Virginia GOP Imposes "Loyalty Oath" for Presidential Primary

Is that even Constitutional? (0.00 / 0)

It's certainly undemocratic. What if the Repub nominee is discovered to be someone who strangles babies in his spare time -- then are you still bound by your oath?

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 22:12:10 PM UTC

Really? (0.00 / 0)

Um, is this legal?

---

by: K in VA @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 22:19:34 PM UTC

Apparently not (0.00 / 0)

according to Vivian Paige:

The requirements applicable to a party's primary shall be determined at least 90 days prior to the primary date and certified to, and approved by, the State Board.

As Vivian points out, "Given that the primary is March 6, it seems that would mean that this should have been done by December 6 or so."

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 00:27:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually ... (0.00 / 0)

I may tell a lie and vote for Paul, just to throw a wrench into the works for Romney.

After all, it's not a sin to lie to a Republican ...

---

by: K in VA @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 22:22:06 PM UTC

I'll definitely vote now (0.00 / 0)

It looks like Ron Paul for me.  

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 23:28:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

absence of party registration (2.00 / 1)

Many states have voter registration by party, but Virginia doesn't.  The state statutes allow this requirement, which is no more a burden than having to be a registered Republican in other states with closed primaries.  So what's the big deal?

---

by: observer @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 23:15:27 PM UTC

See Too Conservative (0.00 / 0)

for an answer.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 00:12:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

check your facts (1.00 / 2)

Your "reply" is a phony made-up non-story.  Both parties had a December 7th deadline to notify the State Board of Elections if they were holding a primary, and if so, what requirements the respective parties adopted.

Now instead of bloviating, why can't you address the fact that Virginia does not have voter registration by party?  The loyalty oath would be unnecessary if Virginia had party registration.

---

by: observer @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 00:32:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Several points. (4.00 / 1)

1. This is Vivian Paige's story, picked up by Too Conservative.
2. They're not "your facts" or anyone else's, they are what they are.
3. Everyone knows that Virginia doesn't have voter registration by party,thanks for reminding us!
4. Again, according to the Virginia code (see here), which Vivian Paige reported on, "The requirements applicable to a party's primary shall be determined at least 90 days prior to the primary date and certified to, and approved by, the State Board." As Vivian adds: "Given that the primary is March 6, it seems that would mean that this should have been done by December 6 or so. So not only is it unenforceable, it seems to be illegal."
5. Any further questions?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 00:37:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

still a phony made-up non-story (0.00 / 0)

Yes, it is Paige's "story" repeated and recirculated without anyone checking the facts.  But you are also jumping on the bandwagon attacking the Republican oath.

The facts are not mine, they are that the state parties met the legal requirements by the Dec. 7 deadline, which is at least 90 days before the March 6 primary.  The statute addresses when the parties have to adopt their requirements, not when the State Board has to act on them.

That out of the way, thanks for acknowledging that the absence of voter registration by party is the reason for the loyalty oath.  That was the whole point.

---

by: observer @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 00:56:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How did the party meet the 12/7 deadline (0.00 / 0)

when they just instituted the loyalty oath today, 12/28?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:12:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

State Board met today (0.00 / 0)

The reason for the action today is because it was the first State Board of Elections meeting since the Dec. 7 deadline.  Today also follows yesterday's deadline for the parties to certify their presidential primary candidates.  Check the Board's website under media notices, and you'll see their previous meeting was Nov. 28 to certify the November elections.  It makes perfect sense for them to meet and act on all the presidential primary tasks after the final party deadline.

The parties had to meet the Dec. 7 certification deadline to even hold a presidential primary, and to impose a loyalty oath.  The time difference is simply a matter of the Board's meeting schedule, not tardy action by the state party.

---

by: observer @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:38:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting. (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:57:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

not equivalent to voter registration by party (4.00 / 2)

If I understand correctly, the oath involved is something far different from restricting voting in a primary to those who are registered with an allegiance to the party in whose primary one is voting.

Registration does not involve any oath saying, "I hereby solemnly swear that I will support anyone --ANYONE!-- my party nominates, no matter how unqualified or despicable."

No one, in states where primaries are restricted to identified partisans, has to promise to vote a party line before they even know who the party will put forward.

The oath described here should be unconscionable to any upstanding Virginian.  It's signing a blank moral check.  

I've been a registered Democrat, but there have been Democrats for whom I could not in good conscience vote. It would be offensive to me to sign an oath --and I take oaths seriously-- to support WHOEVER gets the nomination, no matter what.

---

by: AndySchmooklerforCongress @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 00:52:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

of course they are different (0.00 / 0)

It's the closest thing the parties can do under current state law, in the absence of registration by party, so that Republicans vote in a Republican primary, and Democrats vote in a Democratic primary, as would be the case with party registration.  Why can't each party select its own nominee, without interference from mischievous busybodies that have no intention of supporting that party's nominee?  (especially when only one party is having a primary)

---

by: observer @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:04:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Taking the pledge (4.00 / 1)

From what I've read, it is a pledge that reads like this: "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

That's not an oath in my book. Plus it is ambiguous -- support can mean a lot of things; it doesn't say "vote for". I'm seriously thinking of voting in the Republican primary, simply to corrupt their database.  I encourage all to do the same.

---

by: Quizzical @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:22:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sounds like a tremendous waste of paper (0.00 / 0)

Why do Republicans hate trees?

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:35:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you're right (0.00 / 0)

You're right. "I intend" is far short of an oath.

---

by: AndySchmooklerforCongress @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:55:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rick Perry campaign defends its lawsuit against Virginia (0.00 / 0)

I still don't understand how a strong believer in the 10th Amendment can ask the federal government to tell Virginia Republicans how to run their presidential primary. Hmmmm.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 23:52:12 PM UTC

Loyalty Oath (0.00 / 0)

The Dems better not protest too loudly.  We do the same thing.  This is done in Arlington for any Democratic primary - to the consternation not only of non-Ds, but of many Democrats as well.  I don't know about the rest of the state.

---

by: VaCat @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 16:20:39 PM UTC

So what is the point of having open primaries? (0.00 / 0)

I voted against open primaries in California in the 90s. I believe that party members should vote for their own candidates in the primary. It was defeated, and then I voted in the Republican primary for McCain. Was I trying to derailed the election? No, I actually preferred McCain circa 2000 over George W. Bush.

If the parties don't like the open primary system, they should change it. But if it exists, they should not hide behind pledges.

Now I feel that I am definitely going to vote in the Republican primary. This kind of requirements are ridiculous and insulting.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 20:57:25 PM UTC