Just before the June, 2010 Washington State Republican Party convention, WSRP chair Luke Esser sent a pledge letter out to the G.O.P. senatorial candidates who were challenging Sen. Patty Murray (my emphasis):
We the undersigned Republican candidates for U.S. Senate herby urge the Washington State Republican Party to not make a pre-primary endorsement or nomination of any candidate in this year’s race for U.S. Senate, and to offer equal access to party resources for all Republican candidates. A pre-primary endorsement or nomination would only serve to divide our party at a time when we all need to be united in the effort to defeat Patty Murray. [….]
As Esser explained to Politico:
I thought it would be a mistake for anybody to win an endorsement. I think the body and the state party believe at this point that we should have a competitive and vigorous primary. May the best candidate win.
That’s some pathetic spin. The back story is that the Teabaggers were highly energized with a strong presence at the 2010 convention. The Teabaggers were pushing for a Clint Diddier nomination over latecomer Dino Rossi. Diddier had just earned Sarah Palin’s endorsement. A nomination fight would have have gotten ugly!
There’s only one problem with not nominating anyone in 2010. Take it away, Goldy (emphasis in original):
In what could turn out to be massive political blunder with far-reaching consequences, a question has been raised as to whether Mitt Romney can legally qualify to appear on the Washington ballot under existing state law:
WAC 434-215-165 Presidential nominations by major political parties.
Nominations for president and vice-president by major political parties are conducted at each party’s national convention. Immediately following the convention, each party must submit a certificate of nomination and list of electors to the secretary of state in order to place the nominees on the presidential general election ballot.
That is the procedure by which presidential candidates from “major political parties” qualify for Washington’s general election ballot. But according to a public records request that was forwarded my way, the Washington State Republican Party may no longer be a major party:
RCW 29A.04.086 tells us that “”Major political party” means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year.”
The problem for the state G.O.P. is that the Senate race was the only state-wide race in 2010. And, as far as anyone can tell, and consistent with Esser’s pledge letter and statement, there was no actual Republican nominee for statewide office in 2010.
The implication is that the WSRP is now, technically, a minor party in Washington state.
Why is this important? Well…it is embarrassing. Republicans losing major party status will be the laughing stock of Washington state…with some assistance from the Teabaggers, Sarah Palin, and Dino Rossi’s timorousness in announcing his run.
But the other, potentially more serious consequence, is that the WSRP would be required to nominate a presidential candidate according to the rules for a minor party:
(2) In order to nominate candidates for the offices of president and vice president of the United States, United States senator, United States representative, or any statewide office, a nominating convention shall obtain and submit to the filing officer the signatures of at least one thousand registered voters of the state of Washington.
(7) Be submitted to the appropriate filing officer not later than one week following the adjournment of the convention at which the nominations were made.
The 2012 WSRP State Convention ended on June 2. Oopsiedoodles!
So, unless the state Republicans submitted those 1,000 signatures and complied with all the other requirements of RCW 29A.20.161, Mitt Romney is not eligible to be on the Washington state general election ballot.
Should that happen, the Washington state Republicans will be the laughing stock of the nation.
Should that happen, the Washington state Republicans will be the laughing stock of the nation.
In a national party that never ceases to disgorge additional political Klowns, Washington State may be the only state in the union sans the whishing sound of Mitt’s size 15 floppies.
No big whoop. Rawmoney wasn’t going to win anyway.
The real head scratcher is why anyone takes any of these R kkklowns seriously. About 40% of us are too dumb to live, apparently.
Wow. WA electoral votes might even go to Obama if that happens.
Yawn.
Dem primaries in FL, MI, 2008. Big stink at the time, huge consequences suggested by the usual suspects.
Result? If I recall correctly, Hillary placed Obama’s name into nomination or did something like it from the floor.
Machts nichts.
Zotz @ 2,
“No big whoop. Rawmoney wasn’t going to win anyway.”
I can’t agree that it is unimportant. Offhand I can think of a couple of reasons:
1. It would be hard to convince me that excluding Romney from the top-of-the-ballot race would not have significant down-ballot effects.
2. There is some possibility that Romney could lose the electoral college, but win the popular vote. (Maybe then, the National Popular Vote compact will pass!) Excluding Romney from the WA ballot pretty much rules out that scenario.
serial conservative @ 3,
As usual…sloppy thinking, lazy analysis.
