Comments on: Decision Likely on January 11 in Kucinich Case Against Texas Democratic Party

By: Jim R

Jim R — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:58:23 +0000

The number of signatures for an independent presidential candidate is 1% of the votes cast in the previous presidential election. The number of signatures for other statewide offices (or to organize a party) is 1% of the votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election. If there is a 40% difference, it is only because there is 40% greater participation in the presidential election.

While you might not have made the same policy choice, it can hardly be characterized as illogical to base the signature threshold on participation in the election for a particular office.

Since a voter could sign the petitions of independent candidates for governor, senator, controller, land commissioner, etc., there is really no reason to set a higher standard for getting ballot access for a party, especially considering that the party will lose its ballot access if they don’t get 5% in some statewide race. Even if an independent candidate is elected, he will still have to re-petition to be re-elected (unless he seeks a party nomination). Again, you might have made a different policy choice, but the one that was made can not be characterized as illogical.

While the filing dates might be confusing, is there material harm? It is not as though any voter would have a clue as to when they were, even if they were all the same. Those circulating the petitions would know when the deadlines were and could plan accordingly.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:06:11 +0000

The pledge for voters is:

“I am a (insert appropriate political party)
and understand that I am ineligible to vote or participate in another political party’s primary election or convention during this voting year.”

That is, you can’t vote in more than one primary, nor switch parties between the primary and the runoff.

By: jo

jo — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:32:50 +0000

Ding, I can’t understand why the Democratic party in Texas has to play games and require that someone demonstrate loyalty to the party when allegiance should be to candidates that uphold their political views. I am proud of Dennis for not going along with PARTY POLITICS.

By: bill

bill — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:39:01 +0000

So if Adolph Hitler pays $2,500 to get on the Texas ballot and you want to run against him, you have to pledge your support to him if he wins?

Something definitely is deep in the heart of Texas.

By: Bunkie

Bunkie — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:21:05 +0000

Blind loyalty to a party is undemocratic. The loyalty oath should be to the constitution and country not a political party. This is just another underhanded way the Democratic party is trying to silence the voice not controlled by the corporations. They would like you to choose between the 3 annointed front runners whom all have strings attached to their agendas and deep pockets chocked full of dirty money.

By: Ding

Ding — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:17:26 +0000

Kucinich wants to be on the Texas Democratic Primary Ballot but doesn’t want to play by the Texas Democratic rules.

Nothing stopping Kucinich from being in the Texas primary as an Independent.

By: Joel Mayer

Joel Mayer — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:36:05 +0000

I am very distressed by the Texas Democratic Party’s decision to exclude Rep. Dennis Kucinich from our primary ballot because of some arbitrary loyalty oath. While I recognize that I am in the tiny 1% minority on the left of the party, I feel that the party’s action at excluding our candidate from a place on the ballot, even though he represents no threat to the establishment candidates, is an exclusion of myself and others who share the views of Rep. Kucinich from the Democratic Party. If the party does not give us a voice in the primary, it can not expect us to participate in party conventions or to support the eventual nominee in the general election. If the party shuts us out, then we are out. Does anyone really feel that the Texas Democratic Party, with its minority status, can afford to alienate even 1% of its natural constituency?

By: Jim McKeever

Jim McKeever — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:58:12 +0000

What kind of nonsense is this demanding a candidate automatically support the nominee? I thought this was a country of freedom. I can’t believe the judge would rule against Kucinich in this case.

By: David Gaines

David Gaines — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:38:03 +0000

But how often do we get to see the word “abjure” used in public? :)

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:23:49 +0000

I don’t remember- In Texas, when we vote in a primary, don’t we pledge to support that party’s nominees in the general election. When we used to vote with the old pull lever machines the pledge was printed at the top of the ballot. Does anyone know if that is still the case?