Kucinich & Willie Nelson sue Texas Democrats over loyalty pledge he won't sign

[Breeze54]

Kucinich sues Texas Democrats over loyalty pledge he won't sign

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/01/04/0104kucinich.html

Willie Nelson joins presidential candidate as plaintiff; hearing next week.

By W. Gardner Selby
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, January 04, 2008

A federal judge next week plans to hear a lawsuit brought by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and a famous Texas supporter, Willie Nelson, that questions the legality of a long-standing loyalty pledge required of Democrats running for president in Texas.

Kucinich, of Ohio, is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. He applied last week to appear on the state primary ballot March 4 but scratched out a portion of the pledge on the application stating he'd support the party's nominee for president, whoever it is.

Kucinich's campaign told the party Wednesday — the last day for candidates to file for office — that he would pledge to support a nominee who does not employ war as an instrument of foreign policy. The party said that the original pledge could not be amended and that his filing could not be accepted.

Kucinich's campaign, joined by Nelson, then filed a lawsuit noting that the pledge is not written into state law and that the Republican Party of Texas imposes no such requirement. The suit calls the refusal to put Kucinich's name on the ballot a violation of the First and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Nelson called the loyalty oath un-American, describing Kucinich as "the one Democrat who's been the most loyal to this country and to what the Democratic Party should stand for."

snip-->

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin set oral arguments on the suit for 9 a.m. Jan. 11. Yeakel said he wants to rule on that day, leaving time for appeals before officials finalize ballots.

"This is an important case that will have ramifications beyond this election," he said.

Election-law expert Buck Wood said such a pledge was required of candidates for all offices running in party primaries by a 1911 state law that had been repealed by 1985. Wood said Texas courts have held that the pledge is not binding to candidates. "It is meaningless," Wood said.

Chad Dunn, general counsel for the state party, said parties can operate under their own reasonable rules. "If you want to get the benefits of the Democratic Party," Dunn said, "you've got to meet a minimum threshold for membership." The pledge is a "baseline membership test."

more...

MORE ON THIS STORY

* Kucinich's 2004 application
* Kucinich's 2008 application

[DrDan]

1. so what does "support mean"????

For example, should the dems decide to nominate Lieberman and the repubs nominated Hegel, what would be the "support" obligation on DK's part?

[Breeze54]

3. Kucinich won't support a war candidate!

Kucinich's campaign told the party Wednesday — the last day for candidates to file for office — that he
would pledge to support a nominee who does not employ war as an instrument of foreign policy.

The party said that the original pledge could not be amended and that his filing could not be accepted.

Which is a total lie! It was repealed in 1985!!

[subsuelo]

14. Kucinich is a real fighter

Everyone talks about Edwards being this fighter. Whatever. (where was Edwards on impeachment)

Kucinich is the true fighter in this race

[Breeze54]

18. For a guy that suffered from asthma as a child, he sure is a fighter!

:hi:

[DrDan]

35. my question is very basic - if he agrees to "support" a candidate, what does that mean?

Does that mean he will actively campaign for that person?

Does it mean he will not campaign against that person?

Does that mean he will vote for that person?

What does "support" mean?


It is not unlike "supporting the troops". What does that mean?

Does it mean you agree with what they are doing? I hope not.

Does it mean you will send "care packages" to them?


So - we will probably agree that you can "support the troops" but not agree with what they are actually doing.
So, can you "support the Dem candidate" and not agree with them totally?


We seem to use that term so loosely . . . .

[Breeze54]

46. Does it mean he will not campaign against that person? YES!!

Does it mean you agree with what they are doing? YES!!

That's why Kucinich doesn't want to sign it. His campaign manager says it right there in the article.

He doesn't want to sign that and have a war mongering Dem be elected and then he'd have to "support" them!

He'd be required, by that oath, to remain "loyal"!

[DrDan]

52. ok - so then . . . do you support our troops?

If so, then you also agree with what they are doing?

[Breeze54]

53. I do support the troops as the Mom of one but I don't agree with loyalty oaths!

Does that answer your many questions?

A loyalty oath is total BS!!

But I am not being told to take one.

I'm not running for office in Texas or Florida.

[sam sarrha]

2. i'm with Dennis... on this how many other states do this.

