Va. GOP to require loyalty oath in presidential primary

[Miss Annie]

Anyone have 2cents about what the implications of this are?

Va. GOP to require loyalty oath in presidential primary
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/28/1/paul-top-gop-primary-ballot-ar-1572784/

RICHMOND, Va. --

The state Republican Party will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the March 6 presidential primary.

Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign the pledge will be barred from voting.

During a brief meeting Wednesday at the state Capitol, the State Board of Elections voted 3-0 to approve three forms developed by the election board’s staff to implement the loyalty pledge requested by the state GOP.

The board also held a drawing that determined Texas Rep. Ron Paul will appear first on the primary ballot, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the only other candidate who qualified for the ballot. The state GOP previously announced that Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich did not amass enough valid signatures to qualify.

Also Wednesday, Paul Goldman, a former chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia, and Patrick McSweeney, a former chairman of the state Republican Party, held a news conference at the state Capitol. They urged legislators to pass emergency legislation establishing a standard -- through criteria such as polling data -- that would get additional Republican candidates on the ballot March 6.

Legislators say changes to Virginia’s election laws are virtually impossible in time for the primary. State law requires that absentee ballots be mailed by Jan. 21 – 45 days ahead of the election. The legislature does not convene until Jan. 11.

As for the loyalty oath, the elections board approved a notice to inform absentee voters of the pledge, a sign to hang at polling places and the pledge form itself.

Signs for polling places and the pledge form will advise voters that “Section 24.2-545 of the Code of Virginia allows the political party holding a primary to determine requirements for voting in the primary, including ‘the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party’s candidate when offering to vote in the primary.’ ”

The pledge will require the voter to sign and to print his name beneath a line that says: “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”

Virginians do not register to vote by party. That means any registered voter can cast a ballot in a presidential primary. If the Democrats and Republicans hold primaries on the same day, a voter must choose one or the other.

In Virginia’s 2000 GOP presidential primary, won by Texas Gov. George W. Bush, voters were required to sign a different pledge: “I, the undersigned, state that I do not intend to participate in the nomination process of any other party than the Republican Party.”

GOP officials said at the time that national party rules required a loyalty oath in states, such as Virginia, that do not have party registration.

Virginia did not hold a GOP presidential primary in 2004, because Bush was seeking re-election. In November 2007 the GOP State Central Committee voted to rescind their demand for a loyalty pledge in Virginia’s Feb. 12, 2008 Republican presidential primary, won by John McCain.

GOP officials considered a pledge unnecessary because Democrats would be inclined to vote in the Democratic primary – also on Feb. 12, 2008 -- that featured Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Virginia will not hold a Democratic primary in March because Obama was the only candidate who qualified.

During Wednesday’s drawing for ballot spots, Kimberly Bowers, vice chairwoman of the elections board, picked one of two identical film canisters from a crystal bowl. It contained Paul’s name. Board Secretary Donald Palmer then picked the second canister, which contained Romney’s name.

At the afternoon news conference, Goldman charged that the state GOP used two different standards to vet the signatures candidates submitted for ballot access and that Democrats used another standard in assessing President Barack Obama's signatures. Goldman said the differing standards raise constitutional issues.

Late Wednesday the state Republican Party released a lengthy defense of its procedures, under which a candidate who submitted more than 15,000 “facially valid” signatures “would be presumed to be in compliance with Virginia’s 10,000-signature law” to get on the ballot.

In part, the statement says that “RPV has never encountered a situation where a candidate who submitted 15,000 signatures has failed to make the ballot (absent cases of obvious fraud)” and that the state party repeatedly encouraged campaigns to submit at least 15,000 signatures “in an abundance of caution.”

“Despite this early notice and RPV's exhortations to candidates, only one candidate availed himself of the 15,000 signature threshold - Governor Mitt Romney.”

The statement says the state GOP “counted Governor Romney's signatures, reviewed them for facial validity, and determined he submitted well over 15,000. Never in the party's history has a candidate who submitted more than 15,000 signatures had 33 percent invalidated. The party is confident that Governor Romney met the statutory threshold.”

