CATOOSA GOP’S ODD QUEST

If we didn’t know better, we’d think the report came from the satirical publication The Onion.

The Catoosa County Republican Party thought it would be a good idea to place questions on Georgia’s May primary ballot which basically impugned the integrity of four candidates the party was forced to add to the same ballot after it initially had rejected them.

One of the proposed questions would have asked voters: “Did you know that Steven Henry, Vanita Hullander, Jeff Long, and Larry Black were not approved to run as Republicans by the Republican Party?” That — when those same four names were found elsewhere on the ballot, three already being elected Republican county commissioners or the commission chair and the fourth being a former elected Republican commissioner and commission chair.

They also might have added: “Did you know that candidate X once had an extra-marital affair?” or “Did you know that Candidate Y once had to declare bankruptcy?”

The office of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger quickly said nay-nay.

“We advised the Catoosa Republican Party that the submitted party questions containing the names of candidates on the primary ballot could violate provisions of the Georgia Elections Code prohibiting electioneering,” spokesperson Mike Hassinger told Times Free Press reporter Andrew Wilkins in an email. “We provided an opportunity for them to submit alternative questions.”

However, the party opted not to do so by Monday’s deadline.

Hassinger said it was the first time the office had seen a county party name candidates in a ballot question.

We suspect he didn’t add but wanted to: “We have no idea what they were thinking.”

Voters could still challenge the candidates’ qualifications, and some already have done so. A hearing on candidate challenges will be 9 a.m. April 2 at the Catoosa County Courthouse.

For those unfamiliar with how we got here, a Catoosa County GOP committee earlier decided that Black, Henry, Hullander and Long were not qualified as Republicans because committee members didn’t feel they hewed to every jot and tittle of the Georgia state GOP party platform.

In other words, they might have made decisions in office based on common sense, on what they thought voters would have them do or what they believed was the right thing for the county based on the information they had at the time.

The decision, naturally, didn’t sit well with the candidates, who appealed it. In turn, a Superior Court judge ordered that the candidates be allowed to qualify as Republicans.

Thwarted, the committee decided to try to get its point across to voters — who by now were probably fairly familiar with the issue — by telling them what they wanted them to know about the candidates in a set of yes-no ballot questions.

Some people might call it trying to game the system. In addition to the aforementioned question, one of the committee’s other queries was:

› “Do you think anti-Trump Democrats should be able to get a court order to force the elections board to qualify them as Republican candidates for office?”

But just so nobody would think the committee was only interested in the alleged RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), members added a question sure to interest North Georgia’s gun enthusiasts.

› “Would you support state legislation that would prevent federal law enforcement agencies from using state and local law enforcement to seize firearms?”

“Asking county Republicans about the effort,” Joanna Hildreth, the county’s party chair, said in an email to Wilkins, “is to ensure we get and understand accurate public feedback as to whether or not voters want people who do not act like Republicans to be listed on a primary or general election ballot as ‘Republican.’”

Well, at least she was honest about the intent of the ballot questions, though a sense of fairness should have nudged the committee not to take such a step.

We’re still not sure why the committee didn’t just leave the question to the voters. The ability to challenge the qualifications of candidates with the five-person county Board of Elections (with potential appeals to Superior Court) also was in play.

If Republican (or Democratic) voters deemed Black, Henry, Hullander and Long not sufficiently conservative for their taste, all they needed to do — and can do now, barring any challenges being upheld — was to vote for someone else they feel is more conservative.

Up to now, that’s what Catoosa County voters — and most of the rest of the country — have done when confronted between candidates who weren’t sufficiently (pick your party) and those who were. We don’t see why it should change.