The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s State Central Committee today rejected former DLNR director Laura Thielen’s application to run for office as a Democrat.
Thielen said she was notified of the party’s vote by State Chairman Dante Carpenter.
Neither the vote nor the reasons for the action have been disclosed.
Following today’s vote, Thielen said she was very disappointed by the outcome.
“Many of the Party leaders, especially on Oahu, are clearly uncomfortable with independent thinking,” Thielen said in a written statement. “This is a clear attempt by some Party insiders to limit voter choice to their hand-picked candidates. I and a number of other Democratic Party members think that this is wrong.”
The party’s Oahu County Committee voted to deny Thielen’s request last week, and today’s action came after Thielen appealed, with the support of at least ten central committee members.
Thielen was interviewed by more than a dozen members of the Oahu County Committee on March 17 (a copy of a written synopsis of her comments is available here).
Thielen said she was surprised by the nature of some of the questions raised at that time, which strayed far from her beliefs and her commitment to Democratic Party principles.
“In my interview, they actually suggested I run for office as a Republican and then convert to the Democratic Party,” Thielen said. “They would have less of a problem with a Republican who converts than a Democrat willing to work with Republicans.”
“One person on the committee asked, ‘Would you bring your mother into the Democratic Party?'” Thielen said. “Would you campaign for a Democratic candidate running against your mother?”
Thielen is the daughter of Republican Representative Cynthia Thielen (House District 50, Kailua-Kaneohe Bay).
“I have always made it clear that I am a Democrat, and I turned down several requests from high-level Republicans to join their party,” Thielen said. “The Democratic Party has a long history of inclusiveness, including accepting candidates who just the day before were card-carrying Republicans. I’ve never held office as a Republican, I’ve never been a member of the Republican Party.”
The party constitution provides that the State Central Committee decision is final.
However, Thielen appears to be contemplating a further challenge.
“I don’t think I’m going to accept it,” said following Saturday’s vote.
“I’m going to stand up for the Democratic Party members and others who believe that Hawaii voters, not Party insiders, have the right to choose who represents them in the legislature,” Thielen said in her written statement. “An unexplained decision to limit voter choice, reached behind closed doors, is against the core values of the Democratic Party and of Hawaii.”
I expect the issue could be raised by Thielen supporters at the Democratic State Convention, which is scheduled for May 25-27, 2012 at the Sheraton Waikiki.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
SHOULD Thielen’s likely Primary election opponent Pohai Ryan issue a statement?
Something like, “I welcome any and all challengers.”
Or, “Ultimately it should be the voters that get to decide which candidate best represents Democratic ideals and values.”
(Hey, this PR stuff is actually kind of fun.)
But seriously, Ryan’s silence is beginning to make me wonder what she holds that is making her so valuable and protected by Party leadership.
PS: Is it just me, or is this just another item to add to the growing list of examples of how leadership is out of touch with its members?
Michael,
I am under a gag order limiting what I can say. But I will strain against that order by telling you your insinuations against Pohai Ryan are unfair. It would have been inappropriate for Pohai to say anything one way or another on this. The matter needed to be decided according to party rules and divorced from consideration of the feelings of candidates, most especially Thielen’s opponent.
I disagree. It’s very appropriate for a candidate to speak to issues surrounding her seat. With that said, it’s a difficult situation for her. Because personally she clearly will prefer no competition. But that conflicts with the fundamental Democratic principal of giving the voters a choice.
If she stayed quiet because the only “acceptable” statement was to ask that Laura be allowed to run and she didn’t want to say something she didn’t believe, then in that case I respect her being silent.
I usually agree with Bart, but not on this point.
Although committee members aren’t free to publicly disclose what happened in executive session, they are certainly free to comment on the issue, as many Democrats are doing here.
If I were a candidate in this situation, and I thought the party’s actions might put me in a negative light, I would certainly say something.
A statement such as Michael suggests wouldn’t violate any rules, would it?
Ian, the point is not that it would violate any rule for Pohai to comment. The point is the deliberations of the SCC were supposed to be made with a blind eye towards the interests of particular candidates. It is unfair to use this stupid decision of the SCC as a vehicle for besmirching Pohai Ryan, who was not involved.
