Stupid Republicans

[clintl]

I saw a story on last night's local news that very much amuses me. Apparently the Republicans, by moving their 2004 convention to late August-early September to be as close to the 9/11 anniversary as they can get away with, have screwed themselves (at least temporarily). California election law requires the Secretary of State to certify the final ballot 68 days before the election, which would be August 26 in 2004. The Republican convention doesn't start until August 30, so there would be no official Republican nominee on the ballot due date. Thus, Bush would have to run as a write-in candidate in California under current law.

Of course, somehow this will get fixed before the election, but apparently, there are other states with the same dilemma. You would think that someone in the administration or the Republican Party would know when the deadlines were in each state. There are only 50 of them, so it's not an overwhelming task to keep track. Unless they just don't care.

[Ksyrup]

They should hire an attorney like me to keep these things straight for them!

Here's my card...

[digamma]

This is also the case in Alabama. However, I don't think they would set the date unless they were certain GWB's name would appear on the ballot.

Incidentally, the other reason for doing this is for campaign money. If I'm not mistaken, after the convention you are limited to using federal campaign funds and not allowed to use those raised privately for the primaries.

[mrskippy]

The thing is that the technical winner already would be known and they can pretty much certify these ballots without much of a hitch. The odds of something happening at the convention where the delegates votes for someone else ... slim and none.

[JPhillips]

mrskippy: I don't for a second think that GWB will be left off of the ballot, but the rules require official certification. The Repubs may officially nominate GWB before the convention, at least on paper, to get around this, but normally the official nomination doesn't happen until the convention.

digamma: Yes, I have read that GWB plans to spend up to 200 million before the nomination. After the nomination he will be limited to 75 mil I think. Almost 300 mil on a campaign, incredible. I liked John Stewart last week declaring that GWB, with 0% of the precincts counted, is the winner of the 2004 election.

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
The thing is that the technical winner already would be known and they can pretty much certify these ballots without much of a hitch. The odds of something happening at the convention where the delegates votes for someone else ... slim and none.

There may be legal requirements in the election law that prevent this. In any case, the point is that the Bushies either didn't do their homework, or have such arrogance for state election laws that they feel the states should bend to their will, rather than conform themselves. Either way, they look like idiots to me, and I hope they pay some sort of price for it.

FWIW, my preference is that the Republican Party be billed for whatever it ends up costing the states to deal with this problem, since it is entirely created by the Republican Party.

[EagleFan]

All they need to do is get the same people that are in the NJ Supreme Court to rule that the election laws are really just recommendations.

[EagleFan]

dola: That allowed the democrats to change their candidate for Senate once they saw their first one was going to lose. Of course they made it look like it was some concern for his campaign funding and question of character. Funny how they didn't have any concern about that when it looked like he was going to win.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by EagleFan
All they need to do is get the same people that are in the NJ Supreme Court to rule that the election laws are really just recommendations.

Then there are the cases of Missouri electing an already dead Carnahan (and appointing his wife), and Minnesota getting Mondale on the ballot after Wellstone's death.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I say Bush shoulkd hire Cochran ....He's go the money .

[ACStrider]

Out of curiosity, have any other republicans declaired that they intend on running against Bush (actually, come to think of it, has Bush even declaired? It's kind of been assumed but not official as far as I know).

[Arles]

The convention is just a formality. I would compare it to a wedding. You go to the courthouse before the wedding to get the official state certificate. Then, a week later, you have the formal wedding with all your family and friends. The reality is that you are legally married once you fill out the certificate, even though the ceremony isn't for another week.

The Republicans and democrats could simply notify the proper legal channels on their nomination beforehand, and wait for the convention to celebrate. And, let's be honest, it's not like there is a big "mystery" as to who the candidate is going to be.

Using your logic, if Michael Moore donned army fatigues and held the convention center hostage for a week, the republicans couldn't have Bush on the ballot.

Arlie

[clintl]

It's a real issue, Arles. Here's a Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Apr26.html

[sabotai]

Arles, this line from the article clintl linked might be the problem.

"Bush is not scheduled to accept his party's nomination until Sept. 2, 2004."