[Breeze54]

4. WTF is with Texas and "Loyalty Oaths"?

Remember *'s "Loyalty Oaths" for people to be able to attend his campaighn rallies?

What the hell is in the water in Texas??

[MuseRider]

6. Red and Blue Kool-Aid

apparently. Good and Bad Kool-Aid. I don't see a difference except the color of my tongue when I drink it.

[Breeze54]

7. Seems to be a lot more of the red flava there!

:grr:

[MuseRider]

8. It seems they

are mixing the flavors now. In what world do Democrats require Loyalty Oaths? We laughed and pointed fingers when the Republicans did this. It is not freaking boy scouts and girl scouts and they are not children. This just makes me sick at my stomach.

[Breeze54]

10. and still the "top four" are silent! _ How very Democratic of them!

:sarcasm:

I keep hearing some of them saying "all inclusive" or something to that effect.

Must make a good sound bite, eh? :grr:

[MuseRider]

19. One of them even

promises to bring people together but remains one of the most divisive IMO.

I still post and read here but I do feel increasingly like there is no reason to even pay attention anymore. Something in me keeps me doing it but I don't ever remember feeling so manipulated and burned.

It has all become a freaking joke and I do not like the people who are doing the laughing.

[Breeze54]

24. Yesterday was my

first day back since New Years Eve. I had to take a break and I also
debated about coming back but there are some good things here too.
I guess I feel guilty deserting people who really ARE trying to fight
for me and my country and so I keep coming back.

[sam sarrha]

20. i'm from TX...where the only thing in the middle of the Road is a yellow stripe n dead armadillos

[Breeze54]

22. lol... I've seen that pic!

;)

[sam sarrha]

23. it is all about the money.. corruption, don't disturb the Status 'Flow' of the corruption

[onenote]

5. so he did sign it in 2004

He's entitled to change his mind, but it makes me wonder.

[Naturyl]

11. He's taking a more principled stand this time around.

It's admirable - however, I won't be going that far. I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. I understand Kucinich's reasoning and I think he's doing the right thing - for him.

For me, the right thing is not to have a Republican as the next president.

[Breeze54]

13. But the primary is HOW we get a nominee...

I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary.

I want a Democrat from the Democratic wing of the party to be president!

[Naturyl]

15. Kucinich is not on my state's primary ballot.

He didn't file, sadly.

I can understand why, though. It's Alabama. No use wasting time or resources here.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

33. Well, I'm sure as hell not!

:cry: ? :rofl: ? :shrug: ?

I'm used to it really. Most often by the time we have our primary I get a choice between the winner and the clinger.

What I found odd was that I never even knew about the oath before this. Candidates have just never mentioned it.

When I started asking I was told that "lots" of other states do the same thing, but of course no one could provide me with any actual information as to which states.

My guess is going to be Florida. They're like our evil twin.

[Breeze54]

34. You were almost right! - Subject: Requirement of loyalty oath to democratic party

Number: AGO 83-74
Date: October 21, 1983

Subject: Requirement of loyalty oath to democratic party

http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/F0CE6E2DDB7809CD85256584006261EB

Mr. Charles Whitehead
Chairman
Democratic Executive Committee
Post Office Box 1758
Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Dear Mr. Whitehead:

This is in response to your request for an opinion on the following questions:

1. MAY THE FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC PARTY REQUIRE AN OATH OF PARTY LOYALTY ON THE PART OF A CANDIDATE FOR PARTY NOMINATION FOR ELECTION TO PUBLIC OFFICE AS A PREREQUISITE TO QUALIFICATION BY SAID CANDIDATE FOR SUCH NOMINATION AND ELECTION?

2. IF THE ANSWER TO THE FOREGOING QUESTION IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, MAY THE PARTY REMOVE A CANDIDATE FOR NOMINATION OR A PARTY NOMINEE FROM THE BALLOT FOR KNOWING VIOLATION OF SUCH AN OATH?

3. IF THE ANSWER TO THE INITIAL QUESTION IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, MAY THE PARTY PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM QUALIFYING FOR ANY PARTY NOMINATION BASED ON A VIOLATION BY SAID PERSON OF A DULY-EXECUTED LOYALTY OATH IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIOR ELECTION?


