John Chichester denounced it and got Democrats and Independents out to vote for his chosen successor, Richard Stuart. EXACTLY the type of thing that local Republicans were trying to prevent with this oath nonsense.

Is this even legal??

The State Board of Elections has given it the "thumbs up."  My understanding is that political parties can run their nominating processes pretty much however they want.

Signing a party loyalty oath is nothing new in VA.

When the Dems ran caucuses in VA for decades, if you pre-filed to run as a delegate, there was a loyalty oath statement on the pre-filing form that you had to sign as well.  Not sure if this was ever the case in a primary though on the Dem side but I don't think it was.

As far as registration by party goes, the dems had decades to implement this but they chose not to for fear it would hure them at the polls for some reason.  And party ID on the ballot, identifying candidates by party, scared the living daylights out of them.  Even in the 1980's when the Dems controlled all three statewide offices during that decade, AND the legislature, they were still against it.

Having to sign a loyalty oath to vote in a primary seems unconstitutional to me.  If the very party who controls the legislature had the votes to implement registration by party but chooses not to, then why would I have to sign the oath in order to vote in a primary.  They had the opportunity to close their primary by implementing registration by party but they chose not to. 

And the State Board of Elections is wrong on this - what state law do they site which allows them to do this?  If I show up to vote and object to signing the oath and I am refused a ballot, what state law would an election officer use to justify not giving me a ballot?  If not unconstitutional, I can't imagine this does not violate the voting rights act.  Was this idea of the oath submitted by the State Board of Elections to the Justice Department for approval?  My understandng is that any changes in rules/law that affects voting has to be approved by the Justice Department. Having said that, I am not a lawyer but I think these are legitamit questions to ask and have answered. 

When applied to delegates and candidates, for instance.  If you show up to serve as a delegate voluntarily, you are holding yourself out to be a member of the party (either one) and you should be bound by its rules.  Likewise, if you are a candidate seeking a party's endorsement: you are claiming to be a good Democrat (or Republican) and the party has a reasonable right to expect you to behave like one even if you don't get the party's nomination.

But this move by the Republicans is a bridge too far.  Virginia doesn't have party registrations.  Primaries are supposed to be open and ordinary people are supposed to be free to vote as they please. 

It's almost as though Republicans are trying to force people to become Republicans if they vote in a Republican primary.  It could blow up in their faces in a couple of ways. 

People may resent it and just stay away from the Republican Party in general.  It might also discourage ordinary people from voting in Republican primaries leaving the nominating process up to the far right crazies.  This could mean that the RPV could start producing candidates that are too extreme and too far to the right to win in statewide races.

All in all, this move by the Republicans is a sign of weakness and insecurity.  Their party is in trouble, they know it, and they are lashing out to try and stem their losses.  I don't think this will work.

Point out to anyone inclined to participate in a Republican primary that the loyalty oath forms will no doubt be used to construct a giant mailing/calling list for all elections.

Want to ensure that you get junk mail and robo calls? 

Why just go and vote in the Republican primary: you'll get plenty of both.

;-)

Back in 2000, I crossed over and voted for McCain in the Republican primary, because GWB seemed too far out to me. I was hoping that, even if Gore lost, we wouldn't have the situation we eventually found ourselves in. (Of course, McCain hasn't exactly had a stellar record either.)

As a result of that vote, I've been getting the occasional Republican mailings, though not as many as I had expected. The technology has improved since then, so doing the same thing in 2008 would probably get me inundated with propaganda.

And got lots of Republican mail--at first. Once I had voted in several Democratic primaries, I think I got taken off the list.

I feel like we should go vote just to spite them. As has been previously noted, if they wanted party registration and non-open primaries, they had their chance to implement these changes.  

This is their primary.  Who cares?  They could make their primary voters do the hokie-pokie before they cast their ballot and what difference would that make?  If they want a loyalty statement to give themselves a warm fuzzy feeling, well to each his own. 

On your party registration question, I would ask what the issue is with open primaries?  People can freely associate now with the parties via membership, donations, volunteering and primary voting.  Do you need people to write down on a form that is filed with the state that they are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Independent, etc... voter?  I can't see what that adds to the process except some additional information into a state database and an additional verification step to be added to administering primaries.  I guess there is value if you want to exclude people who do not identify as party members.  But why would you want to do that?  In non-competitive districts, the primary may be the only avenue voters have for a real choice.

We care because it shows a critical difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Democrats trust the voters, Republicans don't.

Democrats understand that we are a country of diverse backgrounds and opinions, and that sometimes people will disagree with the party and feel obligated to voice or vote that disagreement.  Republicans think we should all accept the party line as sacred and the party leaders as infallible.

And, as concerned citizens, we should remember this and when someone says to you "I don't care about the party, both Republicans and Democrats are the same." you can reply with a strong NO and have a concrete example as to how we differ.

How does the oath impact absentee ballots?  If a voter applies for absentee balot, when ballot is mailed to voter, does the mailing also contain the oath to sign with instructions that it has to be signed and sent back to local registrar? 

And all of this is going to cost taxpayers more money.  As a Dem, why should I have to pay, through my tax dollars,  for a Republican to sign a loyalty oath?

I wonder if this is to scare the independents who might consider voting in the Republican primary.

I remember having to sign the same type of a loyalty oath for the Democratic primary involving Linda Smyth in 2003. 

