Balancing on political platforms

Through decades of political control, Hawaii’s Democratic Party has been regarded as a "big tent" — but now, it is letting it be known that discipline is required.

Given its dominance here, though, should the positions taken by the party’s state organization overrule the desire of constituents in a particular district or a politician’s floating of ideas for public discussion?

In other states, discipline of public officials is exercised by voters at the polls, says Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

"It reveals itself in primaries," Sabato said. "That’s where punishing is done, if indeed the electorate wants to punish. It’s up to the voters."

Increasingly, Democrats here are putting a grip on elected officials through the party’s organization: They are legally challenging Hawaii’s system of open primaries; and cringed when former Lingle administration appointee Laura Thielen ran as a Democrat — and won — a state Senate seat last year, despite publicly disavowing her as not a party member in good standing.

Individual Republicans have switched parties ever since the Democrats have controlled the state. In the 1980s, Donna Ikeda, Virginia Isbell, Ann Kobayashi and Kina‘u Kamali‘i joined the Democratic Party to protest GOP fundamentalism. D.G. "Andy" Anderson ran as a Democrat for governor in 2001 because it was broader, more inclusive and more representative of Hawaii.

In recent years, though, the Democratic Party has begun to go after members who have steered away from its policies. Outgoing City Councilman Gary Okino resigned from the party in 2010 after party leaders in the county voted to expel him for his support of several Republican candidates who shared his opposition to civil unions and abortion.

In fall 2012, Oahu Democrats ultimately voted not to censure state Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz for sponsoring a land-development bill that would have let counties create planning districts around transit stations. Spurred by Democratic environmentalists who contended that the bill contradicted the party’s platform of sustaining the environment, a party investigative committee had recommended that Dela Cruz be censured — but Oahu Democrats eventually voted against censure.

State Sen. Mike Gabbard, a year after being elected as a Republican, joined the Democratic Party in 2007 not because he had changed his conservative views on social issues, but to become more influential in a Democratic-run Legislature.

"It was clear to me that if I wanted to be effective, if I wanted to get something accomplished for the people who elected me, it would have to be in the majority party," he said.

However, he was censured by the Democratic Party in 2009 for violating the platform on equal rights by actively working against a civil unions bill.

Last month, an investigative party panel recommended that Gabbard be reprimanded and that state Rep. Sharon Har be censured for having introduced a constitutional amendment on traditional marriage, contrary to the party’s platform. Gabbard — who, like Har, represents Makakilo and Kapolei — said polls taken in the district have shown that 60 percent of his constituency agrees with his and Har’s position.

For each political party, the membership meets to approve a party platform of issues and positions upon which candidates will run.

"A party platform is a set of principles, goals, and strategies designed to address pressing political issues," according to the Constitutional Rights Foundation. "Each party’s platform is broken down into ‘planks,’ or declarations that speak to each specific issue."

For politicians then, as well as for the edification of voters, a candidate’s party affiliation provides a general signpost for values and beliefs.

The Hawaii Democratic Party’s constitution requires that every member "shall support the party platform." Party bylaws allow censure, reprimand or expulsion for "failure to abide" by that.

"It’s been part of the (party’s) constitution from Day 1," said Dante Carpenter, the party’s state chairman. "I would assume there are similar bylaws in virtually every other state’s Democratic Party constitution."

But Carpenter’s statement about the commonality of a party’s punish- ment of elected officials for acting astray surprises political observers.

"It’s very unusual," said Sabato. "I certainly don’t know of any other cases."

He checked with members of his "Crystal Ball" staff and said "they agreed 100 percent" that they had "never heard of a similar action" in American history.

"Usually," Sabato said, "party leaders and activists will simply oppose an apostate at primary time, backing another candidate.

"Every now and then, party leaders will be forced to disavow someone nominated by primary voters, such as a KKK member who slips through the process.

"But formal expulsion or censure for refusing to obey the platform? I certainly know it hasn’t been a part of the South’s history," he added. "There were loyalty oaths — requiring party nominees to back all Democrats, in the era where the South was one-party Democratic, and the oaths were controversial and ignored."

"It’s not common," agreed Neal Milner, University of Hawaii emeritus professor of political science. "It’s not consistent with the way political parties in the United States traditionally work" because they "have traditionally been kind of big tents open to all kinds of ideas."

Political party officials "aren’t very strong at the state level in a kind of bureaucratic sense," Milner said. "They don’t run campaigns. They don’t do much day to day. It’s mainly a collection of amateurs who get together to write platforms and the lowest kind of other things but they’re not really involved in day-to-day activities the way parties in more ideological situations might be."

Gabbard said he expected to be able to maintain his political positions upon becoming a Democrat.

"My whole thought about this was that as Democrats we’re supposed to be the big tent and welcome people of all races, backgrounds, cultures, points of view, etc. I’ve been hearing from many lifelong Democrats that are actually embarrassed that I’m having to waste my time on this (reprimand proposal)."

Carpenter said Gabbard’s conservative stance on social issues was "a known feature" prior to his acceptance in the Democratic Party.

"Obviously, that was one of his issues" and "one of the criticisms that he was getting at the time."

In a two-party system, Milner said, "you tend to lose out if you’re rigid ideologically; it’s winner take all. Some of that may be changing because parties have become more polarized and more ideological, even at the state level."

A sign of that movement arose in the GOP in 2010, when the Republican National Committee, meeting in Honolulu, accepted a rule that required its party’s candidates to support 10 policy positions in the party’s conservative platform in order to obtain financial support through the party.

Carpenter said his party’s policy should be decided from freedom of discussion to be followed by "unity of action and consistency as well."

But should that be determined by party officials and forced upon elected officials?

"Parties in all states write platforms that tend to be very extreme on both sides, tend to be very pure, and tend to be ignored," said Milner. "That’s how the American political parties work, just as it does on the national level, and most of the time it’s clearly understood that you wink at some of it."

As a result, in 20 states that are "heavily one-party" — left and right — party policy is not up to party officials, Sabato said.

"If people tolerate it, that’s fine," he said, "but I think my preference would be to leave it to the voters. That’s kind of the voters’ job to decide whether to purge someone or not, and the proper venue is probably the primary."