Republicans Elect

Rules were made to be broken, gutted, twisted, changed, altered, hijacked

2012-08-26T16:00:00.000-05:00

Posted Sunday, 26 August 2012. If you care about the rules that will govern the Republican Party nationally both this week at the convention in Tampa, Florida, and for the next four years and beyond, then a lot is going on right now that you are going to need to come up to speed on. And it's not easy to keep up, because most media outlets don't consider rules to matter much, hence the very spotty reporting on the same.

But rules matter a great deal. And never in my lifetime have the rules that are supposed to matter at a Republican national convention been violated so flagrantly by forces loyal to the presumptive nominee as we have seen in the last several days, weeks, and months.

Here's one you might have missed.

According to the Huffington Post:

John Ryder, an RNC committeeman from Tennessee, proposed the threshold change from five states to 10 to nominate a candidate from the floor. But Morton Blackwell, a committeeman from Virginia, rose and spoke vigorously in opposition to the measure.

Morton Blackwell has done more to keep the Republican National Committee's rules fair over the last several decades, than any other person alive. Any national delegates or RNC members attending the convention in Tampa who stands for fair process and grassroots control of the party must do everything possible to inform themselves of the fights that Mr. Blackwell is waging on behalf of Republican voters everywhere and in opposition to those who would turn this and future conventions into a playground for well-heeled candidates and their insider consultants. Said Mr. Blackwell:

"Increasing it [the number of states delegations required to nominate a a Republican presidential candidate] to 10 is, I think, a choke operation," Blackwell said. "And would discourage people from participating within our Republican Party."

"All we are talking about here -– let's put it frankly -- is the possibility that somebody like Ron Paul would be denied the possibility, after he carried five states, to have his name placed into nomination," Blackwell said. "This is a very bad idea. And we have got to, in this party, treat newcomers fairly."

"This would be taken as a slap in the face to grassroots people," he said.

Blackwell is exactly correct.

According to the Huffington Post, Mr. Ryder pulled his proposal and instead secured the adoption of a bizarre change that requires that state delegations that wish to place a candidate's name in nomination notify the convention one hour in advance of their plan to do so. I'm still trying to figure out what possible motivation could be behind such a strange rule.

Mr. Ryder is violating a fundamental maxim with regard to free and fair elections.

In the United States, we call it moving the goal posts.

Anyone who understands that expression should be inherently offended that operatives for Mitt Romney would be trying to undertake such last minute changes to the rules that govern the convention. Such rules changes should be prohibited at this stage of the process and any rules change adopted at this point should not take effect until the 2016 cycle. This should go without saying. But in the world of ramrodded Romney elections, these kinds of inviolable principles have next to no place.

"Anything for a win. Lie. Cheat. Steal. Arrest. Assault. Because in the end, it's not how you pulled it off, it's just that you did." Isn't that what we have learned from Mitt Romney's minions, like John Ryder this year?

RNC Associate Counsel's Opinion on Rule 38 of the RNC Rules barring the "unit rule"

2012-05-14T23:11:00.004-05:00

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: RULE NO 38 - UNIT RULE
FROM: RNC COUNSEL
TO: NANCY LORD
DATE: AUG 20, 2008

________________________________________________________________

This Memorandum is based on your request to examine the Republican Party Rules history

relating to the so-called “Unit Rule” provision currently found at Rule 38 which states, “No

delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or congressional district

to impose the unit rule”.

This language was initially adopted at the 1964 Republican National Convention, paraphrasing

the words of the proponent of the amendment, in order to codify in party rules the actual practice

followed in past conventions, namely to allow delegates to vote as they chose even if state law

bound them to vote for a specific candidate.

This amendment which modified then Rule 18(a) was initiated by the RNC Rules Committee and

adopted by the full RNC at its pre-convention meeting. That ’64 language stated, “No Delegate

or Alternate shall be bound by any attempt of any State or Congressional District, the District of

Columbia, Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands to impose the unit rule.” Based upon a review of the

transcripts of the RNC debate on the “Unit Rule”, proponents of the ’64 amendment argued that

their amendment to Rule 18 merely reflected current practice and adopting this Rules change

would simply memorialize what was the historical Convention practice, not create a new policy.

During the debate on the “Unit Rule” amendment, there was some concern raised that the new

language would be interpreted by some to prohibit the individual states from adopting rules

that would bind or allocate delegates to specific candidates. The proponents, however, gave

assurances that it was not their intention to effect any “legal or “moral” obligation of the delegates.

Based upon the concern raised that this provision would be erroneously read to prohibit states to

bind or allocate delegates a concerted effort was made to defeat the amendment. That effort to

reject the addition of the new “Unit Rule” language based on that concern, failed, 59 to 41.

In 1976 the no “Unit Rule” language was modified by the RNC Rules Committee, effectively

requiring the 1976 Convention to record delegate votes based on the results of “any binding

Presidential Primary or direct election of delegates bound or pledged pursuant to state law.” The

Convention Rules Committee and the Convention itself accepted this RNC modification without

any debate. The additional Rule 18(a) language applicable to the 1976 Republican Convention

read as follows, “…however, that in any event, the vote of each state for the nomination for

President shall be announced and recorded (or in the absence of an announcement shall be

recorded) in accordance with the results of any binding Presidential Primary or direct election of

delegates bound or pledged pursuant to state law. No delegate or alternate shall be bound by any

attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.”

The ’76 language was deleted in 1980 effectively reverting back to the 1964 language and the

current language regarding the “Unit Rule” now found in Rule 38 is consistent with the 1980

language.

Dear Blake and Sean,

Thank you so much for the memorandum [above] regarding the history of the Rule 38.

After studying it, I still have unanswered questions.

