There’s a discussion going on at First State Politics about the candidates who, while running for a major party’s nomination, are also running in the general election on the ticket of the Independent Party. Dave raises the point that by doing this, these candidates are risking their supposed party’s chances of winning the general election and likely burning all bridges with that party.
This is just more evidence that the Republicans running Margaret Rose Henry in the special election to replace Herman Holloway, Sr. was a big mistake. (For the record, I opposed that decision, but was just a radical right-wing college student at the time, so my opinion accounted for less than nothing.) I’m doing this from memory because I couldn’t find any information about it online and I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t have access to LEXIS to verify my memory, so I apologize in advance if my memory is faulty.
More after the break…..
Longtime State Senator Herman Holloway died in 1994, leading to a special election to replace him. The Democrats selected Holloway’s son, Herman Holloway, Jr. as their candidate. The Republicans, recognizing that they had little chance to win one of, if not the most Democratic district in the state, decided to go for a long shot and selected Margaret Rose Henry as their candidate. Henry was a well-spoken, articulate, well-put-together community activist
who would make a formidable candidate on any party’s ticket. One big problem: She was a Democrat seeking to run as a Republican. (Here’s an interesting article about her campaign.)
Here’s where my memory is a little fuzzy, so please bear with me if I make any mistakes. She won the special election as the Republican candidate. Holloway’s seat was due for election that November anyway, so Henry immediately had to run for re-election. A Republican candidate filed to run in the Republican primary that September. Henry was still registered Democrat and the law at that time was interpreted that a person could only run for under the banner of the party to which they belonged. So, the Democrats sued arguing she was ineligible to run in the Republican primary since there was a actual registered Republican already running. The Republicans argued that because Holloway’s death had occurred after the deadline to change party affiliations, Henry never had the opportunity to switch parties and therefore should not be kept off the ballot.
The court came back with a ruling no one expected. I forget the exact logic used, but basically the court ruled that under current Delaware law, candidates could run on any ticket they chose. Henry was allowed to run in the primary and went on to win that election and her rematch with Holloway Jr in November. She ultimately switched back to the Democrat party a few years later.
The Republicans took advantage of that opening a few more times, running Democrats in other special elections in the City of Wilmington. (I remember Karen Jackson Miller’s campaign in 2001 for the 1st Representative District after the resignation of Orlando George. I seem to recall another one as well, but I’m blanking on the details.) Other disaffected have used this same ruling to their advantage as well. Robert Bovell, a registered Independent allied with disaffected Democrats ran for the unfilled Republican nomination for Wilmington in 2004.
Now we see what may be the first concerted effort to take advantage of this decision as two Republican State Senate primary candidates are also running in the general election for the same seats with the Independent Party. Additionally, a Democrat candidate for Congress is running in both the Democrat primary and in the general election as a capital-I Independent.
My Reaction
I took some time to think about what these candidates are doing and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, although I had an initial negative reaction to it, as I’m sure many people have. Why did I have a bad reaction to it?
Because this isn’t the way we traditionally do things in Delaware.
Change is always upsetting to people. This possibility has been out there since the Henry decision in 1994; it’s just now that people are taking advantage of it. (Part of me bets it’s happening due to the attention drawn to it by Celia Cohen’s article about Mike Castle quashing a bid to head off this possibility to cause trouble for his Dmocrat opponent.)
I would take a two-pronged approach.
1) Political parties should not be forced to accept candidates not already affiliated with their party on their ballots. The Republican and Democrat parties should have the right to choose their own candidates from among their membership. It’s wrong that I could have been the Democrat candidate for State Auditor if I had simply written a check back in July. This should be resolved before the next election cycle. Sticking with the State Auditor example, the GOP could have found a placeholder candidate to file at the last minute just to prevent the Democrats from being able to field a candidate of their choosing as they ultimately successfully did.
2) We should allow (and, heck, encourage) third parties to jointly nominate candidates with the major parties, o, of course, candidates of their own. I view this as similar to how New York does it. The Conservative Party frequently nominates the same candidate as the Republican Party. The Liberal and Democrat parties have a similar relationship. But, the Conservative and Liberal parties occasionally withhold their support for their allied major party’s candidate. For state-wide Republican candidates, not getting the Conservative Party nod, has almost always been the kiss of death.
