Update 14:45 CDT: The eminently reasonable comments below by TWU and SDDP rules expert Nick Nemec point out the error of my interpretation. Only an endorsement by a committee, not by an individual member like Senator Johnson, would violate party rules. I leave the below post intact for your enjoyment and understanding of the direction of my thought processes. Party on!
Mote, plank, get thee hence!
I've been having fun poking Governor Daugaard and Secretary Gant over their interference GOP primary races with their endorsement of various Republican Establishment candidates. Gant's political arrogance poses a greater threat to public trust and the integrity of elections. Governor Daugaard's endorsements simply contravene party by-laws and general expectations that discourage Republican party officials like Governor Daugaard from taking sides in primary elections.
So how did I miss the obvious and equivalent chicanery on my side of the aisle? To wit:
South Dakota Democratic Party Constitution, Article XI, Section 1:
Neither the State Central Committee, the State Executive Board nor any County Central Committee shall finance or endorse the candidacy of any person seeking the nomination of the Party in a contested Primary Election.
South Dakota Democratic Party Constitution, Article VIII, Section 10:
In addition to the members listed previously in this Article, all Democrats who are currently serving as an elected State-wide Constitutional officer, an elected member of the Public Utilities Commission, the floor leader of the Senate and House, or as a member of the U. S. Congress shall have voting privileges on the Executive Board. Members listed in this section shall not be counted for the quorum requirement. The members may appoint a designee to act on their behalf. If they desire to appoint a designee, the name of the designee shall be provided to the State Chair in writing.
If Jeff Barth gained any advantage from launching his U.S. House campaign early, Matt Varilek has destroyed it. In the five weeks since announcing his candidacy, Varilek has raised over $100,000—maybe a tenth of what Congresskitten Kristi Noem has purred up, but possibly ten times more than what Barth has raised. Varilek has the endorsement of his former boss, Senator Tim Johnson. He has the endorsement of former Senator Tom Daschle.
The short form:
- Party by-laws forbid party leaders endorsing in primary.
- Party by-laws make Senator Johnson party leader.
- Party leader Johnson endorses candidate in primary.
We Dems can have a lot of fun joining the grouchy conservatives throwing tomatoes at Governor Daugaard for his endorsements. But our party by-laws appear to require us to reserve a squirt or two of ketchup for our own Senator Johnson as well.
What is the punishment?
I'm not certain that the case you lay out clearly defines a violation of the bylaws (though I can certainly agree that in many--though not all--cases the act of endorsing a candidate in your party's primary would seem at best rude and at worst the foundation for unnecessary intra-party squabbles). The bylaws, I think, can be easily and fairly interpreted to absolve Johnson of a violation on a couple levels.
First, I would need to see the context of your first bylaw quote to ensure that the meaning of the bylaw is indeed, as you interpret it, a prohibition against members of the various committees endorsing primary candidates rather than, as I would interpret it, a prohibition of the bodies themselves as a whole from doing so.
Second, even if the bylaw prohibits members of the Executive Board from endorsing primary candidates, I'm not certain that Johnson--or his designee--would technically count as a official member of the Board. The second bylaw you quote grants that the U.S. Senator "shall have voting privileges" but doesn't necessarily equate that with membership. Now, this is certainly a small distinction, but if the bylaw creators wanted to make the elected officials so named members of the Executive Board, wouldn't they just have said so rather than using the restrictive wording to grant voting privileges? Wouldn't they even have included that wording in the section of the bylaws detailing "members" referenced as preceding your quote? Is this perhaps also the case in the SDGOP bylaws as they apply to Daugaard?
So, sure, perhaps there's some impropriety at work--though I'm not totally sure it is inappropriate to publicly endorse a guy who worked for you and whom you believe to be a strong candidate for elected office. But, in this case as well as perhaps in Daugaard's, perhaps perceived bylaw violations are less clear than they're made out to be. Also, I would argue, they're less germane to the act of choosing quality candidates than discussion of why a party official endorses a candidate or, better yet, of the candidates' actual issues and policy stances.
Johnson may have Democrat after his name, but as far as being a South Dakota Democrat, he might as well be Sarah Palin. I suspect his recently discovered backbone in regard to bank regulation may have something to do with making his endorsement of Varilek more of an asset and less of a liability in a Democratic primary.
More to the point, both Daugaard and Johnson's endorsements may be a bit of poor political etiquette, but we might wonder about party rules that regulate political speech as well. I am not at all sure that endorsements carry much weight in any case. Even so, in really close elections, they might be sufficient to change race results.
