By: Joseph Corredor As of Tuesday night, The Federalist party is facing a potential lawsuit on the grounds of a forced loyalty contract. Although final state election results are in, questions are arising about the early processes of the election, specifically in the Federalist caucus. According to multiple anonymous candidates who were on the ballot for the Federalist caucus, any delegate wishing to run for the party ticket was required to sign a form that would tie him to follow the party platform. At first glance, this may appear to be a pretty standard procedure, but with further examination, it appears that there might have been problems with this idea. Many of the candidates interviewed explained that forcing a candidate to abide by every single party view, especially when delegates were placed into these parties based off of five vague questions, in order to be on the ballot may have legal implications. Those interviewed believed that this has ramifications in relation to the first amendment, specifically freedom of speech. Every interviewed candidate believed that if there were consequences of going against this form when in office, it would be a direct violation of the First Amendment. Although most of the interviewees believed that there could be possible unconstitutional aspects of this form, some support this form as a vital part of the process. One candidate concluded that the Federalist party, after seeing the formation of a third party, might have used this form as a tactic to keep the party unified and prevent an offshoot. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your party) this is not just a speculatory issue. After speaking to a member of the District Attorney’s office, it appears that there could be a potential lawsuit against the Federalist Party. He further commented on the chance of a suit, saying, “I would say 90 percent”, he went on to explain that he believes it will be filed tomorrow morning. The complaint is allegedly coming from a Federalist state office candidate that did not make it past the party caucus. Whether or not this pledge is unconstitutional, this story raises multiple questions including the importance of the survey that determines a delegate’s party, the role of a party post-state election, and if a two/three party system is enoug]]>
x