The GOP said Paul “submitted just under 15,000, and was submitted to signature-by-signature scrutiny on the same basis as the other candidates who submitted fewer than 15,000 signatures.”

It said that Paul had cleared the standard in state law – at least 10,000 signatures, including 400 from each of the 11 congressional districts – “with ease.”

The Republican Party's statement said Gingrich and Perry "did not come close to the 10,000 valid signature threshold.”

The state GOP said it regrets that Gingrich and Perry did not qualify for the primary.

“But the failure of these two candidates to meet the state requirements does not call into question the accuracy of the party's certification of the two candidates who are duly qualified to appear on the ballot.”

[Todd]

Do what I'm going to do. Sign and ignore it.

[noxagol]

Do what I'm going to do. Sign and ignore it.

Or relish in the thought that when Ron Paul gets the nomination that their plan would then be backfiring as all the people who vote non-Ron would then have pledged to support him (though oaths and the like mean extremely little these days).

[Badger Paul]

Only dying parties ask for loyalty oaths.

[Chester Copperpot]

IM sure the people will have no problem upholding their oaths to the same degree that our public servants do.

[cindy25]

party nominating petitions have a pledge that you will support that candidate

[Chester Copperpot]

So I guess this will prevent Newt from voting.. since he lives in Virginia and has said he will never vote for Ron Paul??

So, if he DOES openly vote then he exposes himself as someone who goes against the VA GOP right??

[eduardo89]

Do they actually think the loyalty oath even means anything? What are they going to do, stand behind you while you vote in the general election to make sure you vote the way they want you to? Will they try to arrest you if you don't vote for their nominee?

[GunnyFreedom]

If this went to court it would be struck down hard. You can't require someone to vote a certain way in a general election. I know that would be a blatant violation of the NC Constitution if they tried it here. I could even see an Art 4 Sec 4 objection in the US Constitution.

[eduardo89]

If this went to court it would be struck down hard. You can't require someone to vote a certain way in a general election. I know that would be a blatant violation of the NC Constitution if they tried it here. I could even see an Art 4 Sec 4 objection in the US Constitution.

I think the only thing they could do is kick you out of the party if they find out you didn't vote for the GOP nominee. They can't force you to vote any certain way.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think the only thing they could do is kick you out of the party if they find out you didn't vote for the GOP nominee. They can't force you to vote any certain way.

No, the most they could do is censure you at a convention. That's kinda like saying "bad boy" and then dropping the subject.

[eduardo89]

No, the most they could do is censure you at a convention. That's kinda like saying "bad boy" and then dropping the subject.
They can't kick you out of the party?

[bbartlog]

They can't verify who you voted for. Any decent democracy sets things up so that it's impossible to determine who someone voted for, otherwise the door is wide open for vote buying and/or intimidation. So the question of what they would be allowed to do if they *could* know is moot.

[GunnyFreedom]

They can't kick you out of the party?

I've not heard of it before. I've seen some people do some pretty whacked stuff and all they get is a party censure.

[Nic]

Who cares? I'll sign it and then if for whatever reason RP isn't the nominee I'll ignore it and vote for RP anyway.

[MelissaWV]

I don't consider any of the others to be Republicans, and they would not be able to verify the vote.

[bunklocoempire]

"Loyalty oath":rolleyes:

battered woman syndrome (bws)
n.
A pattern of signs and symptoms, such as fear and a perceived inability to escape, appearing in women who are physically and mentally abused over an extended period by a husband or other dominant individual.

Battered women's syndrome is similar to "learned helplessness". When a woman is in conditions that undermine her self-esteem, questions her judgment, and terrorizes her, she may be unable to take actions that seem to be in her power.

A thing to remember about these women is the batterer has told her again and again that he loves her. This is her companion, best friend, and person she spends her life with.

