Sanders to run as a Democrat -- but not accept nomination (2018 Senate)

[Jim Lane]

290. You keep saying "replace" and I strongly doubt that you're correct.

So here's the hypothetical for you, counselor:

I assume that Texas law provides for an independent to qualify for the ballot. (If it doesn't, we can end the discussion here. Vermont allows a candidate to appear on the general-election ballot without being the nominee of a recognized political party. That's obviously critical. If Texas has no such law, then your situation there is distinguishable.)

Let's suppose that Pete Progressive meets the requirements for appearing on the Texas ballot as an independent -- is legally eligible to hold office (in this case, U.S. citizen at least 30 years old), submits enough petition signatures (possibly with a distribution requirement), pays the filing fee, whatever else. Absent any additional facts, Pete will be on the ballot as an independent.

Pete also enters the Democratic primary for the same office. Assume that Pete qualifies for the primary ballot under the applicable rules of signatures and/or fees and/or whatever. (If one of the rules in Texas is that the would-be candidate be a registered voter in that party, note that Vermont doesn't have partisan voter registration. There is no one in Vermont who is registered to vote as a Democrat.)

Contrary to what some of the Bernie-bashers here will snarl, there is no bait and switch in Pete's case, because he makes it known that, if he wins the Democratic primary, he'll decline the nomination. Some of the people voting in the Democratic primary don't like this, and therefore vote for one of Pete's opponents. Nevertheless, a clear majority of the voters vote for Pete. Government officials declare him the winner. He is informed that he'll appear on the November ballot as the Democratic nominee and as an independent. He formally declines the Democratic nomination, however, so the state board of elections or Secretary of State or whoever runs such things in Texas announces that the general-election ballot for that office will include Pete as an independent, will also include everyone else who qualified as a party nominee or independent, and will not include anyone identified as the Democratic nominee.

Now, if you tell me that, under those circumstances, the Texas Democratic Party could override the will of the voters and place on the ballot, as the Democratic nominee, someone who lost to Pete or who didn't even run in the primary, I'd find that credible. I wouldn't call it "replacing" Pete as the Democratic nominee, because to my mind that word connotes removing a named Democratic nominee. It would apply if, for example, if the primary winner plans to run in the general election as the Democratic nominee, but dies soon after the primary and there's still time to put the substitute candidate's name on the ballot before the ballots are printed. One candidate's name is removed from the "Democratic" column on the ballot and another's is substituted. If, instead of being a change from one name to another, the change is from a blank spot on the ballot to a named candidate, I wouldn't call that "replacing" anyone, but that's a pretty minor semantic dispute.

If, however, you can tell me that the Texas Democratic Party, by tossing around words like "stunt", could somehow remove Pete from the general-election ballot entirely, even though he had duly qualified as an independent candidate, then I'm extremely dubious. It would be a violation of fundamental democratic principles if a party committee could be given that kind of control over nonmembers. I know the old saying that no man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Texas legislature is in session, but I have to doubt that even Texas would pass such a law. I also doubt that, if passed, it would survive a constitutional challenge.

I've spelled out the circumstances of this hypothetical in excruciating detail in the hope that you might actually address it. Obviously I can't compel you, nor can I prevent you from answering a dozen other questions that I didn't ask but that you want to opine on. My point is this: If Vermont law is as I believe it to be -- that the Vermont Democratic Party cannot prevent Bernie Sanders from appearing on the general-election ballot as an independent candidate -- then for the party to override the will of the primary voters and put someone else on the ballot as the Democratic nominee would split the vote and would certainly be a very bad idea.