about: because she decided to move a man out of office that was 2000 years old and was not changing for the good of Tennessee. I say pleeeeeeeaaaaseeee.