Here’s a bit more information on the case of Laura Thielen, the former Lingle administration cabinet member who signed up as a member of the Democratic Party earlier this year and wants to run for office as a Democrat.
Two days before the party’s State Central Committee was scheduled to meet to consider Thielen’s appeal of a negative decision by the Oahu County Committee, her attorney sent a letter to state party chairman Dante Carpenter detailing their legal position and urging a solution that would avoid embroiling the party in an embarrassing public controversy.
“Laura does not want to take any actions to potentially embarrass the party or affect its opportunities for success in the upcoming elections,” attorney Eric Seitz wrote in the March 29, 2012 letter.
Then Seitz got to the legal point. Under state law, a candidate has to be a party member, and Carpenter has not disputed that Thielen joined the party in February.
Seitz wrote:
We understand there is a recently adopted Party rule that seeks to establish a six month period of membership in good standing in order for candidates to run in the Democratic Party primary election. However, under applicable state law the only reference to party affiliation appears in HRS Section 12-7, subsection 7, which requires “sworn certification by self-subscribing oath by a party candidate that the candidate is a member of the party.”
Accordingly, under the state elections law, it is our understanding that Laura may file for candidacy and simply declare–as is the fact–that she is a member of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. Apparently there is no issue that she is a member of the Democratic Party, as indicated in your e-mail three days ago. Once Laura files her declaration the Party would either have to expel her utilizing the process set forth in its Constitution, or file a petition in Circuit Court objecting to her candidacy. Under HRS Section 12-8(f) the only legitimate ground for such an objection is that “the candidate is not a member of the party pursuant to the party’s rules,” but that objection seems to be foreclosed.
It seems that Carpenter did not disclose the letter or its contents to members of the State Central Committee before their vote last Saturday.
The letter’s reference to Section 12-7, subsection 7, appears to be a typo. I think the correct citation is to Section 12-3, subsection 7, regarding required nomination papers.
§12-3 Nomination paper; format; limitations. (a) No candidate’s name shall be printed upon any official ballot to be used at any primary, special primary, or special election unless a nomination paper was filed on the candidate’s behalf and in the name by which the candidate is commonly known. The nomination paper shall be in a form prescribed and provided by the chief election officer containing substantially the following information:
(1) A statement by the registered voters signing the form that they are eligible to vote for the candidate;
(2) A statement by the registered voters signing the form that they nominate the candidate for the office identified on the nomination paper issued to the candidate;
(3) The residence address and county in which the candidate resides;
(4) The legal name of the candidate, the name by which the candidate is commonly known, if different, the office for which the candidate is running, and the candidate’s party affiliation or nonpartisanship; all of which are to be placed on the nomination paper by the chief election officer or the clerk prior to releasing the form to the candidate;
(5) Space for the name, signature, date of birth, last four digits of the social security number, and residence address of each registered voter signing the form, and other information as determined by the chief election officer; provided that no more than the last four digits of a voter’s social security number shall be required;
(6) A sworn certification by self-subscribing oath by the candidate that the candidate qualifies under the law for the office the candidate is seeking and that the candidate has determined that, except for the information provided by the registered voters signing the nomination papers, all of the information on the nomination papers is true and correct;
(7) A sworn certification by self-subscribing oath by a party candidate that the candidate is a member of the party;
It now appears likely Thielen will file for the Senate seat as a Democrat. It would then be up to the party to decide whether to challenge her candidacy in court, really a no-win option during an election year from a political perspective. Thielen could also try to preempt the party’s challenge by taking the initiative and going to court to block the party from taking any action to revoke her membership.
Why do I say the party would be in a no-win situation if it chooses to go to court to enforce its internal enforcement of the 6-month “good standing” rule? Because the party’s success in warding off Linda Lingle’s attempt to take the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Dan Akaka depends a great deal on the “she’s a nasty partisan Republican like those guys we’ve been seeing on television, and we’re much more open, people friendly Democrats” narrative. Looking like the heavy-handed bunch of party insiders defending their privilege would go a long way towards undermining that theme. It’s a tough position for the party to be in, no doubt.
All in all, it’s safe to say the matter is far from resolved.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No question the Dem leadership dropped the ball big time on this one. What about all the other new candidates expected to enter this very big election year cycle? What about the short time period now available to file and run given the reapportionment delays and the advanced primary dates? Evey seat in the State legislature is up. The community is crying out for change and at the same time there is a dearth of new qualified electible candidates. And what do the Dems do but put up a road block to entry. The present action by the Dem Party is already now casting a chilling effect on those who are thinking of running and have self identified as Dems because of their personal ideology. Yes, that’s right, let’s do what we can to make the cynics even more cynical. Auwe!
