On Monday, February 26, the 28th Senate District Republican Committee (i.e., the GOP committee for John Chichester's district), will entertain a motion to disassociate Chichester from the local Republican Party. It could mean the beginning of the end for John Chichester politically. Here's why.
In Virginia, the law allows an incumbent to choose his method of nomination. Republicans like Chichester almost always choose a primary, which by law must be open to independents and Democrats. Thus, Chich can thwart the will of the party by controlling the method of his nomination.
However, as part of the legal brouhaha over the validity of open primaries, the State Board of Education has acknowledged that local parties can "disassociate" incumbents, and thus deprive them of pulling stunts like the open primary (see Cory Chandler's comment in Bacon's Rebellion). The committee can even go so far as to call a convention (i.e., a caucus, which usually attracts genuine party members as it requires folks to sit through a meeting of 1-3 hours - depending on the size of the gathering - before casting a vote).
The point is this: if the local party disassociates Chichester, it means Chich can no longer determine the process of his nomination, the committee does. Not only does it mean Chichester may lose in a convention or closed primary, but more importantly, it returns control of the nomination process to the party.
That is, if the committee moves to disassociate. Right now, that's up in the air. In fact, one person holds the fate of disassociation in the balance - Stafford Republican Committee Chairman Bob Hunt. If Hunt votes for disassociation, it passes; if he doesn't, it fails.
So, if you wish to see Chichester finally put to pasture, make yourself and your views known to Mr. Hunt. Please be civil and respectful, and ask Hunt to vote in favor of the disassociation measure.
If Hunt can be convinced, we may finally see the beginning of the end of John Chichester's political career.
Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Be very civil and respectful - Virginia ladies and gentlemen one and all please.
Actually, you have this wrong. If the party disassociates from John Chichester, John Chichester logically cannot be the Republican nominee.
The disassociation argument is based on Duke v. Massey and LaRouche v. Fowler. In those cases, David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche were barred from competing for the nomination at all.
This is hardly new stuff. I foreshadowed precisely this when I wrote about Senator Lambert (and Senator Potts) on December 17 here. It's just that no one bothered to notice.
Good work. Keep us posted. Thank you.
So Chichester may be removed on Monday? What other ways can we put presure on Mr. Hunt.
This could easily end up being decided by a judge and get very ugly. Based on what I have seen I think the courts would be inclinded to rule in favor of Chichester. Its just not that easy. In the case of Potts it would have been much easier because he technically "left the party" when he ran as an independent. I hope I am wrong but I think Chichester has the upper hand on the method of nomination.
It is 3.1.2007
What happened?
Post a Comment