Like it or not, the debate of a couple of weeks ago regarding the employment practices of the California Republican Party will now continue — at least for a few more months — with the submission of the "Paule Amendment" (see post here).
As noted by Tom Hudson as a comment following Jon Fleischman’s post of yesterday, the language in the proposed bylaw amendment makes no mention of immigration. In fact, it makes no mention of requiring CRP employees to be citizens. It does, however, ensure employees are "legally registered to vote in California as members of the Republican Party."
The only reference to anything regarding citizenship is in the title, "Bylaw Amendment Concerning Employee Eligibility and Citizenship." That said, it seems odd that citizenship is referred to in the title, but not in the text of the amendment. I respectfully suggest that it be mentioned nowhere, leaving the title a simple, "Bylaw Amendment Concerning Employee Eligibility."
Of course, some would say — reference or not — that the whole thing is specious, that mandating an "only registered Republicans need apply" employment policy is really first and foremost about citizenship. Yes, I suppose the critics will say that.
Lest we forget, the GOP is first and foremost a political party, with certain principles and ideals that typically set it apart from other parties. The first requirement for membership in the Republican Party — in any party — is registration in the party. (Citizenship, by the way, is simply a given precursor to registration, as required by law.)
We require the candidates we support to be registered Republicans (again, the Constitution requires they be citizens). We demand, or at least hope for, the best and the brightest in our candidates, but they must first be Republicans, and we see no weakening of the pool as a result. In fact, the pool of the best and bright is strengthened. Additionally, those who circulate qualifying petitions for Republican candidates in partisan races must also be registered GOPers.
The law has further provided additional financial strength to the local and state party by mandating (in exchange) that as organizations they communicate only with fellow registered Republicans about the candidates supported and positions taken.
Lastly, many of us — the significant majority, I’d say — have also fought for the continued right to choose our GOP standard bearers from a voting base of only fellow Republicans, rejecting attempts to water down the selection process via "open" primaries and the like.
All that, yet those driving the party operations, those registering Republicans, coordinating Republican volunteers, fundraising among Republicans, designing Republican mail pieces, communicating with Republican voters, and administering two conventions a year attended by appointed Republican members — all in the name of electing Republican candidates — need not be Republicans themselves?
Of course, citizenship cannot be ignored in this debate, as it does go hand-in-hand with registering to vote. I am the first to applaud those who desire citizenship in this nation, and I applaud more so those legally here who choose to volunteer for the Republican Party in the meantime (heck, I applaud any legal resident who volunteers anywhere in politics while achieving citizenship). In the meantime, however, there are things non-citizens simply cannot do. They cannot circulate election petitions, they cannot run for office, and they cannot register to vote. If limits are placed on the election-related activities of non-citizens by our very laws, how can there possibly be a problem with a political party placing limits on the election-related employment of non-members in its own governing documents?
I’ll leave it to the lawyers and employment "experts" to say whether or not Phil Paule’s amendment flies in the face of Equal Employment Opportunity law. What I do know is that partisan politics is a far cry different than everyday non-partisan employment. Those in the trenches know it’s a battle.
Is it simply paid soldiers the GOP is looking for in the war of ideals, or those who have the same documented allegiance as the ones leading the charge, the candidates for whom they fight?
Just as we expect our GOP candidates to be the best and the brightest, but first Republican, should we not expect the same of our party employees? To get to the answer, a different question must first be posed: By demanding that only registered Republicans may be considered for a job, are we limiting our capabilities, are we somehow diminishing the pool of talent, are we not allowing the best and the brightest to professionally carry out the party’s functions?
There are nearly 5.5 million registered Republicans in the State, even more that could come from anywhere in the nation and register in California. If we can’t answer the last question … then we’re in even deeper trouble than anyone could have thought.
Care to comment on this editorial? Click here to it’s corresponding post on the FR blog where you can add your thoughts to the debate.