(I am posting this on the behalf of Mark Rush, head of the department of politics at Washington & Lee University. — Jim Bacon)
Phillip Rodokanakis’s column, “Political Landscaping” (May 30, 2006), raises some important issues about the political parties’ rights of association. More important, it raises an esoteric issue: Who, exactly, is the Republican (or Democratic) Party—the voters, the elected officials or the party organization?
While the GOP has gone to court to challenge § 24.2-509 (which gives incumbents the right to choose their method of renomination) of the state code, I wonder whether we really want the courts to step in to this mess. Essentially, this is not a legal conflict. It is a family feud between the elected officials (who would be nuts to give up the right to choose their method of renomination) and the party officials (who are the principal victims of the code). By rights, the courts might just tell the political parties to get their houses in order.
Rodokanakis cites the U.S. Supreme Court decision (California Democratic Party v. Jones) as proof that the Supremes still support the associational rights of political parties. Problem is, the political parties went to court to prevent an initiative from compromising their associational rights. In Virginia, the law in question is part of the state code—put into effect by Democratic and Republican legislators.
I generally prefer the notion of strong party organizations. But, do we really want the courts to declare that elected legislators have no say in running the parties? Americans have never really promoted the notion of a strong party organization. Voters split tickets. They seldom become dues-paying, card-carrying, placard-waving party members. They like the idea of the primary election. I don’t see this lawsuit capturing the imagination of the public
Also, for what it’s worth, we can’t rely on the US Supreme Court for much in the way of support for the strong party notion. If we look at the court’s campaign finance decisions, we’ll see very little respect for the parties.
Does any one know the genesis of this part of the state law? When did incumbents gain the right to choose the manner of renomination? The law is clearly an attack on parties, party bosses, smoke-filled rooms, etc. But, it essentially turns candidates (and those seeking nominations) into independent contractors.
