Call it my red badge of courage: In 1999, I was a member of the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee (SCC) and we decided that it was going to be a primary to decide between George W. Bush and John McCain to be our nominee.
I voted for the primary.
While it was 17 years ago, I do recall us discussing the possibility of issuing a statement to voters that they would ally themselves with the GOP. I don’t think it passed. And I’m pretty sure I voted against it.
I left for Newport, RI after graduating college in Dec. ’99. I might have been distracted and don’t perfectly recall the vote back then. That said – I voted against the oath.
That said, I do think such statements were passed by RPV in recent primary battles, only to be rescinded by the party before the State Board of Elections (SBE) sent out absentee ballots.
This year, there have been nearly five thousand ballots distributed and about a thousand people who have already voted in person in the Republican primary. The statement of affiliation has been included.
All it really says is that, “I am a Republican.”
I know that for many of my friends that this is benign and, in some respects, even expected to participate in “our” primary. But while merely signing one’s name might not seem to be a big deal to them, it might be to others. Particularly to independents voting for the first time.
“I think there are some voters who are holding on to their ballots until they know who they want to support,” said Clara Belle Wheeler, the Republican representative to the Virginia State Board of Elections.
Last night, in the Iowa Caucuses, there were a record breaking number of voters participating for the GOP: more than 150k.
But it is safe to say that with at least three high-powered GOP candidates in Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, the vote for the Republicans here in the Virginia primary on Mar. 1 will easily eclipse the Iowa numbers. The number of absentee votes issued will be marginal compared to the final count of voters in Virginia.
And Wheeler is right. Voters might be thinking about the results of Iowa, New Hampshire next week, and, then, South Carolina, before they cast their Virginia absentee ballot. As if the decision itself weren’t confusing, now they have to concern themselves over a piece of paper they can throw in the trash today.
Wheeler has the unenviable task of trying to sort out the mess that the SCC has made and be its advocate to the SBE.
It will be her responsibility this week to get the SBE to accept RPV’s recommendation now to remove that which they’re already killing trees to produce.
But will it be fair?
This is a key question the SBE will have to determine. Does the statement dissuade people from voting? Are provisional ballots cast no longer provisional? Does having to sign the statement make people vote a different way?
Wheeler proposes that the fix to the SBE is to count all ballots cast, regardless of whether the statement is included. And, if ballots have not been cast by those who were mailed, for a notification to be sent that the statement need not be returned. Regarding those who have already voted: no worries; game on.
It’s easy to throw stones after the fact, but the reality is that the only reason SCC even went forward with this is that it’s written into Virginia law that they can.
And this is where Senators Chap Petersen and John Cosgrove come in.
As I type this, in a few minutes, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee will hear two bills. Petersen’s, which is an emergency measure to prohibit any party from requiring a statement of affiliation and Cosgrove’s, which is designed to make voters identify their party preference at the time of voter registration. Shaun recently posted:
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.
My understanding is that the SBE will be watching this committee meeting today closely and it might influence their meeting regarding RPV’s actions from this past weekend.
Regardless, the attorney general could also get involved and make a ruling before the next SBE meeting on the statement and whether it treats all voters fairly, particularly if absentee voters were placed on one standard, while in-person voters on March 1 fall under another.
“Our role will be the same as it is for all our client agencies, and that is to provide the Board advice and guidance on the law,” said Michael Kelly of the OAG.
So, while RPV wants the statement rescinded, SBE is under no obligation to agree to their wishes. And since SBE is controlled by Democrats, they have no real reason to want to help us fix the mess we created.
What a cluster. Happy, RPV?