From the memo, I am clear that:

1. Rule 38 was not intended "to prohibit the individual states from adopting rules that would bind or allocate delegates to specific candidates".

What I need clarified is the following:

1. Do the RNC Rules require a state's delegation to follow its state laws or state party rules in the matter of binding of their national delegates to vote for a particular candidate? (I believe the answer is no; the RNC Rules are silent on this issue. My understanding is that any “legal" or “moral” obligation of the delegates, under either state law or state party rules, is simply that -- a state party matter. The RNC will not get involved in any such issue unless it deems that there is a violation of Rule 38 - an attempt to invoke the "Unit Rule" - during the time of the national convention.)

2. Do the RNC Rules prohibit a state party from changing its rules regarding the binding of their national delegates after the 2nd Tuesday in the September the year before the convention but before the national convention begins? (I believe the answer is no - the RNC Rules are again silent on this issue.)

3. Do the RNC Rules allow a national delegate to cast their vote for anyone they choose at the national convention, regardless of any vote-binding rules in their state or regardless of whether or not that "candidate" has been officially nominated under the RNC "majority of delegates from five states" rule? (I believe the answer is yes. I cite the actual rolling roll call of the states vote in 2000 as an example. In several states, even though George W. Bush had for many months been the presumptive nominee, several states, including Arkansas (19 for Bush, 5 for Alan Keyes) in the 2nd session on Monday evening, Massachusetts (35 for Bush, 1 for McCain, and 1 abstention) in the 3rd session on Tuesday evening,

4. Is the process of the "rolling roll call of the states" the process by which it is determined which candidates have met the RNC "majority of delegates from five states" rule in order to have their name officially placed in nomination? In other words, or as a corollary, do only those candidates who receive a "majority of delegates from five states" votes during the "rolling roll call of the states" become an official nominee, while any candidates receiving votes who did not receive the required majority of five states' votes simply fall to the floor, having not met the threshold?

Is there any way that you can clarify the answers to these questions in writing before tomorrow morning?

Nancy Lord

Utah Republican Republican National Committeewoman

From: Jennifer Sheehan - Legal

To: Nancy Lord

Cc: Sean Cairncross - Legal ; Blake G. Hall

Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008

Subject: RE: The Unit Rule

Mrs. Lord:

I am going to attempt to clearly answer your questions as listed below.

1. You are correct - the answer is no. The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person's name is officially placed into nomination or not.

2. National Party Rule No. 15(e) does prohibit State Parties from changing their delegate selection and allocation process that the State Party had to submit to the RNC no later than Sept. 4, 2007. However, the time frame for submitting a challenge to the national convention delegation based upon these Rules has expired, as any delegate contests had to be filed by August 2, 2008.

3. Yes - see #1 above.

4. Your question is mixing two separate issues. The first issue involves the nominating process, which requires the majority of delegates from five states to put a candidate's name into the official nominating process. The delegates from these five states must sign a nominating form that is then submitted to the Secretary of the Republican National Convention. After the Secretary receives these forms, the candidates are announced who have been officially placed into the nominating process and are therefore eligible to accumulate votes from the national convention delegates.

The Rules require that a roll call be taken from each state who announces the number of votes that its delegates cast for any eligible candidates, as well as for any person someone would like to cast a vote for in the roll call. You are correct that a person does not have to be officially nominated in order to receive votes, however, this vote is essentially pointless as it will not count towards the official tally.

Therefore to clarify, a candidate must receive the support of the majority of five state delegations in order to be officially placed into the nomination. Only candidates that have been officially nominated can accumulate votes that will count towards the majority of delegates necessary to officially nominate the Republican nominee for President. The Republican nominee for President must receive at least 1191 votes from the national convention delegation in order to receive the official nomination.

Please let me know if you have additional questions or need further clarifications related to this process.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Sheehan

Associate Counsel

Republican National Committee

St. Patrick's Day Massacre - Exhibit A

2012-03-19T01:59:00.000-05:00

St. Charles County Republicans embarrassed by caucus shutdown

What an excellent site

2012-02-15T13:36:00.000-06:00

ElectAd.com

Their self-description: ElectAd is a website where we showcase - primarily - all the ads from all the campaigns. We cover all ads from the candidate campaigns, national organizations, outside groups and grassroots. No matter the candidate, party or group. We are unbiased. We do not endorse or promote any single candidate, campaign or party. In addition to ads we carry the gaffes, the buzz, the debates, speeches, interviews and rallies. For Further information please read our About page.

This is what transparent vote counting looks like

2012-02-07T00:21:00.003-06:00

http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/J5ZjDU6vKc2k/info/

Fox News reporting Gingrich may challenge Florida GOP's winner-take-all allocation

2012-02-02T07:30:00.001-06:00

View Full Story here >>

Your cheating chart.

2012-01-21T20:28:00.002-06:00

Looking at the Google map with about 47 percent of precincts reporting, I think that it's a safe bet that Gingrich will take at least 90 percent of South Carolina's delegates, if not 100 percent -- all of this in complete contravention of the Republican Party's national rules. Romney's gambit in convincing South Carolina to cheat itself into a position of mutinous defiance against the mandate for proportional allocation of delegate votes has come back to bite him. Not only does he leave the state with possibly zero delegates, but the zero-delegate haul will go a long way to reverse any previous perception that he is the inevitable nominee -- a turn of events that seemed unthinkable just ten days ago. Moral of the story: he who lives by the cheater's sword of -- dies by the cheater's sword.

Rush Limbaugh weighs in on "brokered-convention chatter."

2012-01-21T11:54:00.001-06:00

Brokered Convention Chatter on Rise

January 20, 2012

The problem with early voting

2012-01-20T15:35:00.000-06:00

Salt Lake Tribune: Florida's Huntsman voters want their ballots back