There is always a "reason", and of course these are all excuses; it doesn't matter what the reason, he doesn’t have the right to put his hands on her. This is the key. It’s very hard sometimes for women who are caught up in these situations to be clear about that.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The pledge will require the voter to sign and to print his name beneath a line that says: “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”

Yep, because I expect it to be Ron Paul. That's my intention.

I wish those people would take their own oaths as seriously.

[Miss Annie]

"Loyalty oath":rolleyes:

battered woman syndrome (bws)
n.
A pattern of signs and symptoms, such as fear and a perceived inability to escape, appearing in women who are physically and mentally abused over an extended period by a husband or other dominant individual.

Battered women's syndrome is similar to "learned helplessness". When a woman is in conditions that undermine her self-esteem, questions her judgment, and terrorizes her, she may be unable to take actions that seem to be in her power.

A thing to remember about these women is the batterer has told her again and again that he loves her. This is her companion, best friend, and person she spends her life with.

There is always a "reason", and of course these are all excuses; it doesn't matter what the reason, he doesn’t have the right to put his hands on her. This is the key. It’s very hard sometimes for women who are caught up in these situations to be clear about that.

This is very interesting. I was thinking the other day what a codependent society this has become! :(

[dillo]

how would they enforce this

[Joe3113]

You guys can sign that oath and take it as seriously as Gingrich and Romney take their oath to the constitution.

[GunnyFreedom]

how would they enforce this

They couldn't without violating all kinds of laws. I question whether it's even legal to require the thing in the first place.

[RM918]

They couldn't without violating all kinds of laws. I question whether it's even legal to require the thing in the first place.

Oh but Gunny, when has that ever stopped them before?

[aGameOfThrones]

"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire Republican party and people, Adolf Hitler Whoever, supreme commander of the armed forces giant elephant, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier citizen I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."


Voting is a privilege... And an even more privilege when you have 2 major parties dictating the rules.

[123tim]

This surely is the time for true Christians to come forward:


James 5:12 ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

Maybe this is where the Neo-Conservative movement will finally remove itself from us? Or maybe, I should say, where we as Christians, remove ourselves from them?

[Joey Wahoo]

In order to vote, the voter must pledge to support the ultimate Republican nominee.

By: Andrew Cain | Richmond Times-Dispatch
Published: December 29, 2011 Updated: December 29, 2011 - 12:00 AM

The state Republican Party will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the March 6 presidential primary.

Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign will be barred from voting in the primary.

During a brief meeting Wednesday at the state Capitol, the State Board of Elections voted 3-0 to approve three forms developed by the election board's staff to implement the loyalty pledge requested by the state GOP.

The board also held a drawing that determined that Texas Rep. Ron Paul will appear first on the GOP primary ballot, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the only other candidate who qualified. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry submitted signatures, but not enough to qualify for the ballot, the state GOP said last week.

Paul Goldman, a former chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia, and Patrick McSweeney, a former chairman of the state Republican Party, held a news conference at the state Capitol on Wednesday to urge legislators to pass emergency legislation establishing a standard — through criteria such as polling data — that would get additional Republican candidates on the ballot March 6.

Legislators say changes to Virginia's election laws are virtually impossible in time for the primary. State law requires that absentee ballots be mailed by Jan. 21 — 45 days ahead of the election. The legislature does not convene until Jan. 11.

As for the loyalty oath, the elections board approved a notice to inform absentee voters of the pledge, a sign to hang at polling places and the pledge form itself.

Signs for polling places and the pledge form will advise voters that "Section 24.2-545 of the Code of Virginia allows the political party holding a primary to determine requirements for voting in the primary, including 'the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party's candidate when offering to vote in the primary.'"

The pledge will require the voter to sign and to print his name beneath a line that says: "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

Virginians do not register to vote by party. That means any registered voter can cast a ballot in a presidential primary. If the Democratic and Republican parties hold primaries on the same day, a voter must choose one or the other.