The oath cannot be legally enforced so it is meaningless. [NOTE:  However, even though not obligated to do so, I abided by my oath in the general election that year.]

Establishing a requirement that those who participate
in a party's nominating process promise to abide by
and support the result of that process is neither new
nor surprising.  Participation in a party's primary is *not*
the same as voting in a general election, and the party has
every right to ask that those who vote in a primary do so
in good faith.

If you can't make that committment, then *don't
participate:*  form your own party, and nominate candidates
you can support.  Meddling in another party's nominating
process is bad politics, and leads to bad government.

The DPVA rules require such affirmations from all
participants in its caucuses and conventions, for exactly
this reason.  Section 18.3 of the DPVA Party Plan states:

  Each person participating in a caucus must provide written
  certification that he or she: a) is a Democrat; b) is a
  registered voter within the jurisdiction for which the
  caucus is held; c) believes in the principles of the
  Democratic Party; and d) does not intend to support any
  candidate who is opposed to a Democratic nominee in the
  next ensuing election.

Committees may require similar affirmations from those
who seek membership, as well.

That said, I would certainly be in favor of either partisan
registration, or else adopting a system like the one used
in Texas, where voting in a party's primary is the
mechanism by which you join the party (you can't seek
or hold office within the Texas Democratic Party without
proving that you voted in its most recent primary).

Tres Seaver.
Chair, Frederickburg Democratic Committee

This is highly informative.

Official nominating petitions required for each presidential candidate to be on the ballot in Virginia contain the following: Your signature on this petition... indicates your intent to participate in the primary of the same political party as the above named candidate. This is just as enforceable (or not) as the oath.

Delegates to the 1st Congressional District nominating convention similarly were required to attest to an intention to support the nominee of the party to qualify as a delegate.

As Mr. Seaver suggests, this helps keep the process honest.

I'm at a loss why Lowell thinks this is such big news when it's common practice for Democrats in Arlington.

That said, it's also not enforceable. I don't mind signing the Dem pledge since I always vote Dem, but if I changed my mind after a primary/caucus I'd have no problem ignoring any pledge I signed in May or June.

The ONLY reason I can think this pledge is "effective" is to deter voters that don't realize it's not enforceable.

The saddest case I saw was this summer in Arlington. Dems were  effectively electing the next school board member. There were no Greens, Repugs, or Indies on the ballot and it was too late for anyone else to register.

I saw a woman refuse to sign the "oath" and march angrily back to her car without voting. She refused to vote because she refused to promise to vote Dem for an unopposed non-incumbent.

THAT is the main point of loyalty oaths. They are NOT legal or enforcebal, but how many voters know that?

I hope to vote for Bob Marshall for Senator in a primary.

Arlington Dem's have had forms similar to the proposed GOP loyalty oath at primaries/caucuses for years. I saw one woman refuse to vote because of it a year or two ago. I don't see it as a big deal, except for voters that don't understand it's not legally enforceable.

The Roanoke Times weighs in.  I completely agree with this:

The Republican Party of Virginia has no interest in thoughtful voters. It only wants mindless party loyalists who will vote Republican no matter what.

That's the sad message of a new GOP policy for next year's presidential primary approved by the State Board of Elections this week. People who want to vote in it must sign a loyalty oath swearing their intent to vote in November for the party's nominee, whomever that winds up being.

[...]

The oath precludes such careful analysis and leaves Republicans three options:

* Lie. Virginia's ballots are still secret; no one will know if you vote against the party nominee.

* Stay home from the Feb. 12 election and keep your options open.

* Commit to an unknown Republican candidate nine months before the election.

Honorable Virginians do not give their word lightly and will not lie, even under these obtuse circumstances. We hope, too, that they put candidates' ideas, character and experience ahead of party affiliation.

Honest, responsible voters therefore can only skip the primary.

The Roanoke Times nails it once again.

http://www.salon.com/politics/...

11/28/07

If you were a reasonable voter in the Roanoke region (22nd Senate District)you went to the primary, voted for Senator Bell because you suspected that the district would go Republican and you wanted to minimize the chance of having an angry hillbilly for State Senator...then in November you voted for Democrat Mike Breiner, because he offers the better future.  

Ignore the RT, you can not appease the RPV.  

ONCE AGAIN, Virginia makes it on to Keith's Worst Person in the World top 3 last night.
But that's fine, the Democrats won't have to do a thing hardly. The rethugs are just killing their own party day by day. Pretty soon no one will vote for them anywhere.

I heard Mitt Romney brag in a speech that in Massachusetts, he has voted in the Democratic primary in order to support the weakest Democratic candidate, who would have the least chance of prevailing in the general election.  He seemed quite proud of his little strategy.

So maybe that's what they are worried about.

Secondly, the list of voters who participate in the primary has for years now been a critical fund-raising tool.  The RPV doesn't want their fund-raising database corrupted.

As far as I am concerned, corrupting their database is alone reason enough for every Democratic voter to vote in the Republican primary.  If breaking the oath bothers you, go to confession.

See here for more.

well well well.
The conservablogs hated this idea even worse than  the liberlblogs!!!

The republicans have a solid 25% voting base.

Be quiet now.  Can you heAR THAT SOUND?
its  a flushing sound. The toilet works. Look at the republicans swirling around, going down.

I am feeling very charitable today.

Paul