As pointed out by Todd Shepherd over at CompleteColorado.com, the Constitutionalist Today newspaper (some of the earliest and strongest backers of Dan Maes) has run an article making a case that Tom Tancredo is not eligible to be the American Constitution Party’s candidate for Governor Colorado because he has not been a party member for long enough.  The real question comes down to whether the Constitution Party’s bylaws allow the wiggle room to get around the state law requirements.  I’m not a lawyer, but my take is that this is no worse than 50/50 for Tancredo’s run, not least because the Colorado government is run by Democrats who are probably quite happy to see Tom in the race. Furthermore, on a less partisan note, if it truly is a judgment call given lack of clarity in law or party bylaws, government should err on the side of allowing rather than disqualifying a candidate.  Rather like a judge erring on the side of letting a jury hear a case, because that’s how our system is designed to work and how it (usually) works best.

It should be noted that this is not the first time the issue has come up.  From a July article in the Colorado Independent: “Rich Coolidge, director of communications for the Colorado Secretary of State, says ‘party bylaws trump state law when there is a vacancy.’ He says the executive committee of the American Constitution Party will have to vote by two-thirds majority to designate a replacement for the candidate who withdraws from the race."  However, as Getchey points out in his article, it is not clear that this 2/3 majority exception applies to Tancredo’s situation.

For your reference, allow me to highlight some relevant sections of Colorado election law:

Section 1-4-1002 of Colorado Revised Statutes says, in subsection 2.3 which discusses a party vacancy occurring after a primary and before a general election, that

No person is eligible for appointment to fill a vacancy in the party nomination unless the person meets all of the requirements of candidacy as of the date of the primary election.

Section 1-4-1304, subsection 2, which discusses qualifications for nomination, says:

Nominations by a minor political party, to be valid, shall be made in accordance with the party’s constitution or bylaws. No nomination under this section shall be valid for any general election held after January 1, 1999, unless the nominee:

(b) Has been affiliated for a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of nomination with the minor political party that is making the nomination as shown in the registration books of the county clerk and recorder unless otherwise provided in the constitution or bylaws of the minor political party; and

© Has not been registered as a member of a major political party for at least twelve months prior to the date of nomination unless otherwise provided in the constitution or bylaws of the minor political party.

I would expect some Republican to file a challenge to Tancredo’s candidacy.  I can’t help but wonder whether the Constitutionalist Today ran this article in an effort to give Dan Maes reason to stay in the race. The paper is “all-in” for Maes…unfortunately.  If that was their intention, they need to start considering the good of the state rather than their reputation for judgment in backing candidates.  The same can be said of many current Maes supporters, some of whom are clearly sticking with him just because they expended some of their own political capital and are staking some of their own political reputations on Maes’ success.