In Virginia's 2000 GOP presidential primary, won by Texas Gov. George W. Bush, voters were required to sign a different pledge: "I, the undersigned, state that I do not intend to participate in the nomination process of any other party than the Republican Party."

GOP officials said at the time that national party rules required a loyalty oath in states, such as Virginia, that do not have party registration.

Virginia did not hold a GOP presidential primary in 2004, because Bush was seeking re-election. In November 2007, the GOP State Central Committee voted to rescind its demand for a loyalty pledge in Virginia's Feb. 12, 2008, Republican presidential primary, won by John McCain.

GOP officials considered a pledge unnecessary because Democrats would be inclined to vote in the Democratic primary — held the same day — featuring Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Virginia will not hold a Democratic presidential primary in March because Obama is the party's only candidate who qualified.

During Wednesday's drawing for ballot spots, Kimberly Bowers, vice chairwoman of the elections board, picked one of two identical film canisters from a crystal bowl. It contained Paul's name. Board Secretary Donald Palmer then picked the second canister, which contained Romney's name.

At the news conference, Goldman alleged that the state GOP used two different standards to vet the signatures candidates submitted for ballot access and that Democrats used another standard in assessing Obama's signatures. Goldman said the differing standards raise constitutional issues.

Late Wednesday, the state Republican Party released a lengthy defense of its procedures, under which a candidate who submitted more than 15,000 signatures that appear valid on their face "would be presumed to be in compliance with Virginia's 10,000-signature law" to get on the ballot.

In part, the statement says that "RPV has never encountered a situation where a candidate who submitted 15,000 signatures has failed to make the ballot (absent cases of obvious fraud)" and that the state party repeatedly encouraged campaigns to submit at least 15,000 signatures "in an abundance of caution."

"Despite this early notice and RPV's exhortations to candidates, only one candidate availed himself of the 15,000 signature threshold — Gov. Mitt Romney."

The statement says the state GOP counted Romney's signatures, "reviewed them for facial validity, and determined he submitted well over 15,000."

The GOP said Paul "submitted just under 15,000, and was submitted to signature-by-signature scrutiny on the same basis as the other candidates who submitted fewer than 15,000 signatures."

It said Paul had cleared the standard in state law — at least 10,000 signatures, including 400 from each of the 11 congressional districts — "with ease."

The state party said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry "did not come close to the 10,000 valid signature threshold."

The state GOP said it regrets that Gingrich and Perry did not qualify.

"But the failure of these two candidates to meet the state requirements does not call into question the accuracy of the party's certification of the two candidates who are duly qualified to appear on the ballot."

[ShaneEnochs]

Surely that can't be legal...

[ventron]

LOL, how are they going to enforce this? Elections are secret ballots.
Just a way to scare off Inds and Dems who'll support Paul. As usual the establishment makes the conspiracy theories less crazy than the supposed reality :rolleyes:

[Joey Wahoo]

By: Andrew Cain | Richmond Times-Dispatch
Published: December 29, 2011 Updated: December 29, 2011 - 12:00 AM

The state Republican Party will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the March 6 presidential primary.

Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign will be barred from voting in the primary.

During a brief meeting Wednesday at the state Capitol, the State Board of Elections voted 3-0 to approve three forms developed by the election board's staff to implement the loyalty pledge requested by the state GOP.

The board also held a drawing that determined that Texas Rep. Ron Paul will appear first on the GOP primary ballot, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the only other candidate who qualified. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry submitted signatures, but not enough to qualify for the ballot, the state GOP said last week.

Paul Goldman, a former chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia, and Patrick McSweeney, a former chairman of the state Republican Party, held a news conference at the state Capitol on Wednesday to urge legislators to pass emergency legislation establishing a standard — through criteria such as polling data — that would get additional Republican candidates on the ballot March 6.

Legislators say changes to Virginia's election laws are virtually impossible in time for the primary. State law requires that absentee ballots be mailed by Jan. 21 — 45 days ahead of the election. The legislature does not convene until Jan. 11.