What a shame…if you actually put effort into it, you seem to have potential to make contributions to these comment threads.
@ 5
First of all I thought you had washed your hands of me, Pilate.
Secondly:
RCW 29A.04.086 tells us that “”Major political party” means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year.”
The word OR is controlling.
Since presidential elections don’t occur in years not divisible by 4 into whole numbers, and since a presidential election is one of the scenarios, and since the GOP got more than 5% in WA in 2008, I see all this as a nonissue.
Machts nichts.
I saw “Freakonomics” last night on ShowTime. Turns out that one of the major contributing factors to less crimes in the 1990s was abortions done 20 years earlier. Gun control better policing, mandatory sentences – all these helped a bit to reduce crime (the movie stated), but the big factor was abortions. Having a kid when you want to have a kid and can afford the money, time and effort to raise him or her correctly in a major contributing factor to having less crime in our country.
The next time some far-right Christianist starts spouting-off about abortions, you might call this movie’s message to his or her attention. Abortion, especially for the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum is a good thing and helps prevent crime before it can occur.
@6
No, the controlling phrase is “last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year”. It’s now 2012, the last even number year was 2010. The president/vice president/senator/statewide office options limit the definition to only those offices that voters of the whole state can vote for. “Or” means that only one of the options must be true.
Serial Conservative @ 6,
Are you fucking serious?
What don’t you understand about the phrase, “at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year”?
For the 2012 election, 2008 was not “the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year.” That distinction falls upon our friend 2010.
The fact that the party candidate can be nominated for one of several offices is entirely irrelevant, since only Senate was on the ballot that year.
Sloppy, sloppy analysis.
Funny, considering that Dino Rossi didn’t want to be tagged as a Republican, so claimed “prefers GOP” on the ballots instead.
@ Darryl @ 9
Quite serious. No, I won’t read the statute.
One must believe that the most recent presidential election results would qualify, even if it skips a statewide election cycle held since then. The word OR is inclusive of a presidential election result.
Ergo, an election four years ago can be used, as presidential elections are held only every four years.
It’s clear you don’t like the reasoning. But if a presidential election result with 5+ % of the tally is qualifying, then the most recent presidential election result qualifies the GOP as a major party.
Your argument is to exclude the 2008 presidential election result.
My argument is to use an interpretation of the law to demonstrate how the GOP would argue the issue were it to go to court on this basis.
Far from sloppy, Darryl. It’s what I think a lawyer would do.
Recently I read that the ACA might be challenged, again, based on a single word. Heard it on NPR as well.
If a law can be parsed that way, why can’t I parse one the way I described above? You and I do not think alike. This does not necessarily mean that my thought process is flawed.
don,
Nice comment @ 8!
Regarding “prefers GOP Party”. In 2010, Dino Rossi had “Prefers Republican Party” on the ballot (here’s an example).
It was in 2008, running against Governor Gregoire, that Rossi preferred to party with the “GOP Party” instead of the “Republican Party.” (example here).
@11,
The usual suspects are very intolerant of non-liberal opinions. I’m sure the Neo-Cons are intolerant of how the usual suspects think over at Sound Politics. Just the nature of blogs.
@ 13
I could scramble and talk about disenfranchisement of voters by depriving them of an opportunity to vote for a candidate……blah blah 14th Amendment.
I could point out that a Top Two primary system in a state should not then turn in to a system excluding one of the Top Two candidates.
It’s not necessary. I believe the structure of the sentence @ 6 is all the GOP would need. Contrast the difficulty of my interpretation with the alternative difficulty of a Dem lawyer arguing that the GOP is not a major party.
Really, I don’t see why Darryl’s so pissed at me here.
Serial Conservative,
Wow…you sure have your head stuck WAAAAY up your ass!
“Your argument is to exclude the 2008 presidential election result.”
No…my argument is not “to exclude the 2008 presidential election”. Rather, my argument is that the statute CLEARLY states that the preceding election in which ANY one of the specified statewide offices is on the ballot is used in determination of major party status.
The next part of the statute makes this clear:
If your “interpretation” was valid, this sentence would be entirely unnecessary.
Politically Incorrect @ 13,
“The usual suspects are very intolerant of non-liberal opinions.”
My intolerance has much more to do with ignorance. And stupidity seems to have a strong partisan bias!
