posted March 26, 2008
I was unable to attend the meeting of the Republican candidates for sheriff, so I read with great interest the informative article by Dana Wilbourn. It was the very last paragraph that made me shudder, and made me wonder what has happened to our local leaders to allow such a travesty.
“Each candidate was asked to pledge not to run as an Independent if they are not selected to be the Republican nominee. Every candidate made the pledge.”
Who would have the nerve to ask such a pledge of these people who are attempting to win the post of this esteemed position (despite its recent tarnish); of those desiring to be the leader of men and women who sacrifice daily for the serenity of our great county, those who feel they are the right choice, the best choice for this challenging job?
Each of these candidates, one would hope, possesses a conviction that they are the one who ought to fill this seat, and yet they are being asked to make a pledge to ignore other alternatives to fulfill their desire to prove their worth?
That first sentence shocked me. The second one blew my mind. Not only did the delegates/Republican Party ask for something that should never have been asked, each of these persons vying for this office went right along with the madness.
If these candidates believe they would make excellent Hamilton County sheriffs, why should they not run as Independents if they are not chosen Thursday? Why would they agree to step aside rather than put their efforts into doing all they are able to convince the voting public of Hamilton County of their certainty?
This pledge seems quite odd to me when a March 17 article on this site stated, “Charlotte Mullis of the election office… said the Republicans will send her their nominee, then the rest can run as Independents” and now they are all agreeing to relinquish their ability to do so.
I just do not understand why this request would ever be accepted by anyone who truly desires to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of our sheriff.
Beth Draco
Hixson
* * *
Being only a lowly engineer and occasionally, from time to time, a salesman, I'm probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer...but I thought the very same thing when the Hamilton County Commission was making the same demands upon candidates for an appointed sheriff. I most definitely am no lawyer, but I do know how to read.
So I looked up the law.
My second favorite politician of all time once told me the law is intended to be understandable by everyone, not just lawyers. This being their charge, our Tennessee legislators is obligated to write laws to be interpreted literally and not subject to interpretation by the courts. So with this in mind, one might take offense at a demand such as has been made of both the Republican and Democrat candidates for Hamilton County sheriff. This is particularly true if we read the law literally:
2-19-121. Candidate bargaining for support. — It is unlawful for any candidate for nomination or election in any state, county, city or district office, to expend, pay, promise, or loan or become pecuniarily liable in any way for money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, or to agree to enter into any contract with any person to vote for or support any particular policy or measure, in consideration of the vote or support, moral or financial, of such person. A violation of this section shall be punished as provided in § 2-19-123.
2-19-122. Demanding candidate make promise. — It is unlawful for any person to demand that any candidate for nomination or office shall promise or agree in advance to support any particular individual, policy or measure, in consideration of the vote or support, financial or moral, of such person, in any election, primary or nominating convention. A violation of this section shall be punished as provided in § 2-19-123.
2-19-123. Penalty for violation of § 2-19-121 or § 2-19-122. — A violation of any of the provisions of § 2-19-121 or § 2-19-122 is a Class C misdemeanor.
A class C misdemeanor...isn't that when we have to stand back and say "like dude, you're a criminal now"?
I miss David. He had the courage of his convictions to stand up and take his licks when his constituents thought he was wrong, and was open minded enough to view the subject matter from all sides when other viewpoints were presented...rather than dismissing straight away those who disagreed with him.
Next stop...both the Republican and Democrat party bylaws, especially those of the Republicans. 178 delegates last week at the delegate elections, 300 delegates as published earlier this week in the Chattanoogan.com, and 480 delegates as of today when a representative of one of the candidates called looking for votes. Something here just doesn't quite pass the stink test.
That's why there is recourse in the Republican bylaws for delegate challenges. There's more than one way to skin a skunk.
But for right now Ms. Suzzi is kvetching about not having had her McDoubleCheeseBurger in several days and Ms. Luci wants to go for a ride. Being the alpha male in this household, I know where we're going right now...while I can still smoke in my own car.
PS
After writing the response above I was able to obtain a list of Republican delegates that was current on March 25, so far as we know. After sitting down and taking a physical count of the named delegates it appears my figure of 480 delegates above was incorrect. The actual count on the list in my hands is a mere 426. Depending upon which initial number of delegates we use, this is either 201 more or something over double the figure that was reported by the party.
We'll sing in the sunshine
We'll laugh every day
I always did enjoy Hoyt Axton's music. However, any other than Gale Garnett's version of this song is about like someone other than Harve Presnell singing They Call the Wind Maria.