Your inquiry notes that the Democratic Executive Committee of Florida is in the process of adopting a new charter and new bylaws which will govern Democratic Party affairs at all levels within the state. Given the emergence of a true two-party system in Florida, you feel that it is important to have the tools necessary to insure and enforce party fealty on the part of those who represent your party in all phases of its activities, including party nominees for public office. As such, you contemplate the inclusion of an oath of party loyalty in your bylaws.

Section 6 of your proposed charter would provide the following:

Loyalty Oath: Members of the Florida Democratic Party, including all official Party committees, commissions, bodies, clubs, officers, Democratic elected officials, and candidates running for the Democratic Party's nomination, shall, before taking office, or in the case of a candidate running for the Party's nomination, at the time of filing to run, establish by written oath or affirmation the loyalty oath in the form included in the Bylaws of this Charter. Said oath or affirmation may be changed in the same way as provided by amending the Bylaws. (e.s.)


This proposed loyalty oath would read as follows:

I, , having been duly sworn, say that I am a member of the Democratic Party; that I am a qualified elector of County, Florida; that during my term of office, I will not support the election of the opponent of any Democratic nominee nor will I oppose the election of any Democratic nominee; that I am qualified under the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida and the Charter and Bylaws of the Florida Democratic Party to hold the office I am seeking, or to which I have been elected; that I have not violated any of the laws of the State of Florida relating to elections or the Charter and Bylaws of the Florida Democratic Party. (e.s.)

more....

In summary, the Democratic Executive Committee of Florida is not authorized by statute to require an oath of party loyalty on the part of a candidate for party nomination for election to public office as a prerequisite to qualification by said candidate for such nomination and election.

Sincerely,

Jim Smith
Attorney General

[Lone_Star_Dem]

37. I just said that tongue-in-cheek

Damn. I wonder if there are others?

[Breeze54]

41. lol... well, I was looking anyway and FL does NOT require one!

I haven't had a chance to find any others .... yet. :P

[Lone_Star_Dem]

44. Well, it says they're not authorized by statue to require it

It doesn't say that they don't require it however.

It made me wonder why this was even addressed and I found some interesting information.


From 2003.

This is a link to the google html version of a pdf.
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:-NrtMdWqV-4J:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0214858P.pdf+Florida+Democratic+party+oath&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is the link to the pdf
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0214858P.pdf



It would appear that even though they were not required to at some point between 1983 and
1985 they changed their bylaws to require all candidates in the Democratic primaries to sign the oath.

The legality of this was challenged by a Republican by the name of Thomas J. Kelly in 2003.

I don't know if it was ever changed after that, or if they still use it today, however.

[Breeze54]

45. Call the Election Dept and ask!

:P

[Lone_Star_Dem]

54. Wouldn't that cause my glass house to explode around my ears though?

I think I may just hold onto my rocks for now. I'll just write to Kucinich's campaign to see if they know how many other states Democrats are pulling this crap.

[Breeze54]

55. Naw... it's just a simple question... just say;

"Hi there. I plan on running for Governor in the Florida DEM Party
and I'd like to know when I need to sign my loyalty oath?! :D

Is there a cut off date?" :P

[alarimer]

9. he's under no obligation to endorse anyone else

should he not get the nomination. I am going to try and figure out how to write in his name, just to be a spoil-sport. We have weird voting machines (they have scrollwheels on them) so I do no know if it is possible. If they do not allow him on the ballot, I am switching my party affiliation to independent. Loyalty oaths are wrong and unAmerican.

[Breeze54]

12. Good on you; alarimer!!

Right on!! What state are you in? Can't you do an absentee ballot and write in the name? :shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

16. I agree with Wille and Dennis

A political party loyalty oath un-American.

[KharmaTrain]

17. They Waited Until Now To Do This???

Someone from Texas posted what this oath was about and why it was there. It goes to the DeLay gerrymandering of Congressional districts in 2002 and 2004 and how the party was using it to prevent DeLay-planted repugnicans from diluting true Democratic candidates.

Personally, I don't support any type of "oaths" in voting as being unconstitutional.

