Exposing the Legal Theatrics of West Virginia Democratic Party Politics at Proxy Grievance Hearing
Behind the veneer of procedural mastery, Party leadership prioritizes control over democratic principles.
When dealing with the intricacies of internal West Virginia Democratic Party (WVDP) politics, there's far too often an air of legal theater reminiscent of a television courtroom drama. This was on full display in the recent WVDP Board of Appeals hearing involving WV State Democratic Executive Committee member and President of the West Virginia Young Democrats, Jacob Hively, against WVDP Chair Mike Pushkin. Hively's grievance over the WVDP allowing members to hold multiple proxy votes for state party elections in September 2023, provides the backdrop for this drama, pitting the leadership's proclaimed procedural prowess against accusations of democratic violations.
Party leaders, including Pushkin, seemingly envision themselves as the embodiment of legal icons like Matlock or Perry Mason, always ready for high-stakes legal battles and for extraordinary revelations that leave their audience shocked by their cleverness and strategic acumen. They approached the Board of Appeals hearing wielding precedents and rules like weapons, exhibiting the grandeur of masters in political maneuvering and procedural combat.
The truth is that the leadership's arguments often lack coherence and democratic integrity. Their reliance on convenient technicalities over relevant principles reveals a penchant for dramatic showmanship, not mastery of democratic procedures or precedent. They weave an imagined narrative of unassailable legal reasoning shielding impeccable decisions. However, this fantasy ignores the glaring contradictions, arbitrary inconsistencies, and anti-democratic maneuvers underpinning their actions.
As this legal drama unfolded, the gap between the leadership's self-vision of procedural invincibility and the messy reality of selective rule manipulation becomes starkly apparent. Party leadership's performance during Jacob Hively's grievance hearing was worthy of an Emmy nomination. Here, they assumed the roles of legal dramatists, brandishing their interpretations of rules and precedents as though they were seasoned actors in a high-stakes courtroom drama. Their approach, however, bears a closer resemblance to a scripted performance in a fictional TV show than to the principles of democratic governance.
During the hearing, WVDP leadership fixated on a narrative of ensuring representation for WV Democrats from specific regions. This stance, commendable in theory, starkly contrasts with their actions. The leadership argued that not allowing multiple proxies would disenfranchise many Democrats, conveniently overlooking the DNC's advocacy for a one-person-one-vote system to ensure equitable representation.
This narrative becomes increasingly ironic when considering their decision to limit virtual participation at the same meeting, despite calls from members who expected to be able to participate virtually with many citing fears of contracting Covid 19. This unilateral, arbitrary decision by the chair denied representation to thousands of other Democrats.
In one scene, party leadership argued that the guidance issued by a parliamentarian at the September 2023, meeting was not binding. Their rationale was not based on the substance of the advice but rather on a technicality: the parliamentarian was not the official elected parliamentarian. This reasoning, more fitting for a narrative twist in a TV show, provided a convenient loophole for the leadership. It allowed them to dismiss the parliamentarian's input, conveniently sidestepping advice that conflicted with their agenda. This move sharply contradicted the image they tried to project as principled leaders committed to rules and procedures.
Perhaps the most central argument made by the WVDP leadership during Jacob Hively's grievance hearing involved invoking a specific ruling from 2016. This ruling pertained to the delegate selection process for the Democratic National Convention. In that instance, the party had allowed for the holding of multiple proxies by individuals, a decision that was made under particular circumstances unique to that year's delegate selection process.
This precedent, brought up years later in the context of Hively's grievance, was presented by the leadership as a key justification for their stance on allowing multiple proxies in the September 2023 meeting. The leadership's argument hinged on the idea that since multiple proxies were permitted in this past delegate selection scenario, it set a precedent that could be applied to the current situation.
The way party leaders wielded this obscure ruling was akin to a climactic moment in a legal drama, where a long-forgotten piece of evidence suddenly emerges to turn the tide. However, unlike a scripted show where such revelations are often pivotal to the plot, the reality of this move was its blatant disregard for the spirit of democratic governance. Party leadership's demonstrated willingness to delve into the depths of party history to find any ruling that might support their position and their subsequent reliance on this precedent suggests that their stated position was less about upholding democratic values and more about maintaining a narrative that served their interests.
