There’s a fairly obscure lawsuit in Alabama that has me intrigued. Putting aside for a moment that I don’t care much for either side, the principle at stake deserves some discussion.
Kelly McGinley, a Christian radio talk-show host, announced a few months ago that she would be a GOP candidate for the state school board. McGinley has, however, been deeply critical of the state party for several years, making her less-than-popular with the Alabama GOP.
In fact, GOP leaders dislike her so much that three weeks ago, the Alabama Republican Party announced that McGinley’s name was being taken off the ballot altogether. If she wanted to run, she could try the Democrats or run as an independent, but the GOP didn’t want her name on the primary ballot. McGinley filed suit in state court and a decision is expected this week.
It’s hard to root for either side here. McGinley is a Roy Moore fan who disapproves of the First Amendment and wants the government to take an active role in promoting religion. She’s criticized her state party for — get this — not being conservative enough.
The Alabama Republican Party, on the other hand, is…the Alabama Republican Party. Considering my ideology, I’m not particularly inclined to back either of them.
But I think the case is interesting because it raises a broader point: what role, if any, can and should parties maintain over who seeks office in the party’s name? I’m having trouble making up my mind here.
I’ve always preferred a system with strong political parties. At first blush, there’s nothing wrong with the Alabama Republican Party (or the California Democratic Party, etc.) having some discretion over who will run under its banner. If the party is organizing, hosting, and conducting the primary, it’s not unreasonable to give it some authority over who can and cannot participate as a candidate.
Many states operate “closed” primaries that exclude members of an opposing party from helping choose the other party’s candidate. With this in mind, it’s not a stretch to say that a party that can exclude outside voters certainly should be empowered to exclude some outside candidates.
As a democratic matter (little “d”), however, this should be a no-brainer. If a candidate wants to run in a party primary, that’s up to the candidate. So long as he or she meets minimum qualifications and is willing to meet local standards for entry fees and/or collecting signatures, that person should be able to run. It’s not up to party leaders to disqualify candidates before a single vote is cast; voters will decide if the candidate is good enough.
In this particular case, there’s some debate about the mandates of the Alabama’s GOP bylaws.
The state GOP’s bylaws list no requirements for candidates. Anyone wishing to run in the party’s primary must complete an application and pay a fee.
Part of the application, Republican attorney Will Sellers said, is a declaration that candidates agree with the party’s policies and principles. He argued that McGinley has demonstrated her disdain for party leadership and beliefs in various articles and letters, including her resignation from the Mobile County Republican Executive Committee last year in which she called the party a “sinking ship.”
“The parties have a right to decide who their candidates are going to be and to protect the value that their name gives,” Sellers said.
McGinley, of course, argues that she’s a proud Republican who will certainly agree with the GOP’s “policies and principles.”
A judge will rule on this by Thursday, but I think I’m siding with the party on this one. Primaries have become a fixture of the process, but let’s not forget that the law doesn’t actually require parties to hold them.
Dems and Republicans have created this system on their own and for their own benefit. If either side were to announce tomorrow that they would no longer hold another primary, there isn’t much anyone can do about it legally. Sure, a lot of voters would be outraged, but I’m just talking about the principle here.
The fact that parties have created this system on their own suggests to me that they should have some discretion over how they’re run. If party leaders abuse their authority, and exclude qualified candidates to excess, they’ll suffer political consequences and people will abandon the party for an alternative.
I’m not entirely sure about this, and some of you will probably persuade me with emails that argue the opposite, but as of right now anyway, I’m backing a strong-party system over an open primary process.
Regardless of my opinion, I have a strong feeling the judge in this case will rule in McGinley’s favor. I’ll let you know what happens.