Wisconsin Election Laws Need Candidates To Prove They Belong To The Party They Claim to Represent

During the recalls and in several state and local elections, both parties have complained about candidates running as spoilers under one party’s banner while actually supporting the agenda or platform of the opposition party.

And now we have Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke who has historically run as a Democrat actively campaigning for Donald Trump and who actually spoke at the Republican National Convention.

Candidates should be required to prove they are actual members of the parties they claim to represent…and election law should reflect that requirement (and no ‘dual citizenship’ allowed either).

Share:

Related Articles

12 thoughts on “Wisconsin Election Laws Need Candidates To Prove They Belong To The Party They Claim to Represent

  1. I’m not sure about this one. While some of these instances are problematic, I’m not sure that I agree running in an election should be limited strictly to party members.

    1. I am not suggesting that people can’t run if they aren’t connected to a party. I am suggesting the someone like Sheriff Clarke who is clearly a Republican can’t run as a Democrat which he has done every time he’s been up for election. By all means, everyone who wants to run for office should be able to…but if they don’t belong to a party…they need to run as an independent…and this only applies to partisan elections.

        1. New Hampshire requires candidates for president to show their party membership card. Senator Sanders had to JOIN the party in order to run as a Democrat. Why should this be any different? Currently you only have to file your paperwork with the state or local election office and declare your affiliation. It isn’t that hard.

      1. I would explain him as the result of a failure by the Democrats to get their voters to the polls in the primary.

  2. At a very minimum, WisDems ought to be making some noise about him passing himself off as a Democrat. I don’t know about anyone else, but all I’ve heard are crickets.

    1. This is the part I don’t understand. Why aren’t Dems calling Clarke a fraud every chance they get? Waiting until 2 months before a low-turnout primary isn’t the time to do it, guys/gals. You lay the groundwork and keep repeating it- that Clarke is a paid-off liar playing a role for angry white conservatives.

  3. Clark’ phony affiliation is an open admission of the current failure of the party of Lincoln and the sheriff’s cowardice to be truthful.. In legal terms, it seems to me he would be guilty of perjury when taking the oath of office under a false pretense.

    Where are the Milwaukee evangelicals; isn’t the devil the father of lies?

    And where is the Journal’s editor or their holier than thou “Christian”? “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” is both moral and a necessity in any communication, but especially in an election

Comments are closed.