And you shouldn’t be allowed to cite anything. You simply don’t know enough. What you’ve ‘cited’ doesn’t prevent Kidd or the ‘chair’ from spending money without the pre-approval of the ’state committee.’

Except placing a limit of $2,500 on salaries… and requiring POST APPROVAL of salaries annually by the ‘chair’ and ‘executive committee.’

I will allow you one more chance to CITE something that proves the state committee has to approve all party spending in advance, including the purpose, amount, and vendor.

MD

The case you cite makes my point. The candidate gets to decide which party he or she will qualify under. Try reading a source before citing it in your favor.

Beyond cutting and pasting from other sources, Andre’ isn’t an authority on the traditions or conventions of the Party. Or it’s policies and programs.

Doesn’t his mother still provide him with rent?

MD

(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, all candidates for party nomination in a state or county primary shall qualify as such candidates in accordance with the procedural rules of their party; provided, however, that no person shall be prohibited from qualifying for such office if he or she:

(1) Meets the requirements of such procedural rules;

Your section, § 21-2-153, b, 4, only refers to parties being able to require a loyalty oath.

“Ms. Cox noted that the Sauder challenge was a complex one involving differing interpretations of state election law and procedure. ”

Or maybe you’d like to have another candidate run as a Republican and a Democrat at the same time?

I’d love to see the Dem party turn away a candidate. Let me know when that happens.

In that ruling, I think Cathy Cox was referring to the timing of a political party turning in candidates after three days of qualifying. IMO, That does not imply that a party has a right to refuse, it has a duty to perform. I’d need to see the case to consider otherwise.

Allow me to cite Article I, Section six, paragraph 4 of the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of Georgia:

The Executive Director shall propose such staff positions as necessary to carry out the functions of the State Party, along with salaries to be paid. Such proposals shall be forwarded to the State Chair for inclusion or modification in the proposed annual budget. Except for temporary office help involving total expenditure of $2500 or less, all unbudgeted positions or changes in salaries of budgeted positions must be approved by the State Chair and the Executive Committee.

In essence, what this section of the state Democratic Party’s Bylaws means is that all salaries must be approved by the state Democratic executive committee.

The governing documents of Georgia’s Democratic Party clearly defines the role and responsibility of the state Democratic Party chairman. And those same governing documents provide checks and balances so that Georgia Democrats do not have an activist party leader that embarks on policies and programs that is detrimental to the over-all health of the state Democratic Party.

Just like me, since he can’t get a real job, he blogs.

MD

Have to agree with the essence. The Party is set up like the US Constitution. It can be changed but only slowly.

Better to ask forgiveness than permission on the issue of turning away a false candidate. That put the burden of proof on the candidate in a court of law subject to discovery.

You retorted, “This is a non-partisan race so the party couldn’t do squat to block someone from running.”

I said, “The ‘party’ can block a candidate from being on the DEMOCRATIC TICKET under a set of conditions.”

And I was being responsive to your comment “regarding party affiliation.”

The Party can block false candidates from filing as Democrats, subject to a variety of conditions. Including courtroom proceedings.

I doubt there is a judge that wouldn’t back rejecting a candidate based on the rulings even of SOS Handel.

“In her order, Secretary Cox addressed the distinction between the filing of papers and fees and the formal conclusion of the qualifying process: ‘It defies logic, law and practice to conclude that the mere filing of papers and appropriate fees concludes the ‘qualification’ by a candidate…There simply are no qualified candidates, in theory or in practice, until the political parties submit a certification of qualified candidates within three days after the qualifying period closes, O.C.G.A. 21-2-154, and to conclude otherwise would wreak havoc on the elections system.’”

MD

Is Jane Kidd required to check with anyone before spending money for payroll, rent, or utilities?

Naw, let’s not go there. Let’s talk about de factor and de jure.

In fact what are the traditions and practices of the Party versus your dependence upon the recorded rules?

In fact, the Chair acts without kissing anybody’s butt. The Committee can’t get a quorum. The last Chair election was decided by less than a third of all committee members. Maybe you can speak with authority to that. How many votes did it take for Jane Kidd to win the chair? 120?

Your entire line of reasoning is based on the Obama not having a birth certificate argument, or it ain’t it spelled out literally in the Constitution …

Take a long look in the mirror. Maybe you’re a Birther. Or a Republican.

The state Democratic executive committee acts on behalf of of the state Democratic committee between state Democratic committee meetings [Article VI, Section one, paragraph 1, Bylaws of the Democratic Party of Georgia].

The state Democratic committee is the highest authority of the Democratic Party of Georgia [Article II, Section one, Charter of the Democratic Party of Georgia]. Essentially what that means is that any action of the state Democratic executive committee can be overturned by the full state Democratic committee.

As it pertains to the state Democratic Party chairman, the Charter is clear:

The Chair shall carry out the programs and policies of the State Committee, preside over the meetings of the State Committee and Executive Committee, provide general administrative direction to the Executive Director, and serve as an ex-officio member of all committees of the State Party.

Article IV, Section two, paragraph 1, Charter of the Democratic Party of Georgia

The governing documents of Georgia’s Democratic Party say the state Democratic Party chair “shall carry out the programs and policies of the State Committee.”

Again, it was never a program or policy of the state Democratic committee to advocate for or against any candidate in the 2009 Atlanta municipal election.

If, under the guise of acting on behalf of the state Democratic committee, the state Democratic executive committee had approved the anti-Norwood mail pieces, then that would have been kosher.

However, that did not happen.

State Democratic Party chairman Jane Kidd did not seek approval from the state Democratic committee, and apparently the state Democratic executive committee was not consulted either.

Jane Kidd acted on her own, when she should have at least gained approval from the state Democratic executive committee.

In other words, the state Democratic Party chair cannot act without approval of either the full state Democratic committee or the state Democratic executive committee.

The state Democratic executive committee can act on the full state Democratic committee’s behalf, but the state Democratic committee has the final word.

But there are a limited number of voting positions in the Party, and who wants to run against someone who has devoted 50 years of effort let alone vote against them? I have sometimes thought that I wish their were “emeritus” positions for former voting members so that if they lose their regular position, they don’t just get pushed out. The experience and institutional memory is invaluable, but if the organization is dominated by that, then new energy and new ideas are what gets pushed out. There is also the issue of status. Many people consider their position in the Party a very important part of their life. I would think we want to encourage that.

In the end, change takes time. The institution is set up that way on purpose I suppose, so that we don’t constantly shift with whatever fad or faction happens to have a charismatic advocate at the moment. It’s just a double-edged sword, and balance is the key.

First, this is a non-partisan race so the party couldn’t do squat to block someone from running.

Second, if they show up with money in hand and claim to be a member of the party, the party can’t do squat from keeping them from running, other than make them sign a fealty oath.

If they do, they are in clear direct violation on the law. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-153, b, 4

So the Executive Committee can’t act without approval of the State Committee?

Nor can Jane?

And to borrow from GOPG, ain’t the individuals who vote for the state members more of the authority in the party?

MD

Good points.

One of those official oaths for gov’ment employees includes protecting our country from its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Sort of a problem in politics, too. Sometimes the ‘party’ needs protection from internal enemies. Eh?

I’m usually a little wrong all the time. The ‘party’ can block a candidate from being on the Democratic ticket under a set of conditions.

That pretty much trumps your assertion that voters and candidates control party affiliation.

Just ask Andre’ the expert to list the set of conditions. Hint: It can include a trip into a courtroom. So then you’d be right. A jury or a judge could trump Jane/Party.

Kudos for looking past internal party control to outside powers, tho.