Jeong Jang-soo, a preliminary candidate for the People Power Party in Jung-gu, Daegu, announces his withdrawal from the party's primary election at a press conference at the Daegu City Chapter on the 27th.  

The Question Raised by Jeong Jang-soo's Refusal to Participate in the Primary... "Does a Procedural Flaw Restore Candidate Eligibility?"

An unusual scene unfolded in the nomination process surrounding the People Power Party's primary election for Jung-gu mayor in Daegu. Jeong Jang-soo, former Vice Mayor for Economic Affairs of Daegu City, announced his intention not to participate in the primary before it even began on the 27th.

It is common for candidates excluded from nominations to demand a primary. However, it is rare for a candidate who has been given the opportunity to participate in a primary to refuse participation itself. This is why former Vice Mayor Jeong's choice is being interpreted differently from a simple rejection of the nomination.

The reason for former Vice Mayor Jeong's refusal to participate in the primary is also unusual. He held a press conference that day and, referencing the sexual harassment allegations surrounding Ryu Gyu-ha (the current Jung-gu mayor), stated, "Competing in a primary against someone accused of sexual harassment is to implicitly acknowledge their candidacy."

His judgment was that the act of entering the primary itself, regardless of winning or losing, would result in recognizing the opposing candidate as a legitimate public office candidate.

There is a crucial fact that cannot be overlooked here. The Nomination Management Committee of the People Power Party's Daegu City Chapter initially excluded Ryu and recommended Jeong as the sole candidate.

The Nomination Committee did not definitively determine the truth of the sexual harassment allegations as a judicial body would. However, it is plausible to interpret that, at that time, the committee considered the allegations as a significant disqualifying factor for public office candidacy.

Subsequently, the focus shifted from the sexual harassment allegations against Ryu to the procedural issues surrounding Jeong's sole nomination. Ryu's camp and some officials claimed that the decision to nominate Jeong solely did not meet the requirement of more than two-thirds of the present members' approval.

Conversely, Jeong's camp argued that since Ryu had already been excluded from the candidate screening, the sole nomination was a natural subsequent procedure with only one candidate remaining. The issue of procedural flaws remains a debate over the interpretation of party rules rather than a settled fact.

The more fundamental question is whether the procedural debate can directly lead to Ryu's eligibility being restored.

Even if there were problems with the method of approving the sole nomination, what the Nomination Committee should have re-examined was the procedure for Jeong's sole nomination. It could have reconsidered and re-approved Jeong's sole nomination, or, if necessary, reviewed the candidate pool anew while excluding Ryu.

Conversely, if the Nomination Committee were to include Ryu again as a primary candidate, it should have first explained why its initial exclusion decision was overturned. The debate over the quorum for sole nomination is an issue with the procedure for sole nomination, not an indication that Ryu's candidacy has been automatically restored.

In this regard, the principle of *ne bis in idem* can be considered. While the principle of *ne bis in idem* does not legally apply directly to party nomination reviews, the principle of procedural stability, which requires new circumstances or clear grounds when the same body reverses a decision on the same matter in a short period, is important for nomination reviews as well.

If the Nomination Committee excluded Ryu the day before, the decision to re-include Ryu on the primary ballot the following day must be accompanied by an explanation for overturning the exclusion decision. If the Nomination Committee, during the reconsideration process, judged that the grounds for nomination exclusion were insufficient, this would constitute a reversal of the initial candidate eligibility assessment, not a mere procedural correction.

In that case, the Nomination Committee must explain why it could not uphold the previous day's decision and on what grounds Ryu's eligibility to participate in the primary was restored.

It is from this point that Jeong Jang-soo's refusal to participate in the primary gains strength. He found it difficult to accept a situation where, despite the Nomination Committee having once excluded Ryu due to candidate eligibility issues, Ryu was re-entered into the primary race through procedural debates. It is interpreted that he believed participating in that primary would mean he himself was acknowledging Ryu's eligibility as a public office candidate.

Of course, regarding the sexual harassment allegations themselves, it is still difficult to definitively determine which side's claims are true. Ryu's camp views the allegations as a political attack brought up just before the election, four years after the incident, and maintains that there have been no lawsuits, investigations, or judicial judgments.

On the other hand, Jeong's camp argues that since a petition from the alleged victim was submitted during the nomination review process and the Nomination Committee temporarily excluded Ryu, it cannot be dismissed as a mere election-related smear campaign.

The Nomination Committee's dilemma can also be understood from this point. While the truth of the sexual harassment allegations cannot be legally confirmed, it is also difficult for a major political party to completely disregard serious allegations during its candidate vetting process. This is likely why the Nomination Committee initially excluded Ryu.

The problem is that in the process of handling subsequent procedural debates, the issues of candidate eligibility assessment and sole nomination procedure became intertwined. Whether there were problems with the method of approving the sole nomination is a separate issue from whether Ryu is eligible to re-participate in the primary as a candidate for public office.

For this reason, this case cannot be viewed solely as a typical dispute over nomination. Usually, nomination conflicts revolve around public opinion survey methods, the composition of the Nomination Committee, the involvement of local politicians, and the advantages or disadvantages of primary rules. However, former Vice Mayor Jeong's argument raises a question that precedes these issues.

It is not about who will win the primary, but whether competing in a primary with that candidate meets the candidate vetting standards of a major political party.

Politically, this could be seen as a choice that involves accepting a loss. This is because the primary has not yet proceeded, and if Jeong Jang-soo participates, there is still a possibility of him becoming the People Power Party's candidate again.

In elections, politicians usually seize open opportunities. However, Jeong Jang-soo believed that entering that procedure itself would be an act of acknowledging the eligibility of a candidate against whom sexual misconduct allegations had been raised.

In essence, he questioned the meaning of participating in the primary, regardless of victory or defeat.

Jeong Jang-soo also raised the issue of his intention to report Ryu and alleged leaks of nomination review materials. He claimed that the petition from the alleged victim of sexual harassment was leaked externally and published by the media, and that the results of preliminary survey polls were also leaked to a specific candidate and used as promotional material.

Regardless of the final truth of the sexual harassment allegations, how sensitive materials submitted during the nomination review process were managed is also an issue that needs to be investigated going forward.

This case goes beyond who will become the People Power Party's candidate for Jung-gu mayor.

By what standards should a major political party vet candidates against whom sexual misconduct allegations have been raised? Can any allegations be subject to candidate eligibility review without a definitive judicial ruling? Conversely, if eligibility can be restricted based solely on allegations, what should be the strictness of those standards and procedures?

Nomination disputes usually end with a struggle for positions. However, Jeong Jang-soo's declaration of non-participation in the primary left a different question hanging.

Can procedural debates serve as grounds for restoring candidate eligibility? If the same Nomination Committee can overturn a candidate eligibility assessment in just one day, to what extent does the responsibility for explanation lie?

This is why Jeong Jang-soo's refusal to participate in the primary is seen as an unusual and fresh shock.