Voters rip Democrats’ oath plan [demand that voters swear to be Democrats at polls]

TheState.com ("South Carolina's Home Page") ^ | Feb. 02, 2004 | LEE BANDY

[John Jorsett]

Dumb.

That’s how people all over South Carolina characterized the state Democratic Party’s decision to require voters to declare they are Democrats if they want to participate in Tuesday’s presidential primary.

Consider Herb Hoefer, a 52-year-old state social services worker. He plans to show poll workers his registration card, but he will not sign the oath.

And if they try to stop him from voting?

“I’ll tell them to stick it in their ear; I’m voting,” Hoefer vowed.

Mike Grogan, a 45-year-old produce manager for Publix, called himself an independent but said he will not sign any pledge.

“I’ll just turn and walk out,” he said. “Requiring an oath is not right. It’ll turn a lot of people off.”

B.J. Wellborn said she and three other voters in her home will not vote because they resent the pledge.

And John McLeod of Greenville said he had planned to vote until he read that he had to take a Democratic oath.

“That would lead to being ostracized by all the Greenville Republicans.”

Strategically, the move could throw a damper on turnout and hurt the chances of candidates John Edwards, Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman — who are hoping to attract independent voters and disaffected Republicans.

“It sounds like one of the stupidest ideas I’ve heard in a long time,” said Rice University political scientist Earl Black, formerly of the University of South Carolina. “This makes no sense at all. It just steps on the effort of South Carolina Democrats to create a situation to build the party.”

Voters who appear at their polling places will be asked to sign an oath swearing that “I consider myself to be a Democrat” before casting their ballots.

The purpose is to deter Republicans from voting in the contest to create mischief.

Benedict College analyst Glenda Suber sees nothing wrong with the oath.

“The party is trying to make sure the candidate selected by the voters on Tuesday represents the thinking of Democrats in South Carolina,” she said.

The pledge is legal because the Democratic Party — not the state Election Commission — pays for and runs the presidential primary.

State Democratic Party chairman Joe Erwin, who noted the rule had been on the party books since 1976, stressed the oath doesn’t bind voters in any way. He said voters — especially independents and disaffected Republicans — should feel free to participate in the primary.

The contest is open to all registered voters.

Republicans did not require a loyalty oath during their 2000 presidential primary between George W. Bush and John McCain.

Butch Wallace, former chairman of the Lexington County GOP, said the Democratic leaders obviously don’t trust the voters.

“It shows a certain amount of skepticism on the part of Democratic leaders,” he said. “They’re not comfortable with the people.”

Bob Wislinski, a Columbia-based Democratic consultant, called the loyalty oath “extremely stupid.”

“It’s self-defeating,” he said. “What were they thinking?”

Wislinski predicted it would hurt Edwards, who, most polls show, is the overwhelming favorite of independents. The latest tracking survey conducted by Zogby International had Edwards holding a comfortable lead among independents with 30 percent. U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was next with 14 percent.

Edwards also is the favorite among Republicans in the poll — 29 percent to 13 percent for Kerry.

“If Edwards loses here,” Wislinski said, “he probably could trace it to the loyalty oath.

“This whole thing could come back to bite them.”

Edwards’ spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said the campaign isn’t concerned about the pledge. She doubted it would hurt Edwards’ effort to reach out to independent voters and disaffected Republicans.

“This is nothing new,” she added. “We’ve known all along that this rule existed.”

Brad Gomez, a USC political scientist, said loyalty oaths aren’t unheard of, but “I don’t think it’s a smart idea, strategically, for Democrats to be doing it.”

[John Jorsett]

Are you now, or have you ever been, a ... REPUBLICAN?

[gorush]

"Voters who appear at their polling places will be asked to sign an oath swearing that “I consider myself to be a Democrat” before casting their ballots."

To whom do Democrats swear their oaths, the ghost of FDR or Karl Marx?

[ken5050]

Actually..read the fine print..voters are require to "swear, I'm a Democrat"..so they walk in to the polling place, and say..^&^^%$%($@#!@$%^*()_^$#!! I'm a Democrat"

[sirshackleton]

DUmmyland is chock-full of posters coming up with oaths and asking everyone to sign on to them....things like "I WILL USE MY FEET AND WALLET TO SUPPORT WHOEVER WINS THE NOMINATION...." They're basically pledging an oath to no one.

[primatreat]

I don't think ACLU will like this.. Is it not true that one does not have to swear allegiance to the flag. The damacraps will try anything!

[BraveMan]

To whom do Democrats swear their oaths . . .?

Rest assured, there won't be any Bibles involved!

[farmguy]

To whom do Democrats swear their oaths, the ghost of FDR or Karl Marx?

Either will be fine so long as they place their hand on Mao's little red book.

[jmstein7]

The same Democrats who want every state to have "Same Day Voter Registration" or "Election Day Registration" laws -- without ID requirements, mind you -- now want poll oaths in their primaries?

Oh... so they only want election fraud in GENERAL elections!

[Scannall]

Didn't Saddam require loyalty oaths? Hitler, Stalin and that gang did. So I guess it fits right in.

Dan

[alancarp]

Swearing an oath under penalty of.... what? Or do they figure this to be a Bible Belt-like state so that the fear of judgment by God is enough? Oh, that's right: this is the Democrat Party -- God isn't permitted to take part.

[eyespysomething]

The Oath to Hitler, speech by Rudolph Hess

Background: On 25 February 1934, about a million Nazi party officials gathered at points around Germany to swear an oath to Adolf Hitler.

[Michael Barnes]

coo-koo, coo-koo..

The democratic train has officially gone around the bend, never to return.

[looscnnn]

"the oath doesn’t bind voters in any way."

Then why have it? Kinda stupid to scare off people by making them take a non-binding oath. What would happen if they don't vote dem? How about if they go to the primary and do a write in vote for Bush?

[looscnnn]

"I don't think ACLU will like this.."

Why not, it's their own people. They don't like discrimination, unless it is against whites. They don't like religion, unless it is Muslim.

[John Jorsett]

If Republicans tried this sort of thing in California, they'd be accused of trying to dissuade Hispanic voters from voting.

[mewzilla]

The contest is open to all registered voters.

That says it all...

Note to the DNC: I'm a Dem and I'm voting in the NYS primary. Heh heh heh.

Jerks.

[Izzy Dunne]

Kinda stupid to scare off people by making them take a non-binding oath

You say that like it's a BAD thing...
;->

[MissAmericanPie]

I thought liberals didn't even want people to prove voter priviledge by even having to present a drivers license. I guess it all depends on what promotes their agenda, how ethical.

[mass55th]

During the Civil War, when the black troops were finally paid the same as their white counterparts, they were made to take an oath that they had never been a slave before the war began. Of course many of them had to lie to get what they had coming to them. Most went without pay for 18 months until the government corrected the pay discrepancy. Having to lie just about killed them. The Lt. Colonel of the 55th Mass. said it took him hours to get the men to take the oath because so many of them didn't want to lie. Some were even in tears over it. He said it was one of the hardest things he had ever had to do.