On January 11, U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that Dennis Kucinich was properly excluded from the Texas Democratic presidential primary ballot, because he wouldn’t sign an oath saying he would “fully support” whomever the Democrats eventually nominate for president. Kucinich will probably appeal to the 5th circuit. During the oral argument, the judge expressed the fear that if Kucinich could prevail, that this would cause many more lawsuits to be filed against major political parties in the future.
Assuming that the decision is upheld on appeal, this is one more sign of the growing legal strength of political parties in the U.S. to control their own affairs, even including access to their own primary ballots. To the extent that this trend continues (and it has been continuing for the last 20 years), the case against restrictive ballot access laws for new and minor political parties, and independent candidates, also grows stronger. The whole basis for upholding restrictive ballot access laws in general elections is that “anyone” can run in a major party primary. Thus, in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s restrictive ballot access laws and said if the Socialist Workers Party candidates couldn’t get on under their own label, they were free to run in major party primaries (footnote 25 of Jenness v Fortson). That theory is looking weaker and weaker.
He should have just signed it and broke the oath. Just like Bush and his oath to protect the Constitution.
Dennis’ problem is that he just won’t accept there is no point in trying to be completely principled and participate in presidential politics at the same time. He is a great public servant, but he will never be able to advance beyond where he is, so he should recognize what he is doing is wasting a lot of people’s time who would like to support him.
…and another thing: Howard Dean, as chairman of the DNC, is a complete phony and zero crebibility for not standing behind Dennis’ effort to get on any ballot for a Democratic primary.
I think Dennis Kucinich is a hero for bringing this lawsuit, because it pinpoints the contradictions between courts on the one hand letting the major parties control their own nominations process, while at the same time making it almost impossible for voters and candidates to operate outside the major parties.
Let me get this straight.
Kucinich, the archetype Democrat, is being denied access on a Democratic ballot because he will not support someone who does NOT believe in the founding principles of the Democratic Party.
What a load of horse manure!
Go Dennis Kucinich!
And shame shame shame on the Democratic party!
This is just one more reason that ALL elections should be help in a non-partisan fashion.
Why is Kucinich doing this i wonder? I mean hell he got like less than 1000 votes in NH and barely any more in iowa. when he actually is allowed to come to the debates he says nothing because NO ONE cares!! sounds like a publicity stunt and sore loser-ness. or like a friend of mine says. He’s been drinkin that hater-ade”
give it up Denis the menace. it was really just bad timing , but he woulda lost anyways
Kuncinich is not the issue. The issue is can political associations frame the boundaries for association or are they mere meaningless labels?
The oath demanding an open-ended and uncritical commitment to support some undefined future person is revealing of the nature of association demanded by that particular political group. But that is not the issue either. If a political association wants to be vacuous, then they must have that right also. So too, a party that demands strict doctrinal adherence of their candidates.
Focus, people. Focus.
SOOO — is the Texas Democratic Party now a criminal conspiracy (akin to the Stalin era communist party in the old U.S.S.R. or the Hitler era nazi party in Germany) being aided and abetted by a U.S. District Court judge ?
See the loyalty oath cases in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Each step in the nomination / election for a PUBLIC office is PUBLIC business.
A political party can be totally stupid as a private operation.
See the Eu case in 1989 — distinction between public and private/internal parts of political parties.
For those of us who support development of a multiparty America this case is very imporant, precisely for the reason that Mr. Winger states. The right of political parties to require loyalty oaths was settled in 1935 (Ray v Blair). But the fact that the major parties are now enforcing their associational (read exclusionary) rights to a level not seen since the introduction of the direct primary undermines their “big tent” approach to ballot access. Thus, the courts will soon be faced with a dilemma — whether to continue to protect the increasingly polarized political parties from competention or to loosen the restraints on party splintering and factionalism. To follow the former tack is to undermine the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment. The restraints on party splintering and factionalism are based in nothing more than a state interest in simple adminstration.