In this system votes go with the candidate. So a candidate who gets 40% of the vote on the Republican ticket and 15% on the Conservative ticket would beat the candidate who received 45% of the vote on the Democrat ticket, even though said Democrat drew the highest vote on any one ticket for that office.
This system makes it easier to tell where a candidate draws their support. For example, if half of the vote for a Republican candidate comes from his Conservative Party nominations, he’d better vote as a conservative in office. The same goes for a candidate who draws a lot of support from the Liberal party, or the Green Party, or the Party to Require Women to Shave Their Legs. (There’s a party we can all unite around!)
I think this is a common sense approach that respects the rights of candidates and political parties while increasing the responsiveness of politicians to their constituents.
Good Morning Paul,
You bring out some excellent points. However, I would like for you to please consider this interpretation of “Fusion Candidate” – a candidate who is listed on a ballot multiple times. How then is one a “Fusion Candidate” if they are only on the ballot once? I would have no problem if Barbara Allsopp states BEFORE the primary that if she wins the primary she’ll remain on the IPD ballot, however if she loses, then she’ll immediately ask to be removed. That’s fair and honorable, and gives the 14th District a real opportunity to defeat Jim Vaughn.
I am of the mind that those who place party and partisanship above all will always have narrow, bitter views towards anyone who they perceive as not towing their party’s line. This is usually driven by a desire for partisan advantage, never principled decision-making or ethical judgment.
These types of political animals are at a loss to understand that not everyone is driven in their decisions by Machiavellian calculations and maneuvers. Sometime a duck is just a duck.
For those who believe that public service is the not the exclusive province of broken-down parties run by faithless, unethical so-called leaders then the idea of coalition government and consensus begin with coalition-building in the political process.
Let me directly quote Mr. Gregory Chambers, commenting to me on whether he would reject any party endorsement or process that is dishonest or one run by the donors and supporters of a candidate under consideration : “I’ll take support anywhere I can get it.”
In a conversation I had in June with DE GOP Communications Director, Ken Grant, he privately shared opposition to unconstitutional measures to burden and restrict political speech of parties and public candidates by making declarations of party affiliation into a political and electoral fealty oath. Grant however was less interested in principle than he was in the chance for greater success that he saw for Republican candidates with broad enough appeal to actually gather other parties to support an unequivocally Republican registered candidate.
This Communication Director’s views were not communicated, however, but admittedly muzzled by those paying his salary and giving him orders. Mr. Grant is a smart man and I wish his private views could be the public position of the party ruling class for which he varyingly speaks.
To John – I think you are a decent guy and I would be glad to tell people why and how I hold this view of you. But you sound really shrill and are aligning yourself with people whose terrible, self-interested decisions and abuses of candidates and actvists have caused our GOP to be now fast approaching 3rd-party status in Delaware.
In my Senate District, over 3 times the voting population of yours, the GOP is less than 2% or so from achieving this ignominy.
Rest assured you will be very quickly sent to the dustbin as soon as you have served your purpose to the ends of those who make our party slave to wealth, privilege, and self-dealing. If you want credibility I suggest you not tie yourself to those who have none.
Exaggerated self-serving condemnations of others, on grounds that are void of any public interest spirit or the slightest discernible benefit to the vibrance of a participatory democracy, are quite revealing of the character of service, if any, that we can expect from the speaker.
Mr. Smith, I wholeheartedly reject your call for less democracy in this world or in this nation. I battled you and others who share your adherence to oligarchical governance when you were the controllers and gatekeepers in the Wilmington GOP five years ago.
It comes as no surprise that you still harbor ill-will over how it prompted yours and your cronies’ eventual resignations en masse the evening before our Region vote on my proposed rules amendments. You were quite content to abandon your posts rather than face the prospect of the many accountability and openness rules changes that I managed to pushed through, over the virulent opposition of the cozy ruling clique of which you were part, as Region Vice-Chairman.
Anyone who wants to see the written record of these 2001-2002 rules proposals and some of the written exchanges, in which my efforts were decried at one point even with an absurdly childish claim that I was not making it “fun” for those involved, please email me at 1stSenate@tylernixon.com.