As for the loyalty oath, the elections board approved a notice to inform absentee voters of the pledge, a sign to hang at polling places and the pledge form itself.

Signs for polling places and the pledge form will advise voters that "Section 24.2-545 of the Code of Virginia allows the political party holding a primary to determine requirements for voting in the primary, including 'the signing of a pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party's candidate when offering to vote in the primary.'"

The pledge will require the voter to sign and to print his name beneath a line that says: "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

Virginians do not register to vote by party. That means any registered voter can cast a ballot in a presidential primary. If the Democratic and Republican parties hold primaries on the same day, a voter must choose one or the other.

In Virginia's 2000 GOP presidential primary, won by Texas Gov. George W. Bush, voters were required to sign a different pledge: "I, the undersigned, state that I do not intend to participate in the nomination process of any other party than the Republican Party."

GOP officials said at the time that national party rules required a loyalty oath in states, such as Virginia, that do not have party registration.

Virginia did not hold a GOP presidential primary in 2004, because Bush was seeking re-election. In November 2007, the GOP State Central Committee voted to rescind its demand for a loyalty pledge in Virginia's Feb. 12, 2008, Republican presidential primary, won by John McCain.

GOP officials considered a pledge unnecessary because Democrats would be inclined to vote in the Democratic primary — held the same day — featuring Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Virginia will not hold a Democratic presidential primary in March because Obama is the party's only candidate who qualified.

During Wednesday's drawing for ballot spots, Kimberly Bowers, vice chairwoman of the elections board, picked one of two identical film canisters from a crystal bowl. It contained Paul's name. Board Secretary Donald Palmer then picked the second canister, which contained Romney's name.

At the news conference, Goldman alleged that the state GOP used two different standards to vet the signatures candidates submitted for ballot access and that Democrats used another standard in assessing Obama's signatures. Goldman said the differing standards raise constitutional issues.

Late Wednesday, the state Republican Party released a lengthy defense of its procedures, under which a candidate who submitted more than 15,000 signatures that appear valid on their face "would be presumed to be in compliance with Virginia's 10,000-signature law" to get on the ballot.

In part, the statement says that "RPV has never encountered a situation where a candidate who submitted 15,000 signatures has failed to make the ballot (absent cases of obvious fraud)" and that the state party repeatedly encouraged campaigns to submit at least 15,000 signatures "in an abundance of caution."

"Despite this early notice and RPV's exhortations to candidates, only one candidate availed himself of the 15,000 signature threshold — Gov. Mitt Romney."

The statement says the state GOP counted Romney's signatures, "reviewed them for facial validity, and determined he submitted well over 15,000."

The GOP said Paul "submitted just under 15,000, and was submitted to signature-by-signature scrutiny on the same basis as the other candidates who submitted fewer than 15,000 signatures."

It said Paul had cleared the standard in state law — at least 10,000 signatures, including 400 from each of the 11 congressional districts — "with ease."

The state party said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry "did not come close to the 10,000 valid signature threshold."

The state GOP said it regrets that Gingrich and Perry did not qualify.

"But the failure of these two candidates to meet the state requirements does not call into question the accuracy of the party's certification of the two candidates who are duly qualified to appear on the ballot."

[rich34]

Wow, this is starting to get out of hand. If this is allowed it could set a dangerous precident.

[jolynna]

Are they going to go into the booths on the day of the actual elections to make sure that those who signed the pledge during the primary actually vote for for the Republican??????

If somebody CHEATS and goes back on their pledge do the cheaters get imprisoned or what?

There is such hokey! It is disgusting and wrong.

It is an effort to intimidate and force voters to vote THEIR way.

[Rincewind]

There's no way it's legally enforceable anyway. I wouldn't worry much about it.

[Original_Intent]

Key words:


pledge by the voter of his intention to support the party's candidate when offering to vote in the primary

We intend Ron Paul to be the party's candidate, therefore we intend to support the party's candidate.

