Tag Archives: third party

Constitution convention

Posted on by
Reply

Surely you know that the Republican National Convention will take place in Tampa, and the Democratic National Convention will be in Charlotte; but did you know that there is a national political convention here in Tennessee, and that it’s happening now?

Thanks to a heads-up from a longtime friend in the blogosphere, now you do. The Constitution Party is holding its convention in Nashville. (Personal aside: the apparent frontrunner for the nomination formerly represented the congressional district where I spent my childhood, and earlier was a state senator—and a Democrat).

Former Congressman Virgil Goode is widely considered the front-runner for the top spot on the ticket, though it’s unclear at this moment who will serve as his running mate. Former Savannah State football coach Robby Wells is also seeking the party’s nomination.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, it’s not too late to defect and join this ticket. Think about it: “Goode & Pawlenty 2012″ has a certain sweetness to it.

The Constitution Party of Tennessee, which is the state-level affiliate, won ballot access (along with the Green Party of Tennessee) in a recent federal court ruling, although officials for the State of Tennessee have appealed the judgement. It is therefore undetermined whether the Constitution Party’s nominees for president will appear with the party label beside them, but as of right now they would.

To my knowledge, there are no state legislative or congressional candidates running as Constitution Party candidates in Tennessee.

(Updated to add paragraph 4.)

Constitution and Green Parties gain ballot access

Posted on by
Reply

There is big news in the ongoing battle for minor party ballot recognition in Tennessee. If you’ll recall, a federal judge struck down Tennessee’s ballot access laws as unconstitutional, after a lawsuit by the respective state entities of the Constitution Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party.

As a result, the Tennessee General Assembly changed the law in 2011. However, the parties saw the change as nominal at best, and so two of them (Constitution and Green) sued again. The court agreed, and issued a ruling that covers multiple fronts. From the Tennesseean, which Richard Winger faintly praised as the only news outlet to report on the story:

[Judge William J.] Haynes declared that minor parties cannot be forced to conduct primaries, as required by state law. Plaintiffs’ Attorney Alan Woodruff says primaries are too expensive for smaller parties, and that nominating conventions would relieve that burden.

The judge enjoined the state from banning the words “independent” and “nonpartisan” in a party’s name as it appears on a ballot, stating the ban violates free speech rights.

He said the state’s requirement that major parties be listed highest on ballots followed by minor parties was unlawful. He ordered the state to hold a drawing to determine ballot order.

Winger also correctly notes that the Nashville paper left out a key element of the story, namely that, based on past petition performance, the Constitution and Green parties are automatically included on the 2012 ballot in this state:

The decision also puts the Constitution and Green Parties on the 2012 ballot, based on the evidence that in the recent past, both parties did collect several thousand signatures on petitions to get on the Tennessee ballot.

Of course, now they need to round up some candidates to run. Also, I wonder if the Tennessee Libertarian Party regrets its decision not to join in the latest lawsuit. (That said, Winger points out that they may not have been automatically ballot-qualified even if they had.)

Incidentally, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in this suit is Alan Woodruff, who is running for Congress in the 1st District—as a “Blue Dog” Democrat.

Congressional race roundup, District One

Posted on by
Reply

Alan Woodruff is running for office in the 1st Congressional District. He calls himself a “Blue Dog” Democrat—an increasingly rare breed these days—and hopes to win the party’s nomination and go on to defeat the incumbent, Republican U.S. Rep. Phil Roe, in the 2012 general election.

Woodruff ran for Congress two years ago, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as a Libertarian Party candidate. Or was it as a Green Party candidate? Both, actually. Sort of. He secured the nomination of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico, and later changed his affiliation from Libertarian to Green. But then the Green Party was found not to have ballot access after failing to receive enough votes in 2008, and lost a challenge in the courts to have its candidates on the ballot.

Enter the Constitution Party of Tennessee, which, together with the Green Party of Tennessee, has filed a lawsuit challenging the new ballot access guidelines put in place after a federal judge ruled that the old ballot access laws were unconstitutionally restrictive. The new lawsuit claims that the reforms were not sufficient and thus ballot access by minor parties remains unfairly prohibitive. The two attorneys for the plaintiffs are Darrell Castle, the national Constitution Party’s nominee for Vice President in 2008; and Alan Woodruff.

In December, I asked Woodruff about his 2010 New Mexico run, his being listed as a candidate for multiple parties, and his decision to run as a Democrat in Tennessee while representing a third party’s lawsuit for greater ballot access.

