RTD’s Andrew Cain reports on the RPV Loyalty Oath that is turning into a pivotal issue in the upcoming Haley-Whitbeck contest for RPV chairman:
Petersen said in a phone interview that he is concerned about the prospect of state employees assisting party officials in implementing what he termed a “party purity test.”
“I think it’s a problem ethically, and I think it’s a problem logistically,” Petersen said.
Ouch.
Of course, Petersen is right — and it’s not just Trump supporters concerned about a process that seems to benefit one candidate (Cruz specifically) above all the others. It is the sort of picking winners-and-losers in nomination contests that has become a relatively new phenomenon from state leadership, as it was previously scorned in all but the most urgent of interests.
RPV’s Dave D’Onofrio offered what has to be the most interesting tell:
“Until Virginia has party registration, this is an inelegant tool to ensure the Republican process,” D’Onofrio said, adding that making sure Republicans choose the GOP nominee “doesn’t seem like an unreasonable standard.”
Two things of note: “inelegant tool” sounds like welcome backtracking in the face of intense criticism, as to date the state party has put every man on the wall defending the “loyalty oath” against such criticism. The other tell? Party registration has been floated for some time, but it has never been the consensus position of the Republican Party of Virginia to endorse party registration, as (1) in Maryland it is covertly used to discriminate against Republicans for contracts and the like, and (2) for civil libertarians, it is one additional layer of information on John Q. Public the government doesn’t deserve to have.
More to the point, party registration — if one is concerned with the primaries vs. conventions discussion — is a tacit admission that party leadership has indeed authoritatively shifted towards a preference for primaries… as conventions have never required such a litmus test.
Perhaps RPV State Central members can clear up the confusion?
Nevertheless, Petersen’s objections to the loyalty oath are prescient for the solitary reason that no litmus test should be imposed in a taxpayer-funded primary. If certain members of leadership wanted to impose such requirements, there’s a method of nomination that affords us that: conventions. Moreover, the ethical implications of requiring litmus tests in Virginia speak to the days when such tests were used to keep certain “others” out of the voting booth — a principle concern of the African-American pastors who are challenging the loyalty oath in court.
Of course, this perhaps could all be academic. Even if Petersen’s bill passed, it would be too late to reverse the “loyalty oath” for the March primary. Still, for future contests? This is good, ethical legislation.
The shame of it all? Is that we have to be told to do the right thing by a lawmaker… such are the times.