The exact wording is not a pledge to support the eventual candidate, it is a pledge of intention to do so. A minor but significant difference.

[jolynna]

There's no way it's legally enforceable anyway. I wouldn't worry much about it.

It can't be enforced. But it is still an intimidation and might discourage some.

[jolynna]

Key words:



We intend Ron Paul to be the party's candidate, therefore we intend to support the party's candidate.

The exact wording is not a pledge to support the eventual candidate, it is a pledge of intention to do so. A minor but significant difference.

Good points and I agree.

[LBennett76]

Completely unethical, but completely unenforceable. It's meant to intimidate and there are some people who will be. This is where we (the grassroots) come in. Educate and inform. Then when they get to the voting booth they won't be freaked out. :)

[cajuncocoa]

It's outrageous, stupid, and completely useless. Only an idiot would fall for that, and Ron Paul supporters are not idiots!!

[tremendoustie]

Exactly right -- it doesn't say "whoever that may be". My intention is to support Ron Paul as the R nominee. If he's not the nominee, my intentions were thwarted, and I can vote 3rd party.

[cajuncocoa]

PLEASE don't let this stop you from voting in the Virginia primary. Sign the damned thing if you have to; it's unenforceable!!

[Rincewind]

2 other things I should point out.

First, aside from the "intend for Paul to be the nominee" argument, the way it's phrased would allow you to change your mind later anyway, even if it were enforceable (and it's not).

Second, if Paul is doing well at that point, it could theoretically hurt Romney even more, because there's plenty of Romney supporters who probably wouldn't want to vote for Paul.

I think the whole thing is kind of moot anyway. Means about as much as most congressional non-binding resolutions.

[Original_Intent]

Actually, the exact wording of the statute makes sense....essentially it is a pledge that you are not a Democrat just switching to vote for the candidate that would do worst against Obama...the wording is not a pledge to support the eventual nominee, it is a pledge that you INTEND to support the party's candidate. I take it as nothing more than a pledge of good faith that you are not just participating to wreck the GOP's chances.

Taken in this context, it is a legitimate pledge, and one that I would not hesitate to make. And should Ron Paul not be the nominee, I would not consider it a broken pledge to vote thrid party.

[shelskov]

This is obviously not enforceable; it is an oath, not a binding contract, not to mention there is no way they can verify compliance.

Additionally, this is entirely permissible because it is the political party's nominating process. It is not a true democratic election. It is just a contest to see who the party will nominate, so the party can make any rule or process it wants. If you are in the GOP and don't like the process, then become a delegate to the state convention and propose amendments to their bylaws.

I am not in the GOP, so I don't particularly care about their rules. Tennessee is an open primary state, so I can still support Ron Paul in the primary even though I am a Libertarian.

[RonPaul101.com]

This is the part that makes me angry:

"...urge legislators to pass emergency legislation establishing a standard — through criteria such as polling data — that would get additional Republican candidates on the ballot March 6."

If they changes the rules to allow more candidates, I will be very angry.

[Fredom101]

This is hilarious! They will try to pull stunts like this to keep RP out. Next thing you know, we will be like Australia and they will fine us for not voting, and throw us in jail if we refuse to pay the fine!

[gb13]

"I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president."

There's nothing binding in that pledge.

Key word: "INTEND". Just because you "intend" to do something, does not mean you ultimately WILL do it. Sure, I intend to support the republican nominee, and I believe it will be Ron Paul. However, if Ron Paul does not win the nomination, and a better candidate comes along from another party (or as an independent) I may change my intention to vote for that other candidate. The pledge is nothing but the death rattle of a dwindling power-structure.

[frodus24]

I do not post much here, but shit like this infuriates me to no end. Especially, since I live in Virginia. When I vote, it will be Ron Paul. If I have to write in, it will be Ron Paul. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANYBODY ELSE BUT RON PAUL.

[jkr]

how about a loyalty oath to the declaration, constitution, and bill of rights?