He quickly answered with this response (excerpted):

In 2008, I was retained as attorney for a coalition [of] minor parties in New Mexico who wanted to challenge the state’s ballot access laws that impaired the ability of minor parties, and their candidates, to be included on the ballot. One of the laws we were challenging was a law barring “fusion” candidates — candidates nominated by more than one party. To have standing to challenge that law, I was nominated by both the [Libertarian] and Green parties. In the 2010 election cycle my candidacy was more for purposes of our lawsuit that any expectation of actually making the ballot or being elected.

…[M]y experience … advocating for the interests of disenfranchised voters motivated be to become a candidate for the 1st congressional district which has become so dominated by ultra conservatives that the average voter has no effective voice. Before my temporary relocation to New Mexico, I lived in Seviereville [sic], and voted Democratic and suffered the dominance of Republican control of the 1st District. Now I intend to change that.

I also asked the Tennessee Democratic Party if there were any concerns about having a congressional candidate running with their party affiliation but representing the Green and Constitution parties in the lawsuit. Brandon Puttbrese, party spokesman, replied that there were none, saying that “it’s a fairness issue. Is it fair that any party be blocked from the ballot? No.”

The first day to pick up petitions for the August 2012 primary is February 6. If no other candidates run, Roe and Woodruff will face each other in the November general election.

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)

The bipartisan media

Posted on by

Last week, after Hamilton County voters determined the Democratic and Republican nominees for the August election, many local news accounts contained glaring omissions. The offending reports were written to suggest that the primary winners would be the only contenders in the August general election. Here are a couple of examples:

“In August, [Tim] Boyd [the GOP primary winner] will face Democrat Kenny Smith, 56, the Hamilton County Board of Education chairman and leading primary fundraiser of all county government candidates.” (Dan Whisenhunt, reporting on the District 8 County Commission race)

“Attorney Jim Fields defeated Dr. Casavant 1263-1051, garnering just over 54 percent of the vote in the District 2 GOP primary. There were no Democratic candidates.” (David Carroll, reporting on the District 2 County Commission race—note that the article now continues “Fields will face independent candidate David Cantrell in the August county general election.” I left a comment on the story that was never published, and the article has an update timestamp.)

In fairness, for some races the local media got it right, even within the same articles that left out other independent candidates. And I know that as the August 5 election nears, resources like the Free Press‘s ballot mock-up will be accurate and show all candidates’ names.

But is simple accuracy enough? Will each candidate receive thorough treatment in the editorial pages? Surely it would be easier on journalists to have nice, tidy two-party elections; just look at the current mess in the United Kingdom. (I’m tempted to draw an analogy to the frustration in sports journalism over the NCAA’s football championship series, which is keenly less preferred than a proper set of playoffs, but am too ignorant on that topic. You get the idea.) At best, races like Hamilton County’s District 8 will get the “candidate A, candidate B, and, oh, those two other guys” treatment.

Before you bring it up, let me acknowledge that having a political party’s backing gives partisan candidates an advantage over most independents. But what about cases like District 2, where the GOP primary arguably split that party’s voters into factions? Could an independent candidate cobble together a winning combination? With the incumbent out of the picture, and two newcomers vying for the open seat, some might consider it a possibility. But never mind the prognostication for now. Before we get to predicting the outcome, how about we at least have the conversation about there being two candidates?

I spoke with David Cantrell last Wednesday, after failing to see his name mentioned, in most news reports, as a general election contender. I first confirmed that he is still running. Yes, he said; he did not campaign before the primary, because he didn’t want to confuse supporters who would not have seen his name on the May 4 ballot. But between now and August, he plans a vigorous campaign alongside the Republican nominee, Jim Fields. I also wondered whether Cantrell was surprised at the primary results. He said that there has been a strong anti-incumbent sentiment among local citizens and that Fields did just what was needed to gain a victory in the primary. He said that he looks forward to discussing the issues with Fields and with voters over the coming months.

In District 8, there will be four candidates on the ballot: Tim Boyd, Kenny Smith, Terry Turner, and Jim Winters. Strip away all handicaps, and each man has a 25 percent chance of being my next county commissioner. Obviously there are factors that change those odds. I only ask that my partners in public information avoid focusing on only half the candidates.

Please note: I am in no way singling out the two good reporters cited above. I used these recent examples to illustrate a systemic problem.