MDP Rule Change Part 4
November 27th, 2005 | by christine |At the end of part 3, we were left wondering if the MDP 30 day rule violates Michigan Election Law.
The suspense is killing me!
Let’s jump right in :
In the MDP rules, the party freely adopted state election law in Article 3, Section 2B:
‘Election to delegate to the County and/or District Conventions, including write-ins, shall be conducted under the procedures prescribed by state law.’
Furthermore, the state law is specific when addressing political party state conventions. According to Frank Kelley, former Michigan Attorney General:
Michigan election law would seem to dictate that delegates to the state convention are selected by convention. The 30 day rule would be in violation of this law.
Mark Brewer claims that the 30 day rule does not violate state law, per Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (1989), in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down state law that partially governed political parties.
The case law is interesting, and clearly relevant to a degree. From Justice Marshall?s opinion:
?The challenged California election laws are invalid, since they burden the First Amendment rights of political parties and their members without serving a compelling state interest?
California law dictated term limits of party leadership and other internal affairs. It also banned candidate endorsements by political parties. There certainly are similarities between this and the Michigan law that determines how delegates to state convention are selected. But the SCOTUS opinion leaves plenty of room for interpretation:
?a State may enact laws to prevent disruption of political parties from without but not from within.?
?Because the challenged laws burden the associational rights of political parties and their members, the question is whether they serve a compelling state interest.?
?We have also recognized that a State may impose restrictions that promote the integrity of primary elections.?
?the infringement on the associational rights of the parties and their members was the indirect consequence of laws necessary to the successful completion of a party’s external responsibilities in ensuring the order and fairness of elections.?
In short, a state may indeed govern political parties, if it is necessary to maintain the integrity of the election system. This brings us back to a primary concern: how can we maintain the integrity of Michigan?s election system when one of the two major parties can be hijacked by the other?
Mark Brewer?s memo of October 20 assures us that there are measures in place to prevent such a takeover of state convention. Would the state of Michigan find these measures adequate to protect the integrity of the election system? If not, can the state show a compelling interest in applying the state election law to the MDP?
It?s definitely an uphill battle.
But people were bullied. Rules were broken. Over loud and very reasonable objections, this rule change was pushed through. There are times when a man?s only friend is the law, and its incumbent on him to make sure the law is enforced. The state election law would seem to apply, until such time that it may be struck down. Will anyone challenge the rule change in court? Will anyone put forward the effort?
Perhaps it won?t matter, after the appeal.
Next time ? the rule goes to the Appeals Committee.
References: MDP Rules - http://www.christinebarry.com/downloads/mdprules_91205.pdf
Michigan Law, Chapter 168 - http://www.christinebarry.com/downloads/mcl-chap168.pdf
If you like this post, subscribe to my new email newsletter, and read me at the Detroit News Political Weblog.
Related Articles:
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.