[SamuraisWisdom]

Key words:



We intend Ron Paul to be the party's candidate, therefore we intend to support the party's candidate.

The exact wording is not a pledge to support the eventual candidate, it is a pledge of intention to do so. A minor but significant difference.

That seems more like a way out of trouble for the Virginia GOP more than anything. Why have people sign a pledge at all if they're only pledging their intention. This sounds more like voter intimidation to me.

[Number19]

Two years ago this happened in my precinct, when I noticed that the paperwork required to become a delegate to the state convention had changed from that in 2008. I checked with the state party and this changed was not dictated by the Texas GOP, but was implemented by the GOP County Chair in direct response to the strong participation, in 2008, of the Ron Paul Republicans. I chose not to sign the oath and consequently was not selected by the chair as a delegate to the state convention. At the district convention I was voted a delegate by the floor.

This year I plan on just signing the darn thing because it doesn't mean zip. I may still change my mind - because I have never broken my word, once given; but this is politics - and dirty politics, at that - and I now have personal proof of the underhandedness these scoundrels stoop to. But it does present a dilemma when first encountered by those of us who try to live a principled life.

[Joey Wahoo]

I hear ya bro. I take oaths very seriously too. But this one says only that the voter "intends to support" the nominee, not "intends to vote for" him. So I've decided that if Mitt Romney is the nominee, I'll support him by saying a prayer for him. That's the only support he'll get from me, but I think it's enough to satisfy the pledge.

[pacu44]

I hear ya bro. I take oaths very seriously too. But this one says only that the voter "intends to support" the nominee, not "intends to vote for" him. So I've decided that if Mitt Romney is the nominee, I'll support him by saying a prayer for him. That's the only support he'll get from me, but I think it's enough to satisfy the pledge.

rep +1

[Carole]

This must be stopped immediately. It is unconstitutional, illegal. I hope lawyers are on this case now. How dare Virginia attempt to steal a voter's freedom? Shame on Virginia GOP.

Virginia, if it does not cease and desist in this abomination, should be disallowed participation in the primary process and further punished in whatever way is suitable.

Yes, I am saying how I REALLY feel. :D

[AGRP]

Only dying parties ask for loyalty oaths.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhzMk8EQfzM

[pinkmandy]

The Republican Party portrays itself as having the intention of standing for small government.

I'll use that same definition of intention when/if I sign that pledge.

For those interested, here is the Repub Party of VA fb:
http://www.facebook.com/VirginiaGOP

And notice all the comments on the Newtle not getting on the ballot announcement. And notice the comments on the other ballot announcements. Lots of contention and animated conversation on them all except on the Mittens announcement. The comments there are hilarious- seems most agree they will not vote for him and some seem to think there's a conspiracy involved that kept the others off the ballot in favor of Romney. Lots of anger and outright refusal to vote for Romney.

[low preference guy]

agree all you want. contracts under duress are invalid.

[cjm]

The pledge will require the voter to sign and to print his name beneath a line that says: “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.”

Although I am not happy about this, the Republican party can make whatever restrictions on voting in their primary that they want. This is a freedom of association issue, not a voting rights issue. When the Commonwealth requires pledges or oaths to participate in a general election, there will be a problem, but I support the Republican party's power to restrict its membership and ignore input from independents and crossovers who are needed for a general election victory.

[milo10]

I think this is a very important reminder that political parties are a big part of the problem.

If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, I would very strongly suggest that everyone either write him in as a candidate or vote third party. I know everyone here will do that anyway, but it is something that should become one of our missions if for some reason we do not get the nomination. We need to end political parties, and we can start by breaking down and bypassing the 2 party system.

[Carole]

Not only illegal, but just think, completely goes against the Constitution. Having to supply ID in order to vote is raising a very big legal question, but a "loyalty oath" to support the GOP nominee goes much further to infringe on Liberty.

Loyalty oaths to the King and his religion were required in Colonial days. We no longer require such outrageous demands of the people. Loyalty oaths are a step toward tyranny and we must not stand for it now. What will be next? Will we be required to show them our vote before casting it?

