Tag Archives: Primary Elections

Your ticket for Super Tuesday

Posted on by
Reply

What is on the ballot tomorrow? I’m using a Hamilton County ballot in Commission District Three for the most detail. The only sections that will be the same statewide are the presidential candidates and the GOP at-large delegates.

Beyond that, variations occur by congressional district (for GOP delegates) and by county. I know Anderson County is electing a mayor this year, and there are several judicial elections in Davidson County. Check with your county election commission. Here are the candidates: Continue reading →

Is a primary election an election?

Posted on by
1

A hearing was held last Tuesday in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on the federal lawsuit brought by former Sen. Rosalind Kurita over her 2008 removal from the ballot by the Executive Committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party.

As expected, the central issue being argued is whether a primary election is a binding artifact of public will, or is equal to conventions, caucuses, and other means by which political parties nominate candidates, and thus subject to the party’s control.

The Washington Examiner reported on some of the positions presented by the two sides.

Kurita’s attorney, Joe Bopp, told the judges that under state law, political parties play no role in the primary election process; instead, it is an election held so voters of each party may select a nominee.

“The primary is a substitute for a caucus or a nominating convention,” Bopp said.

vs.

Tennessee Assistant Attorney General Janet Kleinfelter said … “We don’t consider primary elections to be elections. We consider primaries to be vehicles for the parties to select nominees.

This is no secret, but I would have to side with Kurita’s attorney. Yes, the primary election is the chosen vehicle by which two parties in this state nominate their candidates; but since doing it that way means being governed by state election law; and since the elections are funded by public means; and since they are attended by the general public, and not exclusive to party members, then I argue that a winner of such an election must be recognized. The parties can’t have it both ways.

However, I would not go so far as to demand that Kurita be seated in the Senate. Due to her party’s actions, she did not run in, and therefore did not win, the general election. Senator Tim Barnes did. (I allow that it’s reasonable to assume that she’d have won; I’m just pointing out that she didn’t.) I would look to the Court of Appeals to rule that parties can’t decide to overturn elections. I realize that this is a fine line, and I welcome any and all differing opinions.

UPDATE: this post has been corrected by striking through incorrect statements in the above paragraph, and to add here that Kurita ran as a write-in candidate in the general election, but was defeated by Barnes, who ran as the Democratic Party candidate. Thanks to a kind reader who pointed out my error.

Hat tip: Ballot Access News

Presidential preference primary ballot set

Posted on by
Reply

On “Super Tuesday,” March 6, 2012, Tennessee voters will choose which candidates for President of the United States they wish to see nominated by the Democratic and Republican Parties’ national conventions.

State officials lately have been divvying up endorsements among the candidates, although Gov. Bill Haslam has so far declined to name a favorite. (Haslam’s father and brother have endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.)

Of course, three months is a long time in a volatile primary race like the one we’ve seen on the GOP side. Which of the nine candidates will still be in the race after Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida?

Kurita, where’ve you been so long?

Posted on by
Reply

From Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News:

Sixth Circuit Finally Sets Hearing Date for Tennessee Political Party Rights Case
November 4th, 2011
The Sixth Circuit will hold oral arguments on January 17, 2012, in Kurita v State Primary Board of Tennessee Democratic Party. The hearing will be at 1:30 p.m. in Cincinnati. This is the fascinating case, filed in 2008, over whether a party has a constitutional right to set aside the results of its primary and designate the primary loser as the party’s nominee.

Funny thing about that phrase “whether a party has a constitutional right”: a search of the Tennessee Constitution yields not one mention of the term “political party.” I’m not suggesting that answers the question; just that it’s not answered as easily as one might hope.

You remember the case of former Sen. Rosalind Kurita, right? She was the one Democratic senator who, as the 105th General Assembly got underway in January 2007, voted against her party’s choice (the late former Lt. Gov. John Wilder), and made Ron Ramsey the Speaker of the Senate. Members of her party were incensed by this (even though they had enjoyed similar “turncoat” support for Wilder by two Republicans just two years prior), and they vowed to defeat her in the next primary election.

Well, they tried, but they didn’t. Kurita won that election over Tim Barnes by a very slim margin of nineteen votes. Denied their sweet revenge, some of the Democrats backing Barnes challenged the election. Since it was a primary, the ruling body presiding over the matter was the State Executive Committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party.

But wait. These were as a whole, in theory, the very people who were upset by Kurita’s 2007 vote, and though the party’s central committee and executives don’t officially involve themselves in primary contests (save in exceptional circumstances like the Tennessee Republican Party and perennial congressional candidate James L. Hart), one can only surmise the general attitude.

So it was that the state party decided to defer to local party officials in the district where the primary had been fought; and they, in turn, decided to install Tim Barnes as their candidate. Barnes went on to win the general election and is now Senator Tim Barnes of the 24th District.

Case closed, right? Here’s how one Democrat sees it:

Unfortunately for Kurita, the Tennessee Democratic Executive Committee is the ultimate arbiter of primary election results, and after what I thought were some rather dubious arguments of “fraud,” the election was kicked back to the county parties which voted for Tim Barnes to be the nominee.

