“Section 24.2-545 of the Code of Virginia allows the political party holding a primary to determine requirements for voting in the primary. The Republican Party of Virginia has determined that the following pledge shall be a requirement of your participation Any voter refusing to sign the pledge form cannot vote in this Republican Party nominating process.”
It’s official. The State Board of Elections has approved the Republican Party of Virginia’s request that each voter that wishes to participate in the nomination of the Republican candidate for President must swear by signature his identification as a Republican in a publicly funded primary.
I chose the words carefully above. This is not an election (even though the SBE is involved) – it’s a nomination. A nomination for someone to represent a political party. More on that later. It also requires a legal signature that one identifies as a Republican, not that one is affiliated with the Republican party. More on that later, as well. Finally, the burden of the expense is public – it is not limited only to those who meet the party-imposed qualifications.
To be clear, state law does allow this. Code of Virginia § 24.2-545 states that political parties (provided it has received 10% of the vote in any of the last two statewide elections) can set requirements for participation that “may include, but shall not be limited to, the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party’s candidate when offering to vote in the primary.”
But simply because one can, does not mean one should. That which is permitted by law is not that which is appropriate by law.
I have two principal objections to any party (not just Republicans) requiring this sort of affirmation. None of them revolve around the form’s request for an email address – which is undoubtedly a way for them to build their outreach lists – or the available slate of candidates.
The first objection centers around the method of funding. True, the law ut supra does state “The cost of the presidential primary shall be paid by the Commonwealth pursuant to the provisions of the appropriation act.” But again, just because the law says the Commonwealth shall, does not mean the Commonwealth should. Democrats, liberals, libertarians, independents, and every other tax-paying Virginian is helping to pay for this nomination process (again… it is NOT an election).
Debates aside about whether a primary or convention is the preferred method of nomination, I object strongly to requiring the affirmation of political identity when the public at large is paying. If this were a convention – paid for and produced by Republicans, for Republicans, and with Republicans – I would have no objection to this “oath.” Their money, their rules. But when this nomination to represent a party is paid for by the Common-wealth, different rules should be considered.
Because this is a nomination to represent a political party, and not an election, I agree that the political party in question has an interest in preserving the integrity of the nomination process. But they have in theory already opened up the process to everyone by requiring every citizen of the Commonwealth to fund it. Whether I am a Republican or not, I am paying for its party’s nomination. I am therefore a shareholder in the corporate nomination process and should thus not have my voice excluded if I refuse to identify as a Republican.
And that brings me to the second objection – that I am required to identify as a Republican. The form will have a “Statement of Republican Party Affiliation”; however, the actual statement you will assent to and sign will be “My signature below indicates that I am a Republican.” The difference between affiliation and identification may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it is of weighty philosophical importance.
We have no party registration in Virginia, so there is no true “registered Republican.” So the implication here is not that one has “registered” as a Republican, nor is it even that one has paid their local dues. The implication here is that being a “Republican” defines what you are. In other words the essence of your existence is its Republicanism – capital R – that without your Republican-ness (capital R) you would cease to be who you are. I object strongly to that implication.
I bear the title proudly that I affiliate with the Republican Party “in name only”. In other words, the measuring stick of my political and personal convictions is not determined by the State Central Committee. I have affiliated with the Republican Party in the past because I found their convictions in many respects to be similar to my own, but I have not – and never will – rely on a party to define my preference (especially when these parties seem more and more to reject objective measures of morality).
I realize it is expedient to use the shorthand expression, “yeah, I’m a Republican,” but that has in context very different implications than a legal signature required to participate in the selection of a nominee.
Again, the party is operating within the law by doing this. And if anyone is comfortable in declaring the Republican-ness of their essential being, more power to them. I can’t do it. I do understand how I can be perceived as splitting hairs, but there are very serious philosophical objections.
I guess it’s just time for me to admit that I’ve never been a Republican and they don’t want my participation.
