From the Constitution Party website:
The Constitution Party is often asked this question: “Should the Republican Party choose a “true conservative” as its Presidential nominee, will the Constitution Party still field a Presidential candidate?” If so, why?
The Constitution Party does not have an official policy on this matter, i.e. a resolution or a clause in the party constitution or its bylaws. In the 23 years of its existence, this has not been a problem, and with each passing election cycle, it appears less likely to ever be a problem.
One state party affiliate has made it a practice to avoid running a Constitution Party candidate in opposition to a constitutionally-sound incumbent whose performance in office comports with our platform. However, in cases of a candidate who seems to be constitutionally-sound and who is not an incumbent, that state party views the ballot as belonging equally to all candidates and parties. It feels no compulsion to urge one of its candidates to drop out of a race just because some people think that a candidate with a different party initial after his name is more likely to win.
In the case of a Presidential candidate, one major ‒ and deeply limiting ‒ factor to consider is this: minor party and independent candidates have been given different ballot access requirements with which to comply than do the two major parties that make the rules! Ballot access laws vary from state to state. Some states determine ballot access by the performance of state level Constitution Party candidates during the previous election cycle while others allow the filing of ballot access petitions as late as a few months prior to the election. To ensure the ability to provide the public with an alternative to the Republican/Democrat duopoly candidates, the Constitution Party must commit to and aggressively pursue Presidential ballot access months, and even years, before the major parties hold their conventions. In 2016, the Republican convention will be held July 18-21. In many states our ballot access needs to have already been achieved by that time, and in some cases, it would likely be too late to withdraw our candidate from the ballot, even if we desired it.
Once the major parties have chosen their candidates, and the minor parties have already secured their ballot access, about the only variable left is the possibility of one candidate choosing to publicly endorse the other. For the party to officially endorse or throw support behind another candidate would require holding another convention as our candidate is chosen at a national convention. Only a second national convention would have the proper authority to alter or overturn the determination of the first convention. As you can see, this would require difficult maneuvering.
All of the foregoing aside, the Constitution Party would still be inclined to run a Presidential candidate, even if one of the other parties did happen to select a nominee who appeared to conform to our platform. One reason for this position is that far too often we have seen candidates running on the “R” party ticket who spouted the right rhetoric to convince voters that they were “conservative,” only to have their performance in office prove otherwise. A candidate would need to have a substantial track record as a committed Constitutionist in order for members of the National Committee to be swayed into supporting such a candidate.
The chief reason that the Constitution Party would carrying through with fielding a Presidential candidate, regardless of whom the other parties nominate, is that throwing support behind a Republican Presidential candidate inherently lends the Constitution Party name and reputation to the entire Republican Party. The Constitution Party does not see a way to endorse a Republican Presidential candidate without inadvertently conferring a degree of credibility upon the entire Republican Party.
The Constitution Party views the Republican Party of the past few decades as inherently corrupt, as an enemy of Biblical presuppositions and original constitutional intent. Rank and file members and the party’s platform aside, the Republican Party has become an entity guided by secular humanist philosophy and a statist worldview. It is the presence of a conservative platform (which has not for a long time been observed) and the rare “true conservative” candidate that serve to keep Christians and conservatives continuing to have faith in a party that has become far more detrimental to their professed values than it is beneficial.
The Constitution Party encourages alternative candidates to enter the “fray” – Constitution Party or even Independent candidates – not so much for the purpose of opposing the other parties’ candidates, but for the purpose of providing by juxtaposition a comparison of the ideologies embodied in the different parties.
A final consideration is the fact that the Republican Party is known for withholding support from overtly Christian and constitutional candidates when they do, on rare occasions, manage to get through the primary election and/or nomination process. The establishment powers which control the Republican Party would rather see a Democrat elected than a true Constitutionist who would present a threat to the unconstitutional agencies, programs, policies and power structures that have been erected to aggrandize and centralize power. The Republican and Democratic Parties would work equally hard to keep out of office anyone seeking to abolish the Federal Reserve, repeal the 16th Amendment, dismantle the military-industrial complex, do away with the Federal Department of Education or extract America from the institutions of the New World Order.
With this final point in mind, the Constitution Party expects that even if a constitutionally sound candidate did get the Republican nomination, his campaign would be sufficiently undermined by his own party so as to be prevented from winning in November. Therefore, running a Constitution Party candidate would not only do no harm, but failure to do so would deprive the American public of a Biblical and Constitutional standard by which to compare the other political parties.