Of course, it didn’t end there…Kurita filed a frivolous lawsuit against the TNDP, even though the Tennessee Code gives them clear authority, with little-to-no guidelines on how to interpret primary contests.

I can’t quite agree with Braisted’s characterization of Kurita’s lawsuit as “frivolous.” Where this gets muddy is in the very concept of public elections that are held to decide, not the holder of some office, but a certain political party’s choice for said contest. The Tennessee Democratic Party wanted its cake and ate it too.

Giving the party itself the authority to undo an election that was financed and administered by the people of the State may fly in the face of constitutional intent for elections. This is the matter that is before the Sixth Circuit.

Bottom line, this fact is inescapable: a small group of party activists overruled a public election and installed a nominee who was not the winner. (Yes, current law says that they may do so.) While there may have been some votes cast by citizens who usually consider themselves Republicans, the law says that if they were not challenged and proven at the time, it doesn’t matter. Tennessee does not have voter registration by party, and allows any voter to declare as a participant in a given primary.

Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, a change is needed to clarify where the authority truly lies in our elections. Some feel that instituting party registration and closing primaries to only registered members is the answer. Others would take party nominations out of the public arena altogether, and let the parties put up nominees by convention or other self-funded means. Both of these, as well as other options, have their good points and their drawbacks.

The status quo, however, is not acceptable. Now that ballot access has been made slightly more available to additional parties, major structural components of current state election law are in need of re-engineering. Political parties are naturally entwined in the electoral process; but a political party is not a branch of government. Just don’t tell the Democrats or Republicans that.

Fighting the parties on this is not going to be easy. It will be like entering an arm-wrestling contest and finding that one’s opponent is big and strong, has been doing this a long time, and, most importantly, gets to use both arms.

Note: this post is not intended to make me a de facto amicus curiæ in the Kurita case. Unless someone wants me to be.

Three is a crowd—better bring 40,000 of your best friends

Posted on by
Reply

Well, that’s a wrap…ture. The 2011 session of the 107th General Assembly has ended, and as Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey pointed out in a released statement, the final gavel came down earlier than it usually does.

Lt. Gov. Ramsey (R-Blountville) today praised the General Assembly’s leadership and members for an extremely productive and efficient session. The General Assembly has not adjourned earlier than this date since 1998 and the Senate used fewer legislative days than any year since 1999. It is estimated that the state will save around $450,000 by adjourning earlier than last year.

“I am very proud of this General Assembly,” Ramsey stated. “I think we will look back on this year as a benchmark for how the legislature should function. The members and staff did great work and served the taxpayers by doing it quickly and efficiently. Considering the substantial obstacles posed by the transition of a new Governor and the election of a new House Speaker, it is truly a credit to all involved that we were able to conclude so quickly.”

Here is a partial rundown of the Legislature’s actions (and inactions) this session that affect elections.

We ID
Voters will be required to present a valid photo ID when requesting a ballot. If one does not have a photo ID, a provisional ballot will be provided. Indigents and those who have religious objections to being photographed will have to complete an affidavit. (HB0007 / SB0016)

Super duper
Tennessee may play a more prominent role in deciding that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels will be the 2012 GOP nominee (this just in: he’s not running) on the first Tuesday in March. Then again, we may be lost in the sea of states holding presidential preference primaries that day. Either way, the date has been moved. Also, the qualifying deadline for county primaries, and for any municipal elections that happen to coincide with the presidential primary, has been moved back. (HB0612 / SB0599)

Three is a crowd—better bring 40,000 of your best friends
At long last, after a federal court ruled that Tennessee’s ballot access laws were unconstitutionally restrictive, change has come. Get ready to see new party labels beside the names of the same old kooks and gadflies that always run as independents. (I’m kidding. Mostly.) Sen. Jim Kyle, a Democrat from Memphis, had wanted to lower the signature barrier to 10,000—ostensibly his motive was to encourage GOP-weakening Tea Party candidacies—but the threshold “at least 2.5 percent of the total number of votes cast for gubernatorial candidates in the most recent election of governor” remains intact. I’ll say it again: having Democrats and Republicans argue over third party ballot rights is more than a little absurd. The new law still assumes a dominant two-party system, and ignores the fact that someday coalitions may be the norm instead of “winner-take-all” party rule. But it’s a start. (HB0794 / SB0935)

Paper trail goes cold
All but two of Tennessee’s 95 counties jumped onto the paperless electronic voting machine bandwagon after Congress authorized millions in upgrade money following the 2000 presidential election debacle. In 2008, the General Assembly expressed its hindsight-induced regrets with the Voter Confidence Act, which would require a paper ballot for every voter. But state election officials balked at the costs to switch out systems yet again, and found support in the Republican-led Legislature. Democrats cried foul, saying that the GOP is trying to take away protections against potential mishap or misdeed. But who was in charge when the state ran pell-mell towards touch-screen DREs? Yeah, that’s right. (HB0386 / SB1203)