PAGOP Putting Finger on Scale, Limits Exposure To Unendorsed Candidates

On Thursday morning this week, in a Facebook post, candidate Josh Prince called out the PAGOP for exerting inappropriate influence in his race for Judge of the Commonwealth Court. In his post, he was responding to a memo sent by Eric Anderson on behalf of the PAGOP, to party leaders across the state, forbidding unendorsed candidates from speaking or obtaining petition signatures at county GOP events. As a result of that directive, Mr. Prince was uninvited from the Carbon County GOP meeting. According to his statement, “I never said I was coming to collect signatures. I simply planned to stop by and meet fellow Republicans.”

The Liberty Lens is taking a position in support of Josh Prince – and any other non-endorsed candidates, now or in the future, who may be impacted by the current heavy-handed posture of the PAGOP. To be clear, this is not because of any partiality to Mr. Prince or any candidate. In doing so, we are taking a position in support of a basic democratic principle that is a pillar of representative government. Accordingly, we have released the following statement:

It is indefensible to exert this kind of control from the state level during primary races. It is also not supported by either state or county bylaws. True representative government is bottom-up, not top-down, and people at the local level must be afforded the ability to be well-informed about all candidates, and to speak according to their conscience, without any fear of punitive response. Even if this kind of influence were supported by the bylaws, it would only be evidence of inappropriate influence by design. Notably, Rule 11.1 in the state bylaws implies as much, but interestingly leaves out primary races from the list of the kinds of elections to which the section applies. This could be perceived as or reasonably believed to be intended ambiguity. For the state GOP to put it’s finger on the scale in primary races is unethical, and even hostile to foundational principles of representative government. Arguing that the decision is informed by state committee members is entirely unpersuasive. Many counties have a disproportionate share of votes, and their constituents may never be fairly represented by a few counties with larger, more dense populations. The purpose of a few state committee people should not serve to obscure a well-informed local electorate, or silence voices of primary candidates. On a national level, this is the spirit behind the Electoral College, and no Republican worth their weight would argue against the wisdom of the Electoral College. Asking counties to withhold an equal platform to inform voters implies a tendency toward manipulation that is obvious even to casual observers, and this must be addressed if we are to restore confidence in the PAGOP. As it is now, even good primary candidates endorsed in a system like this, may reasonably be regarded as suspect, as they are not competing for the hearts, minds, and will of the voters on an equal footing. Do all candidates (now and in the future) a favor: In Primary elections, remove the limitations on party officers and state committee people who, in good conscience don’t share the views of others in the party. In doing so, you will also do a favor, broadly, for election integrity and, in particular, for Republican voters.
– Lions for Liberty, parent organization of The Liberty Lens

The Rules of the PAGOP

According to Rule 11.1 of the Bylaws of the PAGOP it appears that, in disadvantaging a qualified Republican candidate, the state party may be in violation of it’s own bylaws. Disciplinary measures can be triggered, “Whenever it shall appear that any member of the State Party, Leadership… opposes the Republican State Party or any Republican Party candidate for office in either a Municipal, General Election or Special Election…”. Clearly, the spirit of the rule is that we are not to allow disparaging of Republican candidates. Beyond this, there are two questions that arise from the broader language in this rule: 1) Why would “Primary Election” be omitted from the list in the definition? and 2) What is the route to trigger a complaint, investigation, and redress, if the grievance is against the PAGOP leadership? Do we have something akin to a “Constitutional crisis” emerging here?

Moreover, it does not appear that this section grants any jurisdiction over county committee decisions or activities. In fact, upon examination of Rule 2.1, though county chairs are members of The Republican State Committee by default, it does not appear that individual county Committees comprise the committee (aka The State Party) in any way at all. Rule 1.2 defines them separately within a broader body, referred to as “The Republican Party of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” (hereafter referred to as “Republican party”). It is notable that each of the caucuses are independent bodies, separate from “The State Party” as well. What is the significance of this? Well, this would indicate that, while county chairs may have some accountability to take input to bring back to the county committees, county committees are actually sovereign entities, able to make their own decisions and endorsements, free of coercion from “the top”. Of course, with representative government, this is as it should be.

Now to be clear, the State Party is charged with the “general supervision, regulation, and direction” of the broader Republican party. Naturally, that should mean they ensure that meaningful representative government is taking place. Surely we weren’t given a model where the proverbial fox guards the henhouse, right? But also factoring into the equation are rules for county committees. Rule 6.1 informs us that “Each county Republican Committee shall adopt rules and bylaws, which shall not be inconsistent with the Rules of the State Party or law…”. The Pennsylvania Election Code further directs that county committees must promptly correct their bylaws if they are incompatible with those of State Committee. In a hypothetical situation, if the State Party were to change its bylaws in a way that made every county committee suddenly incompatible, would it more fitting for the State Party to adjust their bylaws, or for every county committee to rewrite their bylaws? The answer is – or ought to be – “it depends”. Which change would reflect the principles of a democratic system? Which change would better enable a well-educated elected electorate?

Finally, remember how the word Primary was omitted from Rule 11.1? It’s interesting to note that it’s back in Rule 14.1. This rule directs the process for any candidate seeking endorsement for a position on the statewide ballot: Rule 14.1 – Exhibit B (see the last 4 pages of the bylaws). We can only assume that the wording is intentional and the effect was clear. This is not a good look for the Republican party, and it is not in the interests of Pennsylvanians. Ultimately, this is about allowing voters to be exposed to a variety of perspectives and opinions so they may cast a well-informed vote. Is this important or relevant? Let’s visit a few quotes of Thomas Jefferson on the matter:

“A well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.”

“An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy.”

“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.”

Clearly, to maintain parity, there are cases where it would be incumbent upon The State Party to change their bylaws to make clear a very basic tenet of representative government: Don’t presume to tell The People in County committees, or in The State Committee, who they can or can’t support in the primary. Our leaders shouldn’t expect to lose their First Amendment rights just because they take an interest in serving through an elected role in the Republican party. State Party, County committee leaders, and state committee people: regardless of how you may feel about a particular candidate, try to understand this. Then take your stand.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.