[oyarde]

how would they enforce this Do not be giving free ideas :)

[Carole]

LOL, how are they going to enforce this? Elections are secret ballots.
Just a way to scare off Inds and Dems who'll support Paul. As usual the establishment makes the conspiracy theories less crazy than the supposed reality :rolleyes:

Please do not miss the point. Yes, there is or will be a way eventually to verify for whom a person voted if they want to do so. The point is, this must be stopped here and now, before it is allowed to occur, before other states decide to try the same maneuver. This violates our Liberty.

It is the principle that we must stand for liberty and freedom and privacy as is guaranteed by our Constitution. I vote NO to this maneuver to control the vote.

Imagine if they decide to control our vote in the general election, by taking our primary vote and simply applying it to the general election. Or I should say applying it to the nominee in the general election. When we show up at the door to vote, we will be told, "Based on the loyalty oath, your vote has already been cast for the nominee. Therefore, your presence here at the polling station is not required as we have already cast your vote for you."

Does anyone really want that?

[nobody's_hero]

Well, considering if Ron Paul doesn't win, our voters will probably never vote GOP again so I don't really see where the establishment has much to bargain with.

[The Free Hornet]

I take it as nothing more than a pledge of good faith that you are not just participating to wreck the GOP's chances.

If that were the case, it should say "if your selected nominee is the Republican Primary winner, you will vote for them in the general election". Supporting the "GOP" or the "GOP's chances" are all putting party before principle. It is possible to word the pledge such that you are only committed if your choice wins. I suspect not only is the pledge unenforcable but it would not survive court scrutiny (political parties seem to be only quasi-private at best). I'd like to show up just so I could refuse to sign it. Get ten friends together and hold up the lines!

[Carole]

See my post #5.

[Carole]

Please see paragraph three in my post number five above. The "oath" is easily enforceable under tyranny!!!

[Carole]

George Washington was wise and correct to fear political parties as a danger to our Republic.

[libertygrl]

People should respect this oath as much as the politicians respect theirs when taking office!

[fisharmor]

I'm going to sign it. And then ask when I get my armband.

[CaptainAmerica]

that is no longer "voting" its called swearing.

[jason43]

I intend for Ron to be the nominee. If he isn't, this pledge makes me want to vote democrat, something I've never done. These pricks don't have any right to tell me who to vote for.

[pahs1994]

I'm going to sign it. And then ask when I get my armband.
armband? i think they will want to tatoo a number on your arm :eek:

[Philhelm]

Just put in a lower case "r" in "Republican" and you'll be fine.

[Athan]

Just sign! Ron will be the nominee! Woot!

[unknown]

Truth is stranger than fiction...

[thesnake742]

So, this is how they plan on implementing the NDAA..

[Moo2400]

Just sign the loyalty pledge. It ultimately means nothing.

[PursuePeace]

Republican lawmaker tells Va. GOP to drop primary loyalty oath (http://hamptonroads.com/2011/12/republican-lawmaker-tells-va-gop-drop-primary-loyalty-oath)



Count outspoken state Del. Bob Marshall among those who think Republican presidential primary voters shouldn't be required to sign a pledge saying they will support the eventual GOP nominee before voting in the March 6 nomination contest.

Marshall Thursday called on Virginia Republican leaders to ask state election officials to undo their approval of the loyalty oath, casting it as the wrong approach to protect the integrity of the primary.

“Loyalty oaths are detested by many good Republicans who solidly back our party’s principles and who have never voted for a Democrat in their lives,” the Prince William County Republican said in a statement.

[milo10]

The campaign should not make a big issue out of this. It can be read in such a way that it is pretty meaningless.

[muh_roads]

Putting your hand on this book makes you incapable of lying...

http://cdn.www.carm.org/images/bible6.jpg

Just sign the stupid thing...who gives a fuck.

[PursuePeace]

It's the principle of the thing.