I agree that the party is in a bit of a bind. I obviously was not in the room when the decision to disallow Theilen from running as a D was made but I wonder if the fact that she served under a Republican governor and that her mom is a Republican house member made a difference in the decision.
I suspect it did.
And my point several days ago was that in any sane world, having her surface as a Democrat out of that history would have been considered a great victory for the Democratic Party, demonstrating its superiority over partisan opponents. I’m at a loss to decipher how in the world that opportunity was overlooked or simply rejected.
As I read your earlier posts I already knew she could simply register as a candidate for the office as a Democrat.
But it would be without the party elite smiling along side her on the podium.
There is a lot of energy going into preserving the Party whether Democratic or Republican. Our country has had a purging of parties and a rebirth of new versions of those ideology’s many times. I guess the last time this happened was during Teddy Roosevelt’s era. It would not be to far a stretch to see the Democratic Party split into two parties and the sane members of the right drift to the right side of this arrangement. Then the Republican Party would dry up and blow away. This would take a constitutional amendment to limit corporate financing of elections and a limit on lobbyists because the right has vast control over finances.
Kind of an weird response to this topic I know, but one I have thought on for a while now.
Ddante Carpenter, Chair of the Hawaii Democratic Party, offers an explanation on the homepage of the party’s website. I strongly recommend people interested in this case read it:
http://www.hawaiidemocrats.org/
Only after you have read it, should you read my comments below. I want to be fair to the Party’s official position.
– – – – – – – – – – –
“In a Nutshell
Here is Dante’s attempt to explain the party rule governing the decision on Thielen:
“Our… Party Constitution… says in a nutshell that you must have been a member of good standing in the Party for at least six months prior to the deadline before filing papers as a candidate with the State or County.
The chair has just demonstrated he badly misunderstands the rule, which suggests the party leadership was poorly prepared for voting on the question of Thielen’s membership.
Here is my alternate, “nutshell” explanation of the rule:
Our… Party Constitution… says you must be a member in good standing in order to file to run as a candidate in a Democratic primary. There are two ways to attain “good standing.” A member automatically has “good standing” if they have been a member for at least six months prior to filing to run and have not been reprimanded or censured by the party.
A member who joins fewer than six months but more than 60 days prior to filing may request an interview with the executive committee of the local county party organization. That body has the discretion to grant or withhold the good standing status necessary to run.
Party officers who may have shared Chair Carpenter’s framework for evaluating Thielen’s request might believe they were simply following the constitution in denying her the right to run as a Democrat. And the tens of thousands of party members who received his “nutshell” explanation might also be inclined to believe the SCC was “just following the rules.”
But both the OCC’s EC and the SCC had complete and free discretion as to whether to grant Thielen good standing, a fact omitted in Dante’s version.
Dante’s misunderstanding of the party constitution also calls into question his ability to decide whether Eric Seitz’s legal memo was important enough to pass on to the SCC members for their consideration before voting how to proceed with Thielen’s request.
AS a member of the SCC myself, I alternate between dismay he withheld such important information and a matter-of-fact view that suppression of such information is to be expected. It is my understanding he did share the letter with Tony Gill. This is problematic, as Tony is not only the Oahu County Chair, but also serves both informally and formally as an attorney for the party on some matters. If Tony provided Dante any legal opinion on the merits of Seitz’s argument, this might get messy.
The SCC made a decision which might make us vulnerable to legal action. If the chair (and/or our attorney) withheld from us important and relevant information which may have caused us to make a different decision, I believe that was extremely inappropriate.
All of this points to the wisdom of as much transparency as possible. Party officers should be “straight up” with each other, with people willing to run for office in our name, with our members and with the public.
I did not join the Democratic Party in order to participate in Star Chamber proceedings able to damage political careers for arbitrary and unexplained reasons. That so many party leaders have allowed themselves to be swept up by this “Kafka-esque” dynamic illustrates how off-base our operations have become, out of touch with our own standards of fairness and our commitment to democratic governance.
I friend called me up and said I was overlooking a positive aspect of Dante’s email. Dante is clearly calling for this rule to be re-evaluated, perhaps even amended or deleted if enough party members want to see a change. I have little doubt that a vast majority of card-carrying Democrats believe the Party has mishandled Thielen’s application for a waiver from the six month rule, so there is a good chance the matter can be resolved amicably by amending or deleting the rule in the manner Dante is inviting.
