Washingtonpost.com:
RICHMOND — Three African American pastors who support Donald Trump filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday over a requirement that GOP primary voters sign a statement affirming that they are Republicans — a plan the presidential front-runner has condemned.
The plaintiffs say the loyalty pledge will discourage minority voters and those who are poor from casting ballots in Virginia, where voters do not register by party. Signing the vow will create long lines at the polls, imposes “the burden of fear and backlash” and amounts to a literacy test, according to the lawsuit.
The Virginia Republican Party recently decided voters who want to help choose the Republican presidential nominee must first sign a statement that says: “My signature below indicates I am a Republican.”
The Washington Post continued:
In a statement from Trump’s campaign, the celebrity billionaire said he had nothing to do with the lawsuit but that he supports the pastors’ cause.
“If they don’t stop excluding people, the party is doomed,” Trump said. Democratic presidential candidate “Hillary [Clinton] and the Democrats love this. The Republican Party in Virginia keeps losing. They really need to be smart and win for a change.”
Interesting. I suppose that people can be Republican for a fleeting moment. Why must it be a forever thing? Additionally, I believe the Democratic primary is the same day. The forever pledge just seems like over-kill.
If these pastors win their law suit, how far-reaching will it be? Will it be just for this primary or will it affect how future primaries are run? The outcome of this one might be very interesting on many levels. I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that its black pastors who are suing. Go figure.
Since they are planning to pick the Republican nominee, shouldn’t they state that they are Republicans? What prevents them from also voting in the Democrat primary?
And then….. if they are merely picking Trump…and Trump loses……Should they not support the candidate that wins?
Not necessarily. They can’t vote in both the Democratic and Republican primary. Those primaries are on the same day. You have to chose one or the other.
I am opposed to loyalty oaths. We Virginians don’t have to declare a party.
In a more rational world, with more perceptive people at the controls, political parties would treat primaries as test runs for the general, as conditioning rounds for the candidates, a way to introduce qualified candidates to the electorate and to get a reading on how they fare with a meaningful sample of voters. For many years, however, the attitude within RPV has been one of fear of the voters and a desire to keep the nominating process as closely held as possible without it becoming obviously a kind of Soviet politburo exercise. The bogeyman of Dems coming over en masse to vote in the primaries to ensure a weak candidate actually has some true believers within the Party apparatus, as well as people who know better but who trot it out anyway as a way to influence weaker minds at State Central and elsewhere.
This little affirmation is a dilute and virtually meaningless exercise intended to bridge the gap between those who want Virginia to have some visible role in the Presidential Primary process and those who would rather pick the candidate in a convention (or even in someone’s basement). I don’t know that it is illegal – I find it hard to think a court would so find, but it is really dumb. Trump, for all his bombast and patent lack of qualification for the job, occasionally makes a good point.
The larger point for me, however, is that the instinct to put in these kind of controls reflects a political party that is essentially afraid of the voters, as opposed to what one would think a political party should be – an organization dedicated to recruiting good candidates from all walks of life and eager to place those candidates before as many voters as possible. This kind of thing, coupled with the voter suppression measures that the GOP has allowed itself to become identified with, give off the odor or political death and decay. I’ll be glad when we finally get beyond this.
Or… this is a good example of how the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment are really the same professional politicians that we all think they are. We all get why the Republicans and even the Democrats have wanted, in the past, to be reasonably sure that only party members vote in their primaries. Democrats have for years tried to influence elections by influencing the primary vote – by voting in the Republican primary for the most or more liberal candidate and voting as often as possible. Its dirty and I think the Republicans have felt “done” by them without any real recourse. Here its different. This year, there is a chance that a greater share of minorities have awoken to the view that the plantation politics of the Democratic party have been detrimental to their communities and their success. That has not, however, changed to cultural expectations and we have all kinds of examples of how, for example, black republicans are treated publicly by the black community – with the support of the Democratic party. Their is a reasonable fear by several minority communities that such a written and signed “loyalty oaths” will not remain secure and private – to the detriment (personal and professional) of those individuals who sign them. It would then be better to not require them. The problem is that this year, signing them undermines the privacy of the election itself. The second and equally disconcerting issue here is the fear by the Republican party that minorities as noted above will in fact turn out for Trump and for a better shot at the top (or middle). And let there be no mistake, if this election cycle has taught us anything, it is that – at least on the Republican side – (a) the establishment is not in Trump’s corner and (b) the party base is not surrendering another election to the professional party’s candidate of choice. It looks an awful lot like the establishment is trying to control the candidate selection process – not that the Democrats have not done the same thing – its just different over there.
Suing is a foolish move, and I say this as someone who opposes the oath/pledge/statement requirement, when used in a state-run open primary. The reason I say it’s foolish, is the SBE has already ruled that the GOP can have such a requirement. A court will not overrule this.
There is a growing consensus within the GOP to abandon the pledge. Calls from well known and respected party activists to eliminate the requirement are growing. I expect the RPV state central committee will rescind the requirement when it meets next. All the suit will do is make the pro-pledge crowd more vocal, even as support for the pledge errodes.
so is the oath to prevent an event like Operation Chaos where Republicans were told (and some prominent ones did) in the Democratic Primary in 2008?
@Pat.Herve
Actually, it was to placate those on the State Central committee who wanted a state convention.