But, hey, why not demand Pohai speak up against the decision if she wants us to really believe she did not ask the party to do this on her behalf? Let’s use this opportunity to badmouth Pohai out of our frustrations with the party over this decision?
That is not fair.
“The point is the deliberations of the SCC were supposed to be made with a blind eye towards the interests of particular candidates.”
Is Pohai Ryan on the SCC? If not, then she is not prohibited from speaking out on the matter. Should she be criticized for not doing so? Perhaps not. But, at the very least, I think it’s fair to say that she missed an opportunity to portray herself as a strong, confident leader and candidate.
Looks like old school black-balling is alive and well. Should we expect anything less from a one party state?
During Thielen’s tenure at the Bd of Ed, she behaved like a Republican’s Republican, relentlessly pursuing Lingle’s goal of breaking up the school board into “baby boards”. Of course, it’s possibly to be sympathetic to that idea as a Democrat, but it was a polarizing issue then and she was on the “wrong” side of it. Perhaps memories persist on divisive issues such as that one.
Hi Larry;
As you said, there were Democrats on both sides of the BOE issue (and of many other issues). Should the Central Committee be inclusive and let the voters decide? Or should it work to limit candidates to only those that take the preferred view?
I totally understand people being mad at Laura for her stand on a given issue. I totally understand people working to see her defeated in the election because of her stand on some issues.
What I find abhorrent is limiting the choice the voters get to only those with a pre-approved set of policies. That’s not Democracy.
Keep in mind that no one has challenged Thielen’s membership in the Democratic Party, as far as I know.
The party has refused to approve a waiver of a deadline for joining the party before running as a Democratic candidate.
The party has accommodated others who were much farther from the Democratic mainstream than Laura Thielen and granted the same type of waiver.
Interesting. Why do you think Laura was kept off the ballot when others were allowed on?
Ian, this is just factually wrong.
Please provide one name of a person who received a waiver under this rule.
The rule was promulgated in 2008, taking effect for the first time in 2010. Six candidates were found to have drawn papers without having the necessary six months prior membership and the OCC executive committee decided to deny them all waivers. I led an effort to get the entire OCC to vote to overrule the decision of their executive committee, arguing the candidates could not reasonably be assumed to have received adequate notice of this new, obscure rule. As a result, the decision was made to not enforce the rule in 2010.
Laura Thielen–to her credit–took the unusual step of actually reading through the Constitution of the party and found the requirement, which led her to apply for a waiver.
As far as I know, no one else on Oahu has been interviewed for a waiver, much less has anyone “much farther from the Democratic mainstream than Laura Thielen” been “granted the same type of waiver.”
It is clear you want to accuse the Democrats of having weird double standards for “allowing” Mike Gabbard to become a Democrat, then rejecting Laura Thielen. Sorry, but you misunderstand the problem(s). There was no rule in place when Gabbard joined the party, much to the consternation of a MAJORITY of the SCC members. This rule was adopted to protect against a future Mike Gabbard or Bev Harbin.
The problem is that the people who authored the rule had intended the waiver be granted more often than denied, with the interview to provide an opportunity to screen out the most egregious applicants. But the people on the OCC EC had a very different sense of how to apply the rule and have decided rejection should be the default response.
“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”
Trust your leaders!
Where is the “Big Tent?”
Tulsi Gabbard’s history is very similar, is it not?
“There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.”
Great reporting on this Ian.
Larry, and Ed Case supported local boards. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/09/05/news/story11.html
The perception one is left with is that it’s easier to switch parties like Gabbard than to get permission to run as a Dem.
Thielen would have to run in the Primary against incumbent Sen. Pohai Ryan who is a former Executive Director of the Hawaii Democraric Party under Chairman Brickwood Galuteria. The Party insiders are just trying to protect one of their own because Sen. Ryan is a first time legislator who is vulnerable and very beatable.
Others have said it’s virtually impossible to get on the ballot, much less win, as an independent. Still, it would be sweet if she ran that way, won, and then assumed office as a Democrat (since she is now a member of the party, albeit ineligible to run as one).
She ought to run as a Republican.