Tiz a puzzlement.
twu
Endorsing a candidate simply because they worked for you is really not a good firm grounding for an endorsement anyway. Johnson is obviously breaking the norm and maybe some bylaws (from how I interpret, yes, but there is room for debate). What has happened here is the typical smokey backroom politics, Johnson uses his power and position on the Senate Banking Committee to bring in money for his golden boy. That is wrong for Democrats and Republicans, but it is especially wrong for Democrats because that is the type of thing we are always complaining about. I just think it will be funny to see the end result of the election, either way, Johnson and Daschle will be embarrassed by endorsing a candidate and campaign that has performed so poorly.
Hmmm.Interesting. I'm sure that I'm not the only one that got that nice shiney card thing in the mail to vote for Varilek that clearly pointed out that he is endorsed by Tim Johnson,Tom Daschle,and George McGovern and wondered,"Can Tim do that?" But I dismissed it because It doesn't matter to me who gets what endorsement. If I think that someone is a bozo,they won't get my vote anyway. There really isn't any punishment that will be handed out to anybody other than a,"Hey you were kinda naughty. Don't do it again."
Worst case scenario: the ultimate punishment is that somebody gets voted out of office,but if they do, it'll happen for reasons other than for whom they endorsed.
Cory, I disagree with your reading of the South Dakota Democratic Party rules. While the rules clearly prohibit Central Committee or Executive Board endorsements it does not prohibit individual members of either the Central Committee or E-Board from making personal endorsements that do not carry the weight of the entire board or committee.
As a practical matter prohibiting all County and State Central Committee members from making individual endorsements would eliminate a significant portion of the party activists from taking a personal roll in primary elections.
Nick Nemec
National Committeeman
South Dakota Democratic Party
Wanna do something to fight the cronyism? Vote Jeff Barth!
I just went ahead an emailed Johnson about it, asking if he thought it was against party rules or not, etc.
He's been pretty good about responding to my emails in the past (or at least his staff has been), so I'm looking forward to a fairly concise, honest response from him in a few days. I'm guessing he'll say something along the lines of what Nick said above.
Regardless of whether or not it's technically okay for him to do, though, I don't much like it. Even if Committee Members can do it, having a US Senator's name behind you carries a lot of weight. I think he should be more respectful to the democratic process than that.
"We Dems can have a lot of fun joining the grouchy conservatives throwing tomatoes at Governor Daugaard for his endorsements."
Cory, you are comparing tomatoes to apples. To be tomatoes to tomatoes Tim Johnson would have to be endorsing someone really conservative like Gordon Howie for example over Angie Buhl.
Steve, you make no sense.
TWU and Nick, you do! I happily accept your reading of the rules and the distinction between committee primary endorsements (verboten!) and individual endorsements (not addressed in the by-laws!). Of course, this reasonable distinction knocks the legs out from under the last on-paper justification I could have held out to Gordon Howie and his Tea Party friends whom the Governor has miffed with his primary endorsements. Party on, everyone!
"Steve, you make no sense"
We are responding to endorsement of liberals over conservatives. You guys are complaining about liberal endorsement over a liberal. How would you feel if a conservative was getting an endorsement over a liberal?
Personal endorsements are actually quite a custom: "Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick Endorses Elizabeth Warren." Headline from TPM,
David Newquist,
Elizabeth Warren is not in a primary...if she does get a challenger your argument will be proven; however, at this point your argument is irrelevant.
I agree that endorsements don't go that far, however, to me the story to focus on is Jason Gant saying ANYTHING that could influence an election. It's irresponsible and hurts the credibility of the office of the SOS (which pretty low already, based on the actions of Gant and his immediate predecessor).
For example, based on recent history, it would be very hard to convince me that the Legislature's new "voting center" law and Gant's implementation of it will not disproportionately benefit Republican candidates.
Thanks for the by-law clarification, Nick. Now that I'm a County committeeman, guess I better keep my mouth shut about my preferences in the primary!
Sibby is making no sense on two levels:
1. Apples and tomatoes? Is he accusing Democrats of being "soft" -- like Democrats in South Dakota (esp West River) don't have to have cojones of steel to face the smirks and discrimination for, you know, being human. It's so bad I think we need civil rights protection for Dems in this state.
2. Angie Buhl vs Howie = Dumb vs Dumber? That's not even a false equivalence -- I just don't see any comparison at all.