@14 I could point out that a Top Two primary system in a state should not then turn in to a system excluding one of the Top Two candidates.
Well, if this ever gets as far as McKenna’s desk, he’s going to have a hard time arguing that Romney should be on the ticket. In 2009, he requested the legislature pass SB 5681 (to fix up I-872), that would have lowered the threshold of a majority party from 5% down to 1%. The bill was never passed.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documen.....O%2009.pdf
“And stupidity seems to have a strong partisan bias!”
Same as facts and logic then.
“My intolerance has much more to do with ignorance. And stupidity seems to have a strong partisan bias!”
Yes, Darryl, I’m sure your quite impressed with yourself. So are the Neo-Cons over at SP.
Serial Conservative @ 14,
“Contrast the difficulty of my interpretation with the alternative difficulty of a Dem lawyer arguing that the GOP is not a major party.”
Why would that be difficult? The RCW CLEARLY defines criteria for being a major party. And I’ll note that it doesn’t grant exceptions for who people THINK major parties are.
“Really, I don’t see why Darryl’s so pissed at me here.”
I’m not pissed at you. I am arguing with you as well as scolding you when I believe you have engaged in lazy or sloppy thinking.
I guess I assumed you come to this blog fully aware that these things happen!
Why not. If the son of a Kenyan can’t be on Arizona’s ballot, then Washington shouldn’t let the son of a Mexican on its ballot.
@6 “First of all I thought you had washed your hands of me, Pilate.”
My my don’t we have a persecution complex!
P.S., as a lawyer to a lay person, your statutory interpretation sucks.
I think these have been a story in a few states every 4 years since the Dixiecrats got Truman off the ballot in a few Southern states. It hasn’t gone anywhere in a long time.
Darryl, I’m afraid that’s just not correct.
Sure not dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s such that there’s a chance that the party’s nominee for president does not get on the ballot is incredibly stupid and clearly a case of malfeasance on the part of Esser and now that noisy overpriced vacuum Kirby.
But it is not true that “the Washington state Republicans will be the laughing stock of the nation.”
Darryl, this is an Olympic year and the competition for supreme stupidity at the state GOP level is tremendously fierce. I’m afraid that Esser/Kirby don’t get past the qualifying rounds.
Note to Luke and Kirby: The two of you should not quit in your attempts to reign supreme in the Synchronized State Republican Chair Idiot competition. You’ve shown some real ineptitude and creativity in recruiting US Senate candidates. I mean, one time you run perennial well known loser, and the next you run …??? Who did you get to run this year Kirby?
:-D
On a serious note, the ineptitude clearly shows that the WARP is clearly no longer a “major” political party in this state. The WARP is a warped minor rump party.
Cripes, nearly half (3m) of our state’s residents (6m) were not even born the last time a WARP candidate for governor won an election.
@25
so you are confirming the fact that its the democrats who have run this state into the ground, financially speaking.
nice own-goal.
Im confused. First the Republicans certainly endorsed Rossi after the primary so what difference does it make that it was not done before then? Second, there really arent nominations at all now because of the top two primary. A candidate just states their preference of a party.
@26,
Nope, try again without wishful thinking.
Hint: the topic is elections.
Good luck! You appear to desperately need it.
@5 “you seem to have potential to make contributions to these comment threads”
I have no idea why you would care what a racist thinks about anything, Darryl. A racist like Bob should only be deserving of our scorn and contempt. Perhaps you’re impressed by a troll actually being capable of talking crosstabs with you, but he’s still just a damned racist. It’s your call, obviously, but you might give some thought to treating him like one.
As fun as it is to watch the R’s in this state have a major pratfall, no one should file a suit and press this case… It may backfire on Dems across the nation as a whole.
Just let Willard get on the ballot in this state and get trounced this November yes, in this state.
@30,
Politics ain’t bean bag. When there is an opportunity to win, you pursue it until its end, period.
There are ways to mitigate the risk you’ve identified, but I strongly suspect the overall political advantage is to embarrass the Republican party and to press the advantage in the gubernatorial race and congressional races.
1. the state budget is fucked
2. you confirmed that the democrats have run this state for decades.
but somehow, the state’s budget problems are someone elses fault.
LOL…just….LOL.
owned.