I had originally supported adoption of the rule in 2008 and missed an opportunity to help improve the rule at the 2010 convention. SO I have to take some responsibility for the dilemma the party faces in deciding how to implement a flawed rule. I am not sure we can amend the rule in a way which will prevent its misapplication. But am eager to be a part of that effort.
But can Thielen afford to wait until convention to formally launch her campaign?
One thing I noticed in Dante’s post. He says “to propose and make changes for future elections”. I’m guessing his approach is going to be that this all holds for this election – and hope that a change in the future will mollify enough people.
That would be a shame because the voters deserve a choice this election. And the central committee should not be eliminating that choice.
It’s all water under the bridge, but if Laura Theilen had signed up for a party card 20 years ago, this would all be moot.
That said, the six month rule is just that: a rule. And a rule that is not an absolute one given that one can get an exception to that rule.
Seems to me that Laura Theilen lived up to the spirit if not the letter of the rule when she got a party card in February. Not to mention that this is an unusual election year what with reapportionment and challenges to the proposed plan that happened prior to the final plan being approved.
I would think the Democrats would want to have people like Thielen inside the party rather than as one of a number of potential recruits for some emerging centrist party as Jonthebru suggests.
What is most interesting to me is the way that the insiders keep giving different reasons for the rejection of Laura Thielen as an official Democratic candidate. First came the argument that “She’s not really a Democrat.” However, it seems that she is, both ideologically and officially. Then the objection came that “She simply failed to meet a deadline” (that had been changed recently). But the whole point of having 70 people vote on the issue is because the deadline could be waived if she conformed to the official party platform. If it truly had been a matter of simply meeting a deadline, all that would be needed is a statement from a single clerk to the effect that “She missed the deadline”, which is how it is in most institutions.
H.L. Menken said that “When you hear somebody say, ‘This is not about money’ – it’s about money.” But in this case a variety of contradictory reasons are being advanced. That means it’s really, really, really about money. Critics suggest that it is really all about insiders feeling threatened by competition. But it could be that much of the local Democratic Party is threatened by Thielen’s famous environmentalism — one of the central official commitments of the Democratic Party. Party insiders generally might be anti-environmentalists in disguise. If this is the case, then ironically it is the core of the Democratic Party in Hawaii that is not really Democratic.
Not only do the reasons keep changing, but the insiders seem to actually get themselves to believe the latest official rationale. This might mean that they lack not only basic honesty, character and integrity, but also basic smarts. That would explain a lot in this town.
Really enjoyed reading this discussion, Ian. Nothing to add but I just wanted to say again how much I like your blog. You get some of the best comments of all the Hawaii news/blog sites — including the so called traditional media — without all the noise. Keep up the great work.
My only interaction with this candidate-to-be was when she was representing Lingle in a road show at doing away with DOE as we know it. She may have been tired, bored by redundant comments or not ready to deal with my input. I thought she ignored what I had to say.
My position holds that a big chunk of statewide education problem is facilities management — not by the DOE but the secret state-based society known as DAGS that has blundered every project I have followed in 45 years in Hawaii.
That said, I do not feel she should be denied the right to run. If she is a fraud, voters will catch on sooner or later. Surely, she can be no more of a dubious Democrat than Mike Gabbard of Rick Reed infamy. Gabbard was shockingly greeted with open arms when he jumped the GOP ship in the state senate.
One way of understanding the local Democratic Party’s attitude toward the local Republican Party explained by Jung’s concept of the “shadow”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)
Jung came up with the idea of the Shadow after experiencing a dream in which he was walking at night with a candle, and glanced behind himself and saw a dark monster following him. He realized that the “monster” was really a shadow of his body cast by his candle.
Arguably, the Shadow can also be societal, not just individual. That is, a society can project its own repressed qualities onto other societies.
Perhaps the single classic example of a Shadow was that found in the Nazi propaganda image of Jews as criminals conspiring to take over the world — a perfect description of the Nazis.
During the Cold War, both the East and the West held a similar image of their geopolitical adversary as bent on world domination through subversion. This could be argued to be a psychological projection of the desire of both the East and the West to propagate their own ideology and global influence.
The image that the local Democratic Party has of the local Republican Party — that the Republicans are racially prejudiced and exclusive and culturally reactionary and economically predatory — could be to some degree a projection on the part of Democrats and reflects repressed self-knowledge inside the Democratic psyche.
Of course, this could go the other way as well. The demonized image local Republicans may have of the local Democratic party could be just a repressed reflection of Republican corruption.
Anyway, it’s something to think about regarding the interesting way that the local Democratic Party treats outsiders.