Royce E. Burrage Jr.
Royce@OfficiallyChapped.org
* * *
I agree with Beth Draco that it is surprising that the local Republican Party is requiring a pledge from its sheriff candidates to not run as an independent if that candidate does not get the nomination. They ask for something they are not entitled to and that flies in the face of liberty and freedom. These men should be free to do as they please if they do not get the nomination and no pledge made to the local Republican Party can stop them. The answer to her query as to why this happened can be found in the experience of the Democratic Party when it nominated a candidate for sheriff and the history of elections in general.
The guy who did not get the Democratic nomination for sheriff attacked those who denied him the prize and then he decided to run as an Independent. Of course, several local Republicans were quick to criticize the Democrats for their shabby treatment of the now Independent candidate. I hope these same people can find their voice to criticize this attempt to step on the rights of free men and women.
The other reason that the GOP wants to eliminate an Independent candidate is that they want to win as do the Democrats. Independent candidates tend to take votes from the party that they are most identified with. John Cupp would have never been sheriff if Flop Fuller had not pulled Democratic votes from then Democrat Jim Hammond in 1994. Billy Long could not have defeated John Cupp without the Independent candidacy of David Alverson. In the national arena the names Ross Perot and Ralph Nader should be more than enough to explain this political rule of thumb.
For those who are truly Republicans, no such pledge is necessary. If a candidate believes that he should run for office regardless of party nomination, that should be his right.
I join Beth Draco in attacking this silly and clumsy attempt to silence the voices of any citizen who wants to enter this race under any banner he chooses. I doubt that I would be inclined to vote for any person who would take such a pledge. I encourage others to consider what taking that pledge reveals about the character of anyone who would.
Jerry Tidwell
wgt@wgtlaw.net
* * *
Beth Draco raises a good question: why did the Hamilton County Republican Party request a pledge from the five candidates running for sheriff that each would abstain from running as an independent candidate if not selected in the party caucus?
For the answer, we need to also review the recent Democratic Party caucus that selected County Commissioner Greg Beck over opponent Jim Winters. Winters has said that as a result of what he felt was an unfair selection process, he will run as an Independent in the August election. The Republicans, apparently seeking to prevent such moves from their runners-up, instituted "the pledge."
But there is more to this yet. It turns out that Tennessee state law (TCA 2-5-101 (f)(3)) does seem to indicate that if a candidate loses in his or her party's nomination process (primary or caucus) that that candidate cannot then run in the general election. (However, the county population restriction therein seems to rule out just about every county.) The Hamilton County Election Commission is using a looser interpretation of that law than some might, and thus are not themselves preventing candidates who lose the nominations from running in the general. Hence "the pledge." The Republicans must have felt that they had to restrict the candidates themselves.
Tennessee has some of the nation's least - and, oddly, most - restrictive ballot access laws. On one hand, an individual may qualify for any office, be it local, in the General Assembly, or statewide, by obtaining a mere 25 valid signatures from the applicable district. However, that individual had better be prepared to run as a Democrat or as a Republican. Independent candidates are rarely elected (the only Independent in the Legislature, Sen. Mike Williams of Maynardville, switched from the Republican Party). Barriers for write-in candidates seem to be higher than in other states.
Additional political parties have had an extremely difficult time obtaining ballot access, so much so that there is a lawsuit currently underway (Libertarian Party of Tennessee v Thompson, 3:08cv-63) that will seek to provide for fairer rules. (The state's Constitution and Green parties are co-plaintiffs in the suit.) Though they vehemently oppose one another on a number of issues, the one thing on which Tennessee's Republicans and Democrats can surely agree is that they don't want any outsiders mucking up their two-party system. Since the parties elect the nominees to the Legislature, and the Legislature then writes election law and also appoints the state's Attorney General, you can see how this has gotten so tightly sewn up.
I commend Bud Knowles, Charlotte Mullis, and the Hamilton County Election Commission for advising candidates that they have the right to take their cases directly to the voters in an election, regardless whether party insiders want them to. Even if Jim Winters did not go about things in the most forthright way (and I'm not alleging that, but just noting that he first pulled papers as an Independent, then ran in a Democratic caucus, then switched back to Independent when he lost), the bottom line remains that the parties exert too much control over what should be a democratic (small-d) process. I concur with Ms. Draco: the local GOP should be ashamed of the way they have tried to bully candidates for Hamilton County sheriff.
Joe Lance
buggyshoes@gmail.com
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |