Voters rip Democrats’ oath plan

Dumb.

That’s how people all over South Carolina characterized the state Democratic Party’s decision to require voters to declare they are Democrats if they want to participate in Tuesday’s presidential primary.

Consider Herb Hoefer, a 52-year-old state social services worker. He plans to show poll workers his registration card, but he will not sign the oath.

And if they try to stop him from voting?

“I’ll tell them to stick it in their ear; I’m voting,” Hoefer vowed.

Mike Grogan, a 45-year-old produce manager for Publix, called himself an independent but said he will not sign any pledge.

“I’ll just turn and walk out,” he said. “Requiring an oath is not right. It’ll turn a lot of people off.”

B.J. Wellborn said she and three other voters in her home will not vote because they resent the pledge.

And John McLeod of Greenville said he had planned to vote until he read that he had to take a Democratic oath.

“That would lead to being ostracized by all the Greenville Republicans.”

Strategically, the move could throw a damper on turnout and hurt the chances of candidates John Edwards, Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman — who are hoping to attract independent voters and disaffected Republicans.

“It sounds like one of the stupidest ideas I’ve heard in a long time,” said Rice University political scientist Earl Black, formerly of the University of South Carolina. “This makes no sense at all. It just steps on the effort of South Carolina Democrats to create a situation to build the party.”

Voters who appear at their polling places will be asked to sign an oath swearing that “I consider myself to be a Democrat” before casting their ballots.

The purpose is to deter Republicans from voting in the contest to create mischief.

Benedict College analyst Glenda Suber sees nothing wrong with the oath.

“The party is trying to make sure the candidate selected by the voters on Tuesday represents the thinking of Democrats in South Carolina,” she said.

The pledge is legal because the Democratic Party — not the state Election Commission — pays for and runs the presidential primary.

State Democratic Party chairman Joe Erwin, who noted the rule had been on the party books since 1976, stressed the oath doesn’t bind voters in any way. He said voters — especially independents and disaffected Republicans — should feel free to participate in the primary.

The contest is open to all registered voters.

Republicans did not require a loyalty oath during their 2000 presidential primary between George W. Bush and John McCain.

Butch Wallace, former chairman of the Lexington County GOP, said the Democratic leaders obviously don’t trust the voters.

“It shows a certain amount of skepticism on the part of Democratic leaders,” he said. “They’re not comfortable with the people.”

Bob Wislinski, a Columbia-based Democratic consultant, called the loyalty oath “extremely stupid.”

“It’s self-defeating,” he said. “What were they thinking?”

Wislinski predicted it would hurt Edwards, who, most polls show, is the overwhelming favorite of independents. The latest tracking survey conducted by Zogby International had Edwards holding a comfortable lead among independents with 30 percent. U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts was next with 14 percent.

Edwards also is the favorite among Republicans in the poll — 29 percent to 13 percent for Kerry.

“If Edwards loses here,” Wislinski said, “he probably could trace it to the loyalty oath.

“This whole thing could come back to bite them.”

Edwards’ spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said the campaign isn’t concerned about the pledge. She doubted it would hurt Edwards’ effort to reach out to independent voters and disaffected Republicans.

“This is nothing new,” she added. “We’ve known all along that this rule existed.”

Brad Gomez, a USC political scientist, said loyalty oaths aren’t unheard of, but “I don’t think it’s a smart idea, strategically, for Democrats to be doing it.”