This act of reaching into the depths of party history for a convenient ruling, while ignoring more pertinent and recent precedents, like the precedent set at a June 2022, meeting of the chaired by Pushkin wherein Pushkin made a ruling denying members the right to hold multiple proxies, exemplified the leadership's selective approach to governance. It revealed a pattern of bending rules and manipulating procedures to fit their desired narrative, prioritizing their version of events over the principles of fairness and democratic integrity that are supposed to guide the party's actions.
This selective recall of an obscure historical decision, especially considering their deviation from established pandemic-era practices like denying virtual participation, underscores a concerning inconsistency in governance. The leadership's decision to limit virtual access, despite requests citing COVID-19 concerns, effectively disenfranchised a significant portion of the membership. This action, juxtaposed against their lax stance on proxy voting, paints a clear picture of selective rule application that serves a few at the cost of many.
Jacob Hively's grievance against the WVDP thus becomes a glaring example of the leadership's departure from fundamental democratic principles. Their performance in the hearing was less about upholding democratic values and more about maintaining a sense of correctness and control. As these tactics of grandiosity and gaslighting come to light, they reveal a leadership more focused on their own narrative than on fostering democratic processes, leaving the audience — WVDP members and the general public — to confront the stark reality of a governance style that prioritizes personal agendas over democratic integrity.
As the legal charade within the West Virginia Democratic Party (WVDP) reached its crescendo, the Board of Appeals' ruling on Jacob Hively's grievance further exposed the deeply entrenched issues within the party’s governance. The board's decision, which came across as a blatant endorsement of Chair Mike Pushkin's agenda, highlighted a troubling disregard for the arguments presented by Hively and his counsel. This decision was not merely a procedural formality; it was a stark illustration of the inherent conflict of interest and lack of impartiality that plagues the party's decision-making process.
The Board of Appeals, appointed by the very chair against whom the grievance was filed, is analogous to a police department investigating its own officers and invariably finding them justified in their actions. It's a scenario that raises significant concerns about fairness and accountability, akin to a schoolyard game where a bully keeps shifting the rules whenever they start to lose. This dynamic within the WVDP is not just an issue of procedural missteps; it's indicative of a deeper, more systemic problem where power and control are prioritized over fairness and democratic principles.
The board's 3-0 ruling, in essence, served as a rubber stamp for Pushkin's perspective, dismissing the substantial and well-founded arguments brought forward by Hively. This approach by the board was not just inept; it was oppressively dismissive of the legitimate concerns raised about the democratic processes within the party. It showcased a leadership and a governance structure more focused on maintaining the status quo and protecting its own, rather than engaging in a fair and transparent review of the grievances presented.
This episode within the WVDP is emblematic of a party struggling with internal power dynamics, where the rules seem malleable and subject to the whims of those in control. It's a situation that not only undermines the trust and faith of the members in the party’s leadership but also jeopardizes the party's integrity and standing in the broader political landscape. The board's decision, far from resolving the issues at hand, only served to highlight the urgent need for reform and a recommitment to the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability within the WVDP.
As the final credits roll on the WVDP leadership's courtroom drama, the stark reality of their actions comes into sharp focus. The facade of legal mastery and procedural invincibility, once meticulously upheld, crumbles under the weight of their own inconsistencies and manipulative tactics. What remains is an unsettling portrait of a leadership more committed to maintaining control than fostering genuine democratic processes.
Turning off the TV, stepping back from the fictionalized legal battles, the real-world consequences of the leadership's actions become undeniable. They have fostered an environment where democratic principles are compromised, member engagement is stifled, and the party's future hangs in the balance. The urgent need for a sincere reassessment of the WVDP's leadership and governance practices is clear. Only through a commitment to transparency, accountability, and genuine democratic values can the party hope to mend its fractures, restore its integrity, and rebuild trust with its members and the broader electorate of West Virginia. The time for change is now; the party must confront its reality, moving beyond the illusion of control and grandstanding, to secure a more democratic and representative future.
About the Author: About the Author: