By G. Tracy Mehan, III on 11.29.07 @ 12:07AM
This from the home of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison?
Yesterday morning I spilled coffee all over my suit when I spied
the following tidbit in the paper (Washington Post,
11/28/07, page B2): "Loyalty Oath Will Be Required."
It seems that the Republican Party of Virginia, home to Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison, has prevailed on the State Board of
Elections (SBE) to mandate that GOP primary voters must "sign an
oath swearing loyalty to the eventual GOP ticket." All who apply
for a GOP primary ballot must "vow in writing to vote for the
Republican presidential nominee next fall."
Given the state party's legitimate concern with an open primary
and no party registration, simply requesting primary voters to
certify or swear that they are Republicans would be a workable
solution to the problem. It would be just as effective in reducing
Democratic cross-over voters as would seeking an open-ended
commitment to an indeterminate general election slate.
As a third-generation Republican, and the father of a fourth, I
was taken aback by this news and have since sent an e-mail to the
SBE seeking redress (If you are so inclined, e-mail to info@sbe.virginia.gov).
A search of the websites of both the SBE and the Republican
Party of Virginia failed to locate a copy or text of this so-called
"loyalty oath."
What is pretty clear is that the SBE is going to lose the
inevitable lawsuit on this matter, and it should. This oath is an
unconstitutional infringement on any GOP voter's right to vote
given that it extracts a promise to vote in the general election
for candidates unknown and unknowable as of the primary election
day. Even if the oath is construed to require simply "loyalty,"
rather than an actual vote, it is an affront to private thought and
conscience.
Moreover, it probably violates the voter's First Amendment
rights for a host of reasons. But try this one on for size: suppose
a Catholic Republican, i.e., me, has to face the choice of voting
for the former Mayor of New York City or the Senator from the State
of New York. Given that both candidates have, well, let's just say
problematic positions on the right to life and the integrity of the
family, the moral imperatives may demand writing in another worthy
candidate for president.
I don't know what I will do if I have to face that decision. But
I do not need to be hectored into a commitment as early as the
primary election in the Old Dominion. This campaign has a long way
to go, and I should have the benefit of the extended debate that
comes with a long political season.
This loyalty oath also contradicts Republican principles. It
robs the political process of any incentive or competition to
nominate the best available candidate acceptable to the widest of
Reaganite coalitions. It stipulates an outcome rather than trusting
to the wisdom or judgment of individual party members. It gives the
party a free pass on producing quality candidates for the voters'
consideration.
There are two responses to my objections that I have already
heard. First, the oath is secret and, therefore, unenforceable.
Second, nobody really cares. So just sign it anyway.
That's great. Giving one's oath or word of honor should not be a
meaningless gesture. If it is, one is not trustworthy, without
honor, and a liar.
Presumably, the Virginia GOP believes in personal integrity, and
that its decision to require such an oath was an error in judgment
rather than a moral lapse.
The SBE should seek legal counsel on this matter. Better yet, it
should exercise prudential judgment and reconsider its decision
pronto without recourse to lawyers.
Traditionally, the GOP was the party that valued personal
liberty, free from politically correct thought control. Hopefully,
the Virginia Republicans will recover that tradition before the
primary election this way comes.
topics:
Constitution, Law, NATO
