A political drama has been quietly playing out behind the scenes of the Hawaii Democratic Party in recent weeks over Laura Thielen’s application for party membership and request to run for public office as a Democrat.
Thielen, an attorney, was appointed to head the Department of Land and Natural Resources by former Gov. Linda Lingle in 2007, and previously served as executive director of the Office of State Planning. She is the daughter of Republican State Representative Cynthia Thielen.
Thielen apparently has not previously declared a party preference.
Thielen reportedly wants to run for the 25th Senate District seat (Hawaii Kai-Kailua) won by Pohai Ryan in 2010 following the retirement of Republican Fred Hemmings. Ryan squeaked past two others in a tight Democratic primary in 2010, and captured just 50.1% of the vote in the general election.
The final reapportionment plan has expanded the district to include more GOP-leaning areas, and Hemmings is said to be considering a return to politics, potentially putting this seat at risk of going to the Republicans again.
Thielen filed for Democratic Party membership in January, but missed a key deadline requiring candidates to be members “in good standing” for six months before the June 5, 2012 filing deadline in order to run for office under the party label. The party constitution provides an appeal process which Thielen has reportedly been following.
Thielen, contacted by phone, declined to comment while her appeal is being considered. Several members of the state and county party committees also declined to comment, citing confidentiality rules.
According to Section 2E of the constitution, the appeal is first considered by the party’s county executive committee in confidential executive session. The criteria to be considered in the appeal are not spelled out in the constitution.
The Executive Committee may deem applicant a Party member in “good standing.” The date of Party membership in “good standing” shall be eleven (11) days after the decision date, unless the decision is called for review by the State Central Committee. If not so reviewed, the new member shall enjoy all rights and responsibilities of Party membership in “good standing,” including eligibility to run for and hold elected public office as a Democrat. [emphasis added]
Several sources said Thielen was interviewed by members of the Oahu County Committee in mid-March. Members for and against approving Thielen’s appeal were deadlocked at that meeting, but ruled against her in a second vote a week later without disclosing any reasons for the decision.
A further appeal can be made to the State Central Committee only if at least ten members are willing to proceed. Thielen reportedly garnered the required support and her appeal is scheduled to be heard tomorrow (Saturday, March 31).
Thielen reportedly told the Oahu County Committee that she has considered herself a Democrat since she began voting, and has always taken positions consistent with the party’s values. Thielen pointed to her record on environmental and women’s issues, support for Native Hawaiian sovereignty, past work with the Legal Aid Society, and campaigning door-to-door against the 1998 constitutional amendment to restrict same-sex marriage, as evidence her political and social values are consistent with Democratic Party principles, sources said.
Thielen reportedly also said she had declined Gov. Lingle’s invitation to join the Republican Party, and more recently had declined Lingle’s request to support her candidacy for U.S. Senate.
Section 2E was apparently inserted into the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s Constitution at the 2008 State Convention and took effect for the first time for the 2010 election cycle.
In that election, several candidates filed to run as Democrats without having been members of the Party for the required previous six months, and without requesting waivers, mostly likely because they were unaware of this new Rule. All were eventually granted waivers and allowed to run as Democrats.
My own opinion? I think Laura Thielen would be a very strong candidate, and I don’t see anything in her background that should disqualify her from Democratic Party membership. She has none of the political baggage of former Republican Mike Gabbard, who was somehow accommodated within the Democrat’s big tent. It would make for quite an interesting Democratic primary! Bottom line–I hope state Democratic Party officials have the good sense to approve Thielen’s appeal so that this experienced, articulate woman can bring her obvious talents to our party. Refusing to allow Thielen’s candidacy would certainly send the wrong message to voters going into this important election.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
unless one’s name is Slom, running for Hawaii state senate as a Republican is giving up.
Fascinating. A rule that requires someone to file in December means that no one can ever watch a legislative session, get frustrated, and then decide to run for office.
Is this rule intended to protect incumbents?
Does the Democratic party want to lose seats if strong candidates, like Laura Thielen, are forced to run as a Republican candidate? That would be an incredible black eye for the party.
I believe it’s an extension of the “Bev Harbin” rule which was adopted (as a matter of state law, not party procedures) after Lingle appointed her to a vacant seat when she had only joined the party days before. What a circus that was; Bev was quite the clown.
What kine of crap is that? I’m so angry about these politicians. I can do a much better job than these spineless sheep. I guess I’ll run as a republican.