Written by Constitution Party of Washington state chairman Robert W. Peck on behalf of the national Constitution Party.
How about other states? To take just one example, last I heard MA is not allowing substitution. If the CP was to have a convention later than July 21 and predicate picking a candidate on whether or not the Republicans pick a candidate they like, they can’t even start the MA petition until after their convention (since they don’t know who their candidate will be) but they have to turn it in by August 2nd. I’m not sure what other states would be a problem in this regard, you would know better than me.
Agreed, Andy. In fact they are likely to perform even more poorly next year then they did in 2012.
“The Constitution Party views the Republican Party of the past few decades as inherently corrupt, as an enemy of Biblical presuppositions and original constitutional intent. Rank and file members and the party’s platform aside, the Republican Party has become an entity guided by secular humanist philosophy and a statist worldview. It is the presence of a conservative platform (which has not for a long time been observed) and the rare “true conservative” candidate that serve to keep Christians and conservatives continuing to have faith in a party that has become far more detrimental to their professed values than it is beneficial.”
Or basically put, they don’t like it that the GOP doesn’t support their personal views & an agenda that includes supporting a Theonomy (Calvinist-style Theocracy) and suppression, discrimination, or eventual persecution of non-conformist Christians, non-christians, and non-religious people and beliefs.
Then again Mr. Peck is a big time supporter of Wisconsin CP State Chair Riley Hood, and has paid tribute to his opinion-pieces before.
“With this final point in mind, the Constitution Party expects that even if a constitutionally sound candidate did get the Republican nomination, his campaign would be sufficiently undermined by his own party so as to be prevented from winning in November. Therefore, running a Constitution Party candidate would not only do no harm, but failure to do so would deprive the American public of a Biblical and Constitutional standard by which to compare the other political parties.”
Yeah, I guess religious bigots and religiously totalitarian folks do need their own candidate to vote for in running for president, even if the political party that espouses such views to the point that they have politically and even socially isolated themselves and are avoided by even practical-minded constitutionalists.
Illinois permits withdrawal.
“The author, and the entire Constitution Party, should take into account that because the Republican Party national convention is so much earlier than it has been in the recent past, it is feasible for the Constitution Party to hold its presidential convention after the Republican convention. The Libertarian Party national convention in 1996 was not held until July 4 and the Libertarian presidential nominee, Harry Browne, did get on the ballot in all 50 states that year.”
True, but the LP and Browne in 1996 were a lot better funded than the CP is now. Also, how would that work in the case of, say, Illinois, where the petition deadline is in June? I know you can substitute the nominee there, but can you substitute someone with no one, to address the highly theoretical question Peck is trying to aswer here? In other words, suppose the NSGOP somehow did nominate a candidate the CP would want to get behind, but it had already gotten on the Illinois ballot and maybe some other states with early deadlines. Could they then run no candidate if that is the decision of their subsequent convention, as opposed to running a different candidate than the placeholders on the petitions?
When the reasonably expected vote for a party’s nominee is less than a tenth of a percentage point, and they can’t even get on the ballot in half the country, I doubt they’re on any establishment party candidate’s radar as a potential spoiler problem. Maybe that will change if they recruit a strong candidate with something resembling a shred of name recognition, but I don’t see that happening.
I haven’t read the article yet, but if I was a CP member or supporter I would find the headline to be offensive right off the bat.
The Republican Establishment is one of the greatest threats to Liberty we all face.
On one hand, in most states the state party actually has to do something to put the candidate on the ballot, so if a state did not want to run a Presidential candidate in general they could skip filing the paperwork and have the ballot blank. There might be timing issues in some cases.
On the other hand, I have read the platform of the Constitution Party. The likelihood that the Republicans would nominate for President a candidate with those positions is zero.
It is possible for candidates with more or less Constitution party positions to win primaries and run for other offices. When they do, the other Republicans stab them in the back, as described above. The favor should be returned.
The author, and the entire Constitution Party, should take into account that because the Republican Party national convention is so much earlier than it has been in the recent past, it is feasible for the Constitution Party to hold its presidential convention after the Republican convention. The Libertarian Party national convention in 1996 was not held until July 4 and the Libertarian presidential nominee, Harry Browne, did get on the ballot in all 50 states that year.