From: Mike Dugger <[email protected]>
At 09:39 AM 2/22/2000 -0700, Alan Fanning wrote:
>The statute is at:
>
>http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/16/243.htm
>
>The complete text is as follows:
>
>16-243. National convention delegates; pledged support to candidates
>
>
>A. The selection of delegates to the political party national
>conventions shall be as provided in the bylaws of each state party.
>
>
>B. Each delegate to the national convention shall use his best efforts
>at the convention for the party's presidential nominee candidate who
>received the greatest number of votes in the presidential preference
>election until the candidate is nominated for the office of president
>of the United States by the convention, until the candidate releases
>the delegate from his obligation, until a candidate withdraws from the
>race or until one convention nominating ballot has been taken. After a
>candidate is nominated, withdraws from the race, delegates are
>released or one ballot is taken, each delegate is free to vote as he
>chooses, and no rule may be adopted by a delegation requiring the
>delegation to vote as a body or causing the vote of any delegate to go
>uncounted or unreported.
>*********************************************************
>A statist or a drone would look at this and imagine that they are
>required by force of law to vote for the candidate at the convention.
>However the phrase in (B) is "use his best efforts", not "vote".
>Aside from being another usurpation, its terminally vague. Whether it
>is the law or not, no one is under an obligation to obey anything
>without a clear intent.
Actually, I believe that this, at best, is a good example of what the Republicans tried to argue about ARS 16 821-828. Namely, this statutory launguage is "suggestive" rather than binding.
I personally think that the nomination process is strictly the business of the parties and their bylaws. However, the state uses its control over the ballot as a lever to dictate to parties how their candidates for office will be nominated. Such requirements are absolutely to be expected of parties who use the publically-financed ballot process to nominate their candidates. However, for those who choose to use their own party-financed nomination process, the law should not apply. I believe that that is the battle we won in 1996.
In general, the presidential nomination is the only office where the parties have retained control over the nominating process. At least until the Republicans made this weak attempt at state-assimiliation. That it is so weak, I believe, indicates their desire to use the process as a taxpayer-financed publicity stunt and still retain party control of the actual nomination process. It's a tricky fence to walk and you pray that, should you slip, your legs both come down on the same side of the fence. :)
- Mikey