Perception, Reality and the Alabama GOP

In politics, perception is reality.

Like it or not, it’s true more often than not.

Right now, the general perception of the Alabama Republican Party ballot access process is not very flattering — and the Party has no one to blame but themselves.

It was bad enough when it was just Tommy Tuberville’s residency being called into question. For there to even be a question at the top of the ticket is bad optics, but manageable.

I’m told there is documentation to prove his Alabama residency for the last seven years, as required by Sec. 117 of the Alabama Constitution. What I don’t understand is why his campaign hasn’t produced it, to throw the issue in a coffin and nail the lid shut. Are they waiting for the Democrats to file suit, to roll it out in discovery, to make the Dems look foolish? That seems to me to be a, shall we say, “suboptimal” strategy, at best.

Coach’s residency is a slowly oozing wound the Party really shouldn’t have to deal with. Right now, it’s only a minor irritation to everyone except Ken McFeeters (and maybe an intern or three in Doug Jones’ campaign), but that’s sure to change. When it does, it’ll be another black eye to the Party as a whole, and only add to the perception problem regardless of how it breaks.

Even worse, all these ballot access challenges, and how they’re being dealt with, are spurting arteries the Party needs to clamp off. Unfortunately, those arteries go to vital things: fairness, justice, equal application of “the rules” across the board.

There are reasons you don’t put a tourniquet around the neck to stop a bleeding scalp wound. I suspect ALGOP is about to find out why.

Throwing Dean Odle off the ballot is indeed following the “sore loser” rule in the Party’s bylaws. Okay, fair enough.

Here’s some more rules from the Bylaws:

Article III, Sec. 2 (p. 4)

A. To be eligible for selection or election to the State Committee, a person must be a resident of and a registered voter, required for legal residency:

i. In the county, if a county chairman, population-based member, or bonus member

ii. In the precinct allocated the position if elected from a county required or electing to so allocate, or,

iii. In the State if appointed by the State Chairman.

B. To maintain membership, a person must continue to be a resident of and be a duly qualified elector as described in (A) above and be a regular financial contributor to the Republican Party of Alabama as defined by Standing Rule.

3. Failure to maintain such eligibility requirements shall, if not corrected within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof to such person from the State Chairman result in automatic loss of membership on the State Committee.

While “It shall not be necessary for such officers (“State Chairman, a vice-chairman, a secretary, a treasurer, and such other officers as the State Committee deems appropriate”) to be selected from among the members of the State Committee” (Article IV, Sec. 1, p. 4), doesn’t it seem reasonable that those same residency residency requirements should also apply to the officers?

I suspect the bylaws don’t mention any residency requirements for Party officers because, really, isn’t that just kinda assumed? I mean, why would someone who lives in, say, Tennessee, be an officer in the Alabama GOP? That’s just silly!

Here’s another perception most Alabamians have: our driver’s license shows where we live. It’s what we use to prove who we are and what our official address is every single day. Aren’t there are a few rules about that?

And until recently, there weren’t any rules about hanging around with old Democrats. Running as one, yes; hanging out with them, no. Otherwise, wouldn’t we need to stay away from our Governor…and the Speaker of the House…and how many other “good Republicans” that we old codgers remember from back when they had Ds after their names?

“Rules for thee, but not for me” is supposed to be a Democrat thing, not a Republican thing…right? Right?

The perception is that it’s not — at least, not right now, in this cycle. For the Republican Party as a whole, and every Republican candidate in particular, that’s a problem.

The Democrats are chomping at the bit, putting out press releases and fundraising emails with titles like “This Is Our Year!” There are more Democrats on the ballot this cycle than they’ve had in years — over 160 of them.

Meanwhile, ALGOP seems determined to keep shooting itself in the foot…and where Forrest Gump got shot…and other tender places.

The ALGOP Steering Committee is understandably livid that their ballot challenge list, and some of their responses, got leaked. They’re actively searching for the leaker, who’ll probably be booted under Bylaws Article IV, Sec. 3 or Article VI, Sec. 1.

That last one may lead people to read and ponder Article VI, Sec. 2, and its unstated implications for certain candidates the Committee has already ruled in favor of, so they may not want to bring up Article VI. We’ll see.

The Steering Committee is now well and truly hoist with their own petard—and maybe it’s appropriate to say they’re stuck in a reverse Xanatos Gambit, where whatever they do, they lose.

If they toss Dean Odle under the “sore loser” rule, they’ll be following the rules. But…what about all the rest?

If the Star Chamber…excuse me, the Steering Committee…wants to truly change the perception that they’re playing fast and loose with the rules, they have only bad and less bad options before them. These options include sustaining their ballot ban on Odle, while simultaneously calling on all other challenged candidates to present evidence that satisfies Sec. 117 of the State Constitution and all other applicable rules and bylaws…or letting Odle and all the others stay on the ballot for the voters to decide their fate(s).

Both of those choices have the advantage of being consistent and fair in the application of Party rules and the law…so of course, they won’t do that.

If they let Odle and all the others who qualified and paid the fee run in the primary, they’ve tacitly admitted there are basically no rules this cycle except “did the check clear?”.

If they stand by their earlier decisions and still toss Odle, the perception will be that the rules don’t apply to certain candidates — likely because of their big checks and powerful backers. True or not, that WILL be how voters perceive it…and therefore, it will be their reality when they go to the polls, if they go at all.

Remember the special Senate race of 2017? That one was 49.9% Doug Jones and 48.4% Roy Moore. A number of women, especially Republican women, decided just to sit that one out, and it sent Doug Jones to the Senate for a few years.

The Steering Committee, with what appears to be its inconsistent application of “the rules,” is running the very real risk of 2017 repeating itself. Eventually, someone is going to file suit against Tuberville, and the truth of his residency will come out during discovery. The same is likely to happen to at least one other candidate, with the same results. And when it does, no amount of legal pettifoggery or guanofication will matter to the good people of Alabama.

Sometimes the only way to save a patient’s life is to tourniquet off the limb, even knowing it will cost the limb to be lost. It may be necessary to sacrifice the limb to save the rest of the body. It’s a tough call, but sometimes you have no other choice.

The Steering Committee is facing some very tough calls. Let’s hope they make the right ones — and be totally transparent about why they made those calls.

Otherwise, the reality may be Governor Jones, and flipped races all over the ballot in November.

That’s my perception of the matter.

Dr. Bill Chitwood is the Managing Editor of ALpolitics.com. The opinions expressed herein are his own.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.