You will see in gory detail that faithless and even selfish are more apt descriptors of the very people who would now very disingenuosly oppose coalition candidacies from GOP backrooms and elitist quarters.
I long ago saw that their overriding ethic was one of control at all costs, even that of the GOP’s very health and success. They would rather rule a losing party than be part of a winning and open party.
We need not look past the last 10 years of election results and complete Democratic party dominance in our State to see what their judgment and control has wrought.
Regards.
Tyler Patrick Nixon
Indendepent Republican
Candidate – 1st District Senate
A Uniter…..Not A Divider
“I am of the mind that those who place party and partisanship above all will always have narrow, bitter views towards anyone who they perceive as not towing their party’s line. This is usually driven by a desire for partisan advantage, never principled decision-making or ethical judgment.”
this from the man who, a few years ago, led a loud public fight to change the party rules so that a region chair could be expelled for aiding a Dem candidate.
To Tyler – I too believe you are a very decent person.
As I have always done, I am limiting my comments to my race in the 14th Senatorial District.
Taken steps to win the Republican Primary includes meeting with the GOP leadership. Barbara Allsopp took the exact same steps. Why am I always the one who is “aligned”? It doesn’t make sense.
I am running as a Republican and one of the steps to reach the General election is to win your primary. I am doing what you are supposed to do when attempting to unseat an entrenched incumbent.
“this from the man who, a few years ago, led a loud public fight to change the party rules so that a region chair could be expelled for aiding a Dem candidate.”
False.
The battle was for party leadership that is accountable, open, inclusive, ethical, and fair. It was a clash over whether party leaders are given positions of power with personal entitlements or positions of trust with fiduciary duties.
Loyalty to party is strictly a personal prerogative, but fidelity to duty is an obligation of leadership. My battles were against a ruling party hierarchy that, then and now, seems to see this the other way around.
Here is the exact rules proposal with comments :
http://www.tylernixon.com/NIXONCONTENT/2001-12-05NixonProposedRulesChanges.pdf
“It was a clash over whether party leaders are given positions of power with personal entitlements or positions of trust with fiduciary duties.
Loyalty to party is strictly a personal prerogative, but fidelity to duty is an obligation of leadership.”
Look at the absolute clarity & instant lucidity of that distinction.
I don’t get you Republicans about Nixon. He is certainly one of the smartest Repubs in the party, probably of anyone in the state. Not only does Nixon comprehend the big picture but he also knows how to provide the practical steps to instantiate the big picture. He’s also articulate, fast on his feet, a little paunchy–OK–but far from an Amick, and appeals to a wide spectrum of voters (e.g., me the Green).
But Nixon comes w/ a cost. He’ll want a changed party. But what kind of changes does he want? More openness, more democracy, more rank & file empowerment, more principle, etc. In case people have forgotten, those changes would be good.
That they are resisted by your party’s leadership says nothing about Nixon. It says something about them. And you know who they are…what they are really like…you know the things they have done. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
John Feroce, Nixon has given you some good advice. Be careful of your identification w/ the party leaders. They reperesent the past. They are not the future of the Repub Party in DE. Those closely identified with them will suffer the same repudiation they will recieve. Their fate hangs on 2006. Except for Mike Ramone, it’s not looking good for the Repubs. If so, Stine & Rakestraw are finished.
John Feroce: I see where you’re coming from, but I prefer the proposals I outlined above. I really like that style of election.
Tyler: You do know I was defending you, right? And saying we should have more elections in the manner you’re undertaking.
You’re wrong about about we resigned, though. I had some personal reasons for leaving, which will stay secret. Ron Perkins resigned because his work was taking him out of state. Denise left because she was serving in office out of friendship with Ron and I. I can’t even remember for sure who the Treasurer was, but if it was Bonnie, she left because of her new job.
Dana: Your point about power is one of the benefits of my proposal, in my opinion. It not only takes power away from the party leaderships, since spurned candidates can more easily find another ballot position, but it also takes power away from the parties as a whole since there will be more parties and candidates may owe their election to one of the third parties rather than one of the two main ones.
I think that if it’s legal, it’s all right to run on any ticket. It gives the voters more choices.