Can't name him as nominee if he doesn't accept it til Sept. 2.

EDIT: Basically, the article makes it sound that all of the states will just end up moving the deadline back to ensure he'll get on the ballots. But I agree, this was a definate bonehead move. I mean, as if anyone's going to care that the convention is a week or so from Sept 11th as opposed to 2 or 3 weeks before.

[kcchief19]

Like I said in an earlier thread, this is democracy in action. A candidate is not legally a party's nominee until a convention of the party's delegates have gathered and voted and the candidate accepts. There is no "wink-wink" rule in place. Bush will not be a legal candidate for the GOP until Sept. 2.

Now, as the article linked above notes, states where this is a problem are arranging to have the state legislatures change the deadlines. I'm sure there will be a move to do so in California. I don't know if the GOP has the votes necessary to push the change through.

Of course, here's the catch. The GOP is not planning on winning California anyway. If Bush wins California, it means the election was such a landslide that he would have won anyway. If he loses California, no big deal -- he has an electoral math strategy that doesn't require California.

The biggest fallout is the embarrassment of not being on the ballot. That might him some points if this ends up being a close election.

Bottom line, he'll probably be on the battle, but not without a fight.

Also, in referrence to Carnahan's election above, Missouri handled it perfectly legal. Mel Carnahan won and was the senator-elect posthumously. Once he was not able to take his oath of office, the state constitution requires the governor to appoint a successor, at which point the now-governor/former Lt. Gov. appointed his wife. Granted, the governor made his selection know before the election, but there is nothing illegal about that. It just wasn't binding until January.

If anything, doesn't until America anything that more than half of Missourians would rather vote for a dead man/unknown candidate than Ashcroft? What does that tell you about him?

[Arles]

Originally posted by sabotai
"Bush is not scheduled to accept his party's nomination until Sept. 2, 2004."

My guess is that they'll change the schedule then. They'll find a way to formally nominate Bush before the Aug 26 deadline. If anyone believes that Bush is going to be a write-in candidate on any state, they are just being silly. Maybe it's the fact that these type of things usually have a way of working themselves out or that the GOP probably has a small army of lawyers working on this issue with a year to find a solution, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.

This is a fun story right now, but I wouldn't put too much into it. Although, I can feel the hope springing from the left side of the political isle

Arlie

[Tekneek]

The GOP, and each state's GOP, can put forward a nomination for anyone they want to for each state, as I understand it. It does not matter whether they "accept" the nomination or not, but you would have a hard time convincing people to vote for someone that does not want the job. I was always under the impression that the primaries are entirely for the benefit of the political parties and have nothing to do with the government. I was not aware of any law that indicated a national party had to have a convention before a candidate could be placed on the ballot, and I did not think there was a requirement that said candidate "accepted the nomination" prior to being put on the ballot.

[sabotai]

The conventions are where all of the delegates officially vote for who to put on the ballot. Nowadays, it is basically a formality, but back in the day, the conventions used to be very active in delegate voting. I'm not so sure the laws but I wouldn't be surprised if they never bothered to change them that said the canidate had to be elected and he had to accept it at the convention.

EDIT: Arles, how can he accept the nomination when he isn't nominated yet? (Since that happens at the convention)

[Tekneek]

I believe those are probably party rules, and not laws set forth either by the federal government or the state governments. As such, they can probably be changed pretty easily.

[Arles]

Sabotai,

The worst case would be that the RNC gets a set of delegates together (min required) on a conference call on August 20th to nominate Bush for the legal aspect, and then the convention would go on as scheduled.

There is no rule as to where or how the voting for the party's candidate needs to be done. The RNC could do it one of a million ways that would fit the requirements and still have their convention. There's no law that mandates the nomination to occur at a specific date or location. It is normally done at the convention because everyone is there and in one place. But, there is no rule to prevent them putting Bush's name on the books two weeks before the convention with a conference call.

Arlie

[Tekneek]

And they only have to do it in that state, not nationwide.

[sabotai]

Not like it matters. Bush hasn't a chance in hell to win California anyway.