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.