Daily K** says Florida passed a law to keep recent party switchers from running for office

[sailingaway]

I had no idea this had happened, but the Republicans in the Florida Legislature passed a "Charlie Crist Law" to prevent recent party-switchers from running for office. This would appear to spike the candidacy of former GOP State Sen. Nancy Argenziano, who intended to run as a Democrat against freshman tea guy Steve Southerland. The Florida Democratic Party appears to still want her, though, so we'll see if they fight the law in court, or just perhaps throw their support behind an independent run by Argenziano or something.

h xxp://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/04/1003038/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Morning-Digest:-8-5

[Elwar]

Hmm, I just switched from Independent to Republican. Guess I cannot run for office.

[specsaregood]

Hmm, I just switched from Independent to Republican. Guess I cannot run for office.

I don't see how they could pass such a law, let alone it hold up. otherwise why wouldn't all legislatures just pass laws saying you can't run for office unless you are an incumbent or there is no incumbent.

[Elwar]

I don't see how they could pass such a law, let alone it hold up. otherwise why wouldn't all legislatures just pass laws saying you can't run for office unless you are an incumbent or there is no incumbent.

They do that already...it is called ballot access laws.

In Georgia, if your party does not receive X amount of votes, they have to jump through a bunch of hoops (collecting a buttload of signatures) to get on the ballot the next election.

[specsaregood]

They do that already...it is called ballot access laws.

In Georgia, if your party does not receive X amount of votes, they have to jump through a bunch of hoops (collecting a buttload of signatures) to get on the ballot the next election.

And that still isn't the same. Because you are still running for office, they just made it more difficult. I'd venture that dk*s has this description way off. I searche for any info and only came up with references back to the same article as the OP.

[sailingaway]

I'd venture that dk*s has this description way off.


dk*s wrong? Surely not!

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I don't see how they could pass such a law, let alone it hold up. otherwise why wouldn't all legislatures just pass laws saying you can't run for office unless you are an incumbent or there is no incumbent.

There are a few states that have 'Sore Loser' laws that prohibit a candidate that lost a party primary from then turning around and running in the general election for that same office in the same election as an independent or whatever.

If only Connecticut had them, Lieberman would be gone.

[Elwar]

HB 1355:

In addition, any person seeking to qualify for nomination as a
candidate of any political party shall, at the time of subscribing to the
oath or affirmation, state in writing:
1. The party of which the person is a member.
2. That the person is not a registered member of any other political party
and has not been a registered member of candidate for nomination for any
other political party for 365 days before the beginning of qualifying for a
period of 6 months preceding the general election for which the person seeks
to qualify

[sailingaway]

Not helpful to big L libertarians running Republican, but independents aren't a member of another party. Question -- what if someone is in the GOP and has been forever but is a 'lifetime member' of another party? Like Ron?

I know there is a probable legal argument that these are all unconstitutional as applies to the Presidential election, where the people only elect the delegates, but even so.....

[specsaregood]

HB 1355:

In addition, any person seeking to qualify for nomination as a
candidate of any political party shall, at the time of subscribing to the
oath or affirmation, state in writing:
1. The party of which the person is a member.
2. That the person is not a registered member of any other political party
and has not been a registered member of candidate for nomination for any
other political party for 365 days before the beginning of qualifying for a
period of 6 months preceding the general election for which the person seeks
to qualify

Right so this is talking about party nominations, not actually running for office. My opinion is that the govt shouldn't be holding primaries and especially no making laws about who can run for the nomination of that party. But this is not saying one can't run for office, so the dk*s comment is incorrect.

[Krugerrand]

HB 1355:

In addition, any person seeking to qualify for nomination as a
candidate of any political party shall, at the time of subscribing to the
oath or affirmation, state in writing:
1. The party of which the person is a member.
2. That the person is not a registered member of any other political party
and has not been a registered member of candidate for nomination for any
other political party for 365 days before the beginning of qualifying for a
period of 6 months preceding the general election for which the person seeks
to qualify

It sure seems to me that these should be up to the parties. Why can a state tell a political party who they can run for a candidate and who they cannot run?

[specsaregood]

It sure seems to me that these should be up to the parties. Why can a state tell a political party who they can run for a candidate and who they cannot run?

Because the taxpayers are paying for the party primaries? If they reverted to a party-paid caucus system which they should then the govt wouldn't be doing it.

[Elwar]

Not helpful to big L libertarians running Republican, but independents aren't a member of another party. Question -- what if someone is in the GOP and has been forever but is a 'lifetime member' of another party? Like Ron?

From what I understand, there is an "Independent Party". And if you choose "Independent" when registering to vote, you are choosing that party. I could be wrong though.

I chose Independent when I moved to Florida because in all other states, you could be independent but vote in whichever party you want on primary day.

[sailingaway]

My concern is whether this will give Ron any trouble.

Also, where does the state get off telling a party how it can run its primaries? Isn't that unusual?

[Krugerrand]

Because the taxpayers are paying for the party primaries? If they reverted to a party-paid caucus system which they should then the govt wouldn't be doing it.

taxpayer funding not a good enough reason.

agreed ... it should be party-paid.

[specsaregood]

taxpayer funding not a good enough reason.

agreed ... it should be party-paid.

I dunno, if you are gonna get on the taxpayer teat you have to subject yourself to their whims and telling you what you can and can't do.

[Krugerrand]

I dunno, if you are gonna get on the taxpayer teat you have to subject yourself to their whims and telling you what you can and can't do.

Except this is a perfect example of how I have no choice ... but somehow am supposed to surrender my rights because of government funding. Accepting of government funds should NEVER be considered grounds for surrendering rights.

[sailingaway]

No one else cares about how this might impact Ron?

[Elwar]

No one else cares about how this might impact Ron?

Ron Paul has not changed party status in the past year.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul has not changed party status in the past year.

Read that language of the bill again. It says you may not have BEEN a member of another party, not that you had to have changed status.

[specsaregood]

Read that language of the bill again. It says you may not have BEEN a member of another party, not that you had to have changed status.

doesn't matter anyways. this would only affect state level offices. it would be deemed unconstitutional for federal level. just like why you cant recall senators or reps.

[sailingaway]

doesn't matter anyways. this would only affect state level offices. it would be deemed unconstitutional for federal level. just like why you cant recall senators or reps.

I did mention that in one of my earlier comments and the court might rule that way... but it would TAKE a court ruling.... and I don't know if anyone at the campaign has looked into this.