You are incorrect. One, the rule prevents no one from running for office. It only prevents a person from running as a Democrat. Two, it would not prevent someone from running as a Democrat if they are already a member of the party. You do not need to wait until you decide you want to run for office to join a party. The Democratic Party has many members who have never run for office and do not intend to. Joining the party only because you decide to run for office suggests that you do not care about the party it self, you just want to use it as a vehicle to fulfill you personal goals. Everyone knows, in Hawaii, it helps to have a D by your name. That is exactly why the rule was created.
Thielen closed down the fish hatcheries, stopped fishing at Nuuanu resevoir, diverted federal funds to her pet projects instead of fisheries enhancement, and took resources away from recreational activities.
May be to the liberal, eco-terrorists that may support Thielen she is the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, she has done substantial damage to the quality of life to the families who simply want small things like spending the day fishing with their kids at Nuuanu Resevoir or trout fishing in the mountains of Kauai.
Actually Russell, she was working in a Republican Lingle administration when she did those things, and it is the Democrats that just rejected her and her policies. So maybe you should not be blaming liberals. Maybe you also want to remember that before you cast your vote for Lingle for Senate.
After these many weeks of watching seven jokers seek the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination and all their attendant tomfoolery, should anyone be surprised a serious candidate would duck seeking office on that ticket?
Another thing, Thielen’s refusal to assist Lingle shows how much loyalty one can expect from Laura. If she can turn on Lingle after getting a director’s position, she could turn her back on her constituents just as easily.
So can you really trust Laura Thielen?
Russel,
If she had supported Lingle against another democrat, I suspect you would be saying that was evidence that she wasn’t a real democrat.
Personally, I find her rejection of patronage and “back scratching” very refreshing.
Laura really tried to claim that she supports Native Hawaiians? As DLNR Director, wasn’t she the one who lead the charge to evict Native Hawaiian families from Kahana Valley, but then had to back off due to the political firestorm that resulted?
From a political point of view, it is fascinating that an asset like Laura Thielen would be neglected like this. In part, this could reflect a breakdown in guidance from the top of the local Democratic Party. After all, it was Inouye who welcomed the Gabbards warmly into the Democratic fold, even after the Gabbards’ ally Rick Reed essentially persecuted Inouye in 1992 to devastating effect. (In fact, it was in the comment section of this blog that I read that part of Inouye’s political machinery has dedicated itself to Mufi Hannemann’s election, and another part of it is working for Tulsi Gabbard, which shows how far Inouye is willing to accept defectors.) Try to imagine the level of discipline, calculation, ambition, cool-headedness and chutzpah it would take on the part of both Inouye and the Gabbards to engineer a rapprochement to their mutual advantage. That’s real Obama-style politicking, without a trace of small town petty rivalries!
When Lingle first got elected, she stated flatly and with clear-eyed candor that in the past a Republican could never get as far as she has because the Burns faction of the local Democratic Party was ultra-organized and the local Republican Party was ultra-disorganized. That’s how far things had changed by 2002. But if Laura Thielen is being overlooked, it might reflect that the Democrats have fallen even further into disorganization. But if she is seeking to switch parties, it might suggest that the Republicans are also disorganized — and Lingle won’t be around one way or another to manage things. What will this increasing fragmentation, if it exists, mean for politics in Hawaii?
Keep in mind that Thielen is not switching parties, she’s just officially joining the Democratic Party.
Or maybe the current leadership just has standards that have more to do with core party values, and less to do with calling anyone who can win a Democrat with out care to what they really believe.
The Democratic Party has all but one seat in the State Senate. They also already control the seat Laura wants. It is not like they have a desperate need to pick up seats, so they have the luxury of being pickey when it comes to their candidates. The article says the Democratic incumbent won with just 50% of the vote. But that is true only if you count the blank votes, and if you do the Republican got only 40%. If you take the blanks out, and that is how results are normally reported, the result is 55% – 45%. So either way, the Democrat won by double digits. And this is in a district previously dominated by Republican Fred Hemmings. But even if the Democrats lost the seat, and even if they lost to Laura running as a Republican, it would do nothing to effect the balance of power in the State Senate. So there is no reason for the Democrats to take an everybody can win attitude. I respect the party for wanting candidates who reflect core values, rather than caring only about electing someone with a D by their name.
