How silly!! There is no need for Beth White to recuse herself. The determination of whether a candidate for PC is eligible is a mere reading of the law. If the person is a legally registered voter in the precinct and has voted in Democratic primary on the last vote cast, then the candidate is eligible to run. If those two conditions are not met, then the candidate is not eligible. Sometimes I think someone is stirring this pot for partisan political gain. The GOP has the same rules.

Please show us the law.

Hector: (and anyone else who cares):

Here is the candidacy form:
http://www.greaterindianapolisforchange.org/med…

I'm not convinced that statutes require state party rules prevail, but if you subscribe to that theory, here are the State party rules:

http://www.greaterindianapolisforchange.org/med…

Specifically, State Party Rule 8a states that “..any legally-qualified voter who supports the purposes of the Party can be a member.”

Rule 8c specifically requires that a person's last primary vote be for the Democratic Party.

Statues do not require the candidacy form to include an oath of allegiance, nor do they require a voting record check. In the absence of that requirement, I think it'd be difficult to enforce state party rules on this specific point.

The statutes do require candidacy checks on other issues, however: if you want to be a candidate for certain offices, a required number of signatures must be obtained, and that number must include only registered (qualified, checked, validated) voters.

I think a half-decent lawyer could easily argue that if state law wanted to require a PC party loyalty oath via the last primary, the statute and the candidacy form would do so. They do not.
It seems to me that someone can support the party via Rule 8a, but not have voted for the party in the last primary. Anyone can have an epiphany. “All praise to the converts, for they shall lead the unchurched.” We haven't had a municipal election intervene since May 2008, so by this May, two years will have passed since we all had the “opportunity” to declare our aprty loyalties.

With apologies to Rico and others, permit me this line of logic (this logic could easily be reversed, Rico…think President Palin in four years):

When the first Democrat in 44 years carries Indiana, do you think it's remotely possible that he did so with some Republican support? And what if some of those Republicans are still moved to help the president, and choose to do so by changing party affiliations?

Isn't that all party loyalists (of any stripe) want–a converted voter?

Brian Williams has opened a can of crapolla, to be sure. If I were in charge, I'd let it slide and let voters make their choices. Lest I be branded a hypocrite.

I wasn't aware of the unanimous thing. Wow. Kinda renders Election Board moot, huh?

More than anything else, Abdul, it angers me that my party would even go near this. Keeping voters away from the process has been the near-exclusive domain of the GOP for 50 years. Granted, they've done less in the last 5-8 years. But prior to that, in the legislature, the GOP declared war on anything that opened up the process.

Maybe if you live long enough, you get to see everything reversed.

The Clerk's Office e-mailed me this morning. The challenge deadline is Friday, the 26th at noon and a hearing is set for March 2 at 1 p.m. on the challenges.

Scooped. WTHR-13 announced the IMPD moves at 1:00am on 2-22-10.

There are 4 Williams pcs who voted in the republican primary in their last primary vote. IC 3-8-1-26 says to be a pc, a candidate must meet the requirements of state party rules (for both parties). The Democratic party rules state that a candidate's last primary vote must have been in the Democratic primary. Those 4 are ineligible as a matter of black letter law.

Another 15 or so Williams pcs are not registered to vote in Indiana. IC 3-8-1-1 says you must be a registered voter in the precinct in which you are filing for office as of the date of candidate filing to be eligible. State party rules also say the same thng – have to be a registered voter in the precinct to be a pc. Those 15 Williams pcs are ineligible. Black letter of the law.

Another 15 or so Williams pcs are registered to vote, but not in the precinct for which they filed, which means they either don't live in the precinct they seek to represent, or they never bothered to update their voter registration. Again, those additional 15 or so Williams pcs are out. Black letter of the law.

Despite what the Williams camp is saying on the blogs, the opposition to these pcs isn't about squelching democracy, its about following the law. Does the Williams camp really mean to suggest that someone who can't bother to register to vote should get a say in who represents the Democratic party? If these individuals cared so darn much about the “process” try registering to vote and/or making sure your registration is acurate first. Then, go for it and run for anything you want.

Plus, what a sloppy job by the Williams camp. Running as an outsider is one thing. If that's their schtick, then so be it, but put in a little effort to do your homework and make sure your filings meet the law.