Actually, the President/Vice-President race is the ONLY race on the Washington ballot where there are PARTY NOMINEES. Before the top-two primary, pretty much every statewide race, including U.S. Senate, had party nominees. Now, these races (with the exception of President/VP) simply have candidate who state a party preference, and they are not considered to be party nominees in any sense of the word.
The Secretary of State now looks solely at the last presidential election to determine whether a party is a major party. And the Republicans obviously got more than 5% of the vote for McCain/Palin in 2008 in this state.
This is a fun little talking point, but a non-issue, because R-Money will lose Washington whether or not he’s on the ballot here.
Analysts: Romney Plan Raises Taxes On Poor And Middle Class To Cut Taxes For Rich
“A tax system overhaul along the lines that Mitt Romney has proposed would give big tax cuts to high-income households and increase the tax burden on middle- and lower-income households, according to an analysis from economists at the Tax Policy Center.
“The researchers … created a model … that incorporates … Mr. Romney’s proposals, which include lowering marginal tax rates, eliminating both the alternative minimum tax and taxation of investment income of most taxpayers, doing away with the estate tax and repealing the additional high-income taxes passed with the Affordable Care Act. …
“Mr. Romney … has not said … how he would … compensate for the lost … tax revenue. The analysis assumes … offsets would be achieved … through reducing or … eliminating other tax breaks … and does not factor in spending cuts …. As a result, middle- and lower-income households … would have to make up the difference ….”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48455758
Roger Rabbit Commentary: We’ll find out on Nov. 6 how many righty heavy breathers are willing to vote “R” after they find out they’re going to pay higher taxes so the Koch brothers can pay less.
A prominent Wall Street economist says the financial crisis and Great Recession caused “profound and enduring changes” in consumer behavior. Because spending drives the economy, the U.S., he says, is entering a new era of frugality. The result is “no recovery to speak of.” In this new economy, baby boomers are “suffering the most” from collapsing net worths and “ultra-low interest rates” that “are punishing” savers.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48455676
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Three years after the recession officially ended the economy is stuck in the mud. Republicans blame Democratic politicians and policies, but the real problem is structural changes in the economy caused by the massive debts run up during the freewheeling years of Reagan/Bush Wack-O-Nomics. GOP policies won’t get the economy moving again because they don’t address this problem.
For generations, U.S. economic growth has depended on ever higher levels of personal consumption. This came unglued when conservative policies that reversed wage growth and imposed falling incomes on the middle class prevailed. Consumers had to borrow ever larger sums to keep consuming. This transformed the once-thriving U.S. economy into a house of cards that inevitably had to come tumbling down.
With high unemployment, still-shrinking real incomes for most Americans, and huge debts to pay off, where will future growth in consumer spending come from? Answer: Nowhere. The U.S. is in for a prolonged period of economic stagnation.
It ought to be obvious to anyone reading this far what it will take to get consumer spending, and therefore the economy, moving again: Debt writedowns. Not all of the mortgages and student loans of the boom era will be repaid. The sooner we face that fact, and clear the financial deadwood off balance sheets, the faster we can get the economy out of neutral and into growth mode.
Another thing that has to happen is wage growth. The massive shift of output from labor to owners of capital has gone as far as it can go without causing deep and lasting damage to the economy. Now it’s time for that pendulum to swing back. If we want a prosperous future, less of GDP has to go to profits and more to wages, with or without the help of unions — it doesn’t matter how we get there.
Republicans won’t like these prescriptions. They want wealth to continue flowing to the already-wealthy. The trouble is monetary, fiscal, and tax policies that foster this will shrink the pie for everyone, and ultimately the rich will end up poorer along with the rest of us. But the selfish and greedy among us are too blind to see that.
Roger — you left out that Romney wants to eliminate the earned income credit as well. I remember his speech to CPAC in 2008, right after conceding the race, where he bemoaned that far too money people were not paying income taxes at all (or getting net credits back), while the rich and corporations were paying too much. I think I posted about that on here back then, and you could find my comments using the Google.
Dino Rossi rans “prefers GOP” in 2008, but as “prefers Republican” in 2010. In 2010, he received 47.6% of the vote as a Republican candidate.
It is either “Es macht nichts” or “macht nichts”, and not ever “machts nichts”.
Just sayin.
@37 I merely listed a representative sampling of “safety net” programs he wants to cut or eliminate. We can safely assume he prefers to eliminate them all. Something for 46.5 million Americans who depend on food stamps to think about before voting.