But I would argue that these ‘core values’ do not really exist, they only crop up when it’s useful. I mean, at a conscious level, people sincerely — and self-righteously — talk the old talk about social justice, etc., and they believe it. But that’s not how they act.
The whole point of this blog entry is that when an outsider — indeed, a registered Democrat! — wants to come in and their voting record might suggest that they reflect these supposed core values, they are rejected on the grounds that they do not.
For example, what we seem to have in Hawaii is the majority of the Democratic Party pursuing rampant land development. But when a politician who always opposed this on progressive environmental grounds seeks to run as a Democratic candidate, the politician is declared DINO. Journalists like Ian Lind can see that. Political insiders just don’t see their own Bizzaro World inconsistency.
Now, who are the prototypical outsiders who should be politically ideological political insiders in Hawaii?
1) Black men like Barack Obama.
2) Women who are “white ethnics” (Catholics and Jews).
Lingle very shrewdly recruited heavily from the second group. Here is a 2003 interview with Kitty Largaretta:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/May/25/bz/bz02a.html
You will notice that when Laura Thielen was interviewed by the Democratic Party insiders, the insiders did not ask her ideological questions. In fact, one interviewer implicitly negotiated with Thielen with the offer that if Thielen could convert her Republican politician mother to a Democrat, then Laura Thielen could run as a Democrat. The whole strange interview is proof that ideology is irrelevant.
There is no tension in the Democratic Party in Hawaii between ideology and calculation when it comes to admitting politicians into the fold. The real tension is between inter-party and intra-party competition. That is, there is a tension between crippling the other party by sponsoring defections from the opposition and the knowledge that such conversions only raise the number of skillful competitors within the Democratic Party.
This tension maps out with the difference between the party elite and up-and-comers. The party leadership, secure in their positions, might desire destabilizing the other party. In contrast, the aspiring, unestablished mid-level politician would only see his or her place at the table potentially being taken by someone new who is smarter than him- or herself.
An analogy would be if the top 20% of players in the AFL suddenly decided to defect to the NFL. The owners would love it. The current NFL players would dread it.
This brings us to an interesting scenario. Barack Obama is a relatively young man; he could be in politics for another generation.
What if in 2016 Obama moved to Hawaii (or at least had his residence established there) and in 2020 declared that he wanted to be governor of Hawaii? What if after two terms as governor he ran, like Lingle, for the US Senate? I think that the elite in the Party, like Dan Inouye, would be delighted, since Obama would be securing an important elected post for the Party. Many other elected officials in Hawaii would be chagrined, since no one could move up a notch until Obama turned 120 years old and retired.
This might actually happen.
If you like being yelled & sworn at because you disagree with someone, then you’ll love Laura Thielen. That’s how she treats people with opposing views. I experienced this firsthand.
Put it this way: she’s not the woman her mother is.
Perhaps this — and other matters of similar momentous gravity — should better be discussed in a couple of days (April 1st)…
In other words, there’s scant chance of any “damage” of welcoming her – or anyone else – in the colossal democratic tent thus it matters in a miniscule manner or risk; let her run as a democrat if she claims to be one!
Ohia is right, this rule was adopted at the first opportunity after both the Bev Harbin fiasco and Mike Gabbard’s party switch. Party activists had opposed both switches, but lacked any legal means for blocking these unprincipled people from joining the party.
If you follow Ian’s link to the section of the party constitution, you will see the “solution” inserted into the rules is rather convoluted. Although the intention behind the rule was that it be applied with flexibility, with waivers being more common than rejections, the group in charge if administering the rule see such flexibility as too subjective. If the rule exists, according to this view, it should be applied firmly and waivers should be granted rarely.
The SCC of the party has the flexibility to interpret the rule as they see fit, provided it is applied evenly. That is, evenly strict or evenly loose. Can they muster enough “good sense” to set aside the excessive “legalese” injected into the discussion by attorneys? That will be the test.
To be clear, this rule was not in response to concerns of incumbents. In general, elected officials resent any effort by the party to restrict their behavior.
The rule represented an attempt to “Lock the barn door after the horse escaped.” unfortunately, they put in an overly complicated security system and no one can figure how to open, or close, the door to admit people who deserve admittance.
WTH, Laura should run as a Republican.
But she’s a Democrat!
No question Laura benefited from Lingle’s and Hawaii Republican support with repeated appointments to state offices. Hemmings could also have won against Ryan. So even if Laura is republicrat, arguably still a slight better result for Dems.