Updating the previous post. Red NoVA has learned more about the rule change in the 11th District GOP Convention. Before the FCRC meeting began last night the members broke off into congressional districts to discuss the upcoming conventions. Sheets of rules were circulated which in passing mentioned that there would be a plurality vote for all races. It curiously did not highlight it as a change from the majority vote which was decided months ago. Questions were asked. The explanation for the rule change was that the discussion and vote for a majority vote should never have been on the call because the decision can’t be decided at the district committee level; it’s for the temporary rules committee to decide, which is consistent with RPV Counsel’s ruling. Several people in the meeting told me that once the call goes out to the public, printed on paper, then it’s legally binding. The damage is that procedural info as significant as this could have persuaded or dissuaded a candidate from seeking any one of these offices, but this argument is weak. The competing viewpoints cast an interesting difference, but if the temporary rules committee reigns supreme then why bother with the call in the first place is because there are certain things that are binding to the convention that can be decided in the call such as pre-filing requirements. So this is and isn’t so sticky.
The strange thing about all of this is why so late? The majority vote proposal was made months ago. There seems to have been plenty of time to correct any errors and alert the public. Why not let everyone know that the decision for how the vote would be decided, no small thing, has not been finalized. Nobody likes changing the rules after the game begins, it’s just not cool, and making last minute changes, the convention is this Saturday, is even less likeable. But this isn’t really a rule change because the proposed rules from the call are just proposed rules. If you are running for one of these offices then you should know this, but the public should know this too. These rules are for everyone, candidates and voting delegates. Delegates don’t know this stuff. This kind of confusion only turns off the mildly involved. So the real damage is that right there; we could lose supporters and volunteers over these perceived games.
But all of this is not a done deal until the convention begins. The final say is on the convention floor, so amendments can be presented and voted on, but it may not be worthwhile for or appealing to a majority to vote for staying longer.
We’ll leave it to the audience to speculate who benefits from this most. This will make the convention much shorter, so the delegates on the convention floor will probably be ok with it. One ballot means you can still get to the kids baseball game, so expect the plurality vote to stand.
This post was updated at 2:50pm 5-16-12.
Chris, can you please explain this phrase:
“it’s for the temporary rules committee to decide, which is consistent with RPV Counsel’s ruling.”
Are you saying this is what people were simply saying at the FCRC meeting, or are you saying there is an objectively identifiable written ruling from RPV counsel that you may have even seen?
If it is the latter, please post.
Thanks for the inside info. If it truly is a decision that will be made before further balloting, I agree most delegates will choose plurality over multiple ballots.
A member of the convention’s temporary rules committee sent me an email he received from RPV Legal Counsel which said the following:
“Congressional District Committee can prescribe binding rules of voting for a Congressional District Convention in the Call of the Convention. My opinion is that a Congressional District Committee cannot dictate the rules that govern the Convention in the Call or otherwise, including the rule governing vote thresholds, because the Convention itself retains authority to determine its own rules (so long as the rules adopted are consistent with the Party Plan, local bylaws, and Roberts Rules, in that order). Article VIII, Sec. J.1., and prior General Counsel opinions, make clear that the role of the Congressional District Committee is to propose rules to the Convention’s Rules Committee, but thereafter the Rules Committee decides which rules to report to the Convention as a whole, and the Convention as a whole has authority to determine its own rules, by voting either to adopt the Rules Committee’s report or to amend the Rules Committee’s report. The vote of the Convention to adopt Convention rules is a majority vote (unless a particular rule would, under Roberts Rules require a two-thirds vote, such as a vote to limit debate, in which case that rule will require a two-thirds vote for adoption).
There are a few exceptions to this general rule. For example, the Party Plan expressly grants authority to establish pre-filing requirements to the Congressional District Committee planning the Convention, and prior General Counsel opinions conclude that pre-filing requirements stated and published in a Call are binding on the Convention. A rule governing voting thresholds at the Convention is not a power granted to the Congressional District Committee. Therefore, that kind of rule is within the province of the Convention itself.”
But this doesn’t explain why so much time has passed from the meeting that recommended a majority vote and this realization that the rules weren’t followed. The argument that the public decision which resulted from a public call should not be ignored is a compelling one. I’m not sure if there is any precedent to back that argument and proposed rules just proposed at that stage. Whether or not the expectations which came from the decisions of a public vote supersede correcting a procedural mistake may not be fully resolved because the convention is this Saturday. I’m not sure how I feel but I’m leaning toward arguing that it’s too late to scrap the majority vote decision. If a mistake was made then that’s too bad, it should not have been made in the first place but months rolled off the calendar giving everyone involved a chance to correct this. The problem is who has standing to claim any damage here. Also, why have a democratic meeting if the rules committee can act like kings later on?
I wonder if this will result in the last minute formation of coalitions. But I expect half the crowd will not notice that a potential floor fight could break out and they’ll just causally vote for the plan that gets everyone out of there the quickest.
Thanks for clarifying and providing the source opinion.
It took a little while to wrap my head around the logic but I understand it. It’s not that rules committee has inherent power, it is that the delegates to the convention have the inherent power.
This is the equivalent of a shareholder meeting, or in the case of a non-stock corporation, a general member ship meeting. Although the leadership has the power and duty to call the meeting, and they can propose an agenda and rules, only the shareholders/membership can actually set the rules.
So the method of voting mentioned in the call was never actually binding, and the candidates (on some level) should have known that.
The other thing for the casual traveler to keep in mind is the rules committee can only propose rules on behalf of the District Committee. Only once accepted by the delegates at the convention, can those rules be binding.
If only for entertainment value, I look forward to any internecine procedural chicanery.
This is the equivalent of a shareholder meeting, or in the case of a non-stock corporation, a general member ship meeting. Although the leadership has the power and duty to call the meeting,