It appears this law has been on the books for a while. Surely Kucinich had to have been aware of this provision to get on the balot and could have challenged this long ago.

[Breeze54]

21. He signed it in 2004 but he decided not to after the last 8 yrs of Hell!

So, he's fighting them on it, as he should be!!

[KharmaTrain]

25. Still Doesn't Answer The Question

If anything it asks more. Why did he sign it in 2004? What's different then than now? And, again, since he obviously knew this law would be around in '08, why has he waited til now to challenge it when there's a real good chance it won't get ruled on in time for the filing deadline. Also, with the FEC out of business now, there's no real gatekeeper on this process.

Again, I think loyalty oaths are unconstitutional...but the time to challenge this rule was a year ago, not now.

[Breeze54]

27. Perhaps there are more details on his website.

I have no idea why he's just getting to doing it now.

Maybe it was a cash/flow issue?

Or perhaps it's because he still has time to get it heard in court and get his name on the ballot?

[KharmaTrain]

29. Points Out A Fundamental Problem

I'm citing this cause it concerns me about Dennis. It's not as though this Presidential run was unexpected...John Edwards never shut down his campaign organization after '04, why did Dennis? Many people were impressed and supported him in '04 and it appears he let it all lapse during the interim that greately hampered this campaign. It's a shame since so many have invested a lot of hopes in him and he's run a terrible campaign.

[Breeze54]

30. Again... He needs $$$$$$$$ !!

:eyes:

[KharmaTrain]

31. Cart & Horse

He had all this time to raise a bigger war chest. Again, he had run in the past...he surely had an idea of how much a bigger campaign would cost. He also had a support network in place that he could have used to build up a "war chest" like Edwards and even Ron Paul. Kucinich has a lot of support on the netroots, yet didn't utilize it to help raise money...at least enough to have field offices and organizations that are the backbone to getting out the vote. He didn't even have a campaign office in Iowa.

[Breeze54]

32. He did have an office but the Iowa newspaper

didn't "accept' it. It's all BS!! How do you know what was going on
with him and his wife and if he had even decided to run again after 2004?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

49. He probably waited until now because it's more newsworthy now

He wants the exposure.

[Breeze54]

51. I believe he wants to expose something alright...

HYPOCRISY!

;)

[NoPasaran]

26. How AWFUL it is to ask Democrats to support Democrats!

So much better to let them be Liebermans instead.
:sarcasm:
And Willie Nelson, who this year claims to decide what the Democratic Party should stand for, is no Democrat. In 2006, he supported his friend, racist crackpot Richard Friedman for governor. Friedman's Nader-style campaign helped re-elect repub scumbag Rick Perry. So Willie Nelson and Dennis Kucinich can both fuck off.
:nuke:

[Breeze54]

28. Did you sign your HRC loyalty oath?

The Dem party doesn't have loyalty oaths, moran!!

[YOY]

50. Hush...their little world is melting. Have some sympathy!

Let them just bitch about reality by blaming everything on Sexism, Liberals, Republicans,etc...they'll either shut up and vote Democratic or go away and try and fix the Republican party depending on whether Obama or Edwards gets the nom...

I wonder which one it is...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. A "democratic" Loyalty Oath is an oxymoron. Did Joe McCarthy write it?

"Freedom for the supporters of the government only, for the members of one party only - no matter how big its membership may be - is no freedom at all. Freedom is always for the man who thinks differently." Rosa Luxemburg

[riqster]

38. Too many Dems have become two-faced weasels like Reeps

On the one hand, bemoan the lack of Progressive candidates. On the other, bash the only one we have. Go Kooch, screw the wussies!

[timtom]

39. I'm sure Bush must've signed it.

A fuck of a lot of good their so-called "loyalty pledge" does, huh?

[stimbox]

40. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

:hippie:

[Breeze54]

42. You're my very first ... " Error: You've ..." post !!

:woohoo:

[stimbox]

43. Let's hope its the first of many!

:hi:

[Individualist]

47. Bravo DK and Willie! Loyalty oaths are for republicans!

[robbedvoter]

48. Happy to give it a 5th!

[YOY]

56. Good on them both

And anyone who expects oaths of loyalty needs to consider just what they are trying to hide and perhaps NOT DO IT.