On Endorsing before a primary

Written by: Amy Buttery on Jul 14, 2006 1:24 PM EDT

We've endorsed 4 candidates so far in the upcoming primaries/election. But several more candidates are seeking our endorsement and we're planning to meet THIS COMING TUESDAY, July 18, to discuss endorsements in the 67th and 68th House races.

Aside from who we should choose to endorse, our group has to decide what to do in cases with several decent dems running and seeking our endorsement before a primary. I want to lay out my overview of the issue here--I hope you'll consider it before the meeting (or even after). Normally this would be done in our endorsement committee but there is none for the time being.

DFA Endorsement options in contested primaries where more than one candidate seeks our endorsement:

In all cases, the current requirements are that the candidate fill out an application and address us at a monthly meeting (can be through a campaign rep), and that their record of their accomplishments or stances fits with our mission.

But in contested primaries where more than one meets these basics, we could:

• Endorse neither. Put out a press release saying that we give both (or all three or whatever) candidates our "5-star progressive" rating. Note: other groups give this kind of rating, but in most cases they do it for all candidates--that is, they don't endorse any candidates, just give ratings. (LAHR, Lansing Association for Human Rights, apparently does this). Ingham County Dems, according to Ted Kilvington, endorse before the primary in uncontested races and don't endorse before primary in contested races. I don't know if they put out a release showing any kind of rating or support of multiple candidates.

• Endorse several. This might make sense when there's a 3-way-or-more race, and we want to endorse some subset of the candidates running. For instance, if candidates X, Y and Z are running and X and Y seek our endorsement and meet our requirements, we put out a release saying we endorse X and Y. Both can claim our endorsement, although it's sort of watering down the meaning of the word endorsement which implies a preference or choice. If we endorse ALL candidates running, to me it's like endorsing none. When I read "X endorses candidate B" I assume it means X prefers B over others, supports B and wants B to win. Endorsing all candidates means not caring who wins in the primary--might as well wait till after the primary, when we can comfortably endorse the more progressive candidate.

• Choose one. Evaluate the applicants carefully based on their applications, presentations to the group, and a discussion of what we might know about their public record that isn't already part of the above, and rate the various applicants, giving our endorsement to the one who rates the highest.

We might want to rule out this last option, but I'd point out that this is exactly what Mary Lindemann is hoping we might do in her case. Not that we have to do as she expects, but we should consider her perspective:

She's a progressive dem with very good credentials and likely to rep our interests very well. She's running against another well-known dem (whom many of us know), Mark Meadows, and she believes (and made a case) that she's MORE qualified than Meadows based on his record as mayor in E. Lansing. She's hoping that we will review both candidates and endorse the one who, in our opinion, BEST fits our organization's mission.

A separate question to consider is whether we should contact dem candidates who are running to let them know about our endorsement procedures. This time we decided to do so. There are advantages and disadvantages to contacting candidates.

Advantages:
• Our decision is more informed. If we contact all and only one applies, we know the others were not interested or were too busy, and we can feel comfortable with endorsing the one who did, even if there are other candidates we personally like.
• Our name gets out faster to the whole democratic community.
• We aren't in a position of endorsing a candidate who happened to apply when we feel there others who are equally- or better-suited candidates who simply weren't aware of our existence or procedure.

Disadvantages:
• A little more work.
• Can slow down process by giving them time to respond (there should be a limited time frame, like a week), and possibly scheduling issues (can't make this month's meeting but can make the following month.)
• Takes away the political reward to the more savvy candidates who are educated and proactive enough to seek our endorsement without prodding. Rodney Hampton pointed this out at our last meeting. The hard-working candidate should know enough to seek endorsements from likely groups, and should be rewarded for that action with an endorsement, as long as he or she merits it. (This is very sensible when it comes to larger well-known endorsing groups like NARAL or Sierra Club. Whether it applies to us at this point is up for discussion.)

THANKS. Please post comments below...

Amy

Tags:
Location: Lansing, MI 48864