As we reported live on Saturday, the appeals and controversies from the 2nd Congressional District were ultimately dealt with by the Republican Party of Virginia’s State Central Committee endorsing a compromise arrangement reached by the competing candidates for 2nd District Chairman. The settlement between Curtis Colgate and Sen. Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach) resulted in Colgate being certified as 2nd District Chairman in exchange for leaving the results of the Virginia Beach mass meeting undisturbed.
Through much of the day, the two sides were engaged in intense negotiations facilitated by the ad hoc appeals committee led by 10th District GOP Chairman John Whitbeck, with help from RPV Executive Director Shaun Kenney. The first deal that Wagner’s team proposed turned out to be a non-starter. Under this first proposal, Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA02) would put forth a name for 2nd District Chairman, and if both Wagner and Colgate could agree on that person, then he/she would be named Chairman and the Virginia Beach mass meeting would be allowed to stand. Otherwise, the appeals process would pick back up in December, after the election. Colgate’s advisors and others on the State Central Committee urged Colgate to reject this proposal, which he did. Hours later the final proposal (which, incidentally, mirrored terms of a compromise proposed by Colgate supporters months ago) was agreed upon before being brought to the floor of the SCC meeting by Chairman Pat Mullins himself.
Sen. Wagner (R-Virginia Beach) Urging Adoption of Unity Settlement on Saturday
The problem with the settlement, as has been hashed out in various Facebook threads, is that leaving the Virginia Beach mass meeting undisturbed does nothing for the hundreds of people who allege the meeting (including the election of Ken Longo as Virginia Beach Chairman) was conducted improperly. Some folks from Virginia Beach feel sold out by Colgate, and by the State Central Committee. This criticism is entirely understandable, and is what was behind the relative handful of “nay” votes among State Central members.
However, as I’ve written elsewhere, our job on SCC is to serve a number of competing interests—not just the interests of ensuring the most just outcome in every single contest. There are no guidelines or restrictions in the Plan as to how SCC may remedy violations. The only guidance provided by the Plan is that the SCC has final say in all matters affecting the efficiency of the Party organization, or the success of the Party. Robert’s Rules is similarly open-ended in this regard. Basically, it’s a judgment call, where numerous factors in addition to fairness and justice must be considered, including continuity and precedent, the effect on our candidates, the effect on public perceptions, and maintaining consensus and harmony among the body’s members, among others. These considerations must be balanced to reach the outcome that is in the best interests of the Party.
In this instance, the State Central Committee felt the benefits of the settlement included getting the whole controversy behind us (and out of the newspapers), and getting functioning party organizations and Victory offices working again. Taken together with the votes on the other appeals, SCC also succeeded in sending the strong signal that cheating by recruiting Democrats to participate in Party elections is not a profitable strategy; we recognized that adding Virginia Beach would only marginally improve the strength of that message. We also avoided potential litigation; even though there is very little chance such litigation would be successful, that doesn’t mean Wagner’s folks wouldn’t have given it a very costly try anyway. Finally, it is my sense that the body felt that rejecting this settlement would send the wrong message about reconciliation and unity within the Party, at a time when we should all be standing shoulder-to-shoulder behind our nominees.
As I reminded folks on Saturday from Fauquier and Campbell on both sides, it’s easy to get caught up in the personal local battles, but at the State Central level these kinds of disputes cannot be about individual disputes or picking specific winners and losers. (Indeed, there is a good chance that the re-run processes in Campbell and Fauquier may ultimately yield the same victors; if so, I will welcome the opportunity to work with those people, even though we were on the opposite side of the issues this past weekend). Instead, it has to be about the larger issues around what’s best for the Party as a whole. That’s cold comfort for those left without redress of their grievances. All I can say to those folks is that I understand the disappointment that we couldn’t get to a 100% solution, but in balancing all of the factors, the State Central Committee reached a conclusion that was best for the Party. That’s what we’re elected to do.
33 comments
Wow. I just heard the RPV only has $5,000 in the bank.
Pat Mullins and the SCC have been doing a great job purifying the party, but who the heck is doing the fundraising?
How is Gillespie supposed to win if the GOP has no money to help him?
The RPV is irrelevant.
It seems that this whole situation has placed front and center an “immediate” need to tighten, better clarify, formalize or just plain document in precise, clear unequivocal regulations (what ever language you choose to use) what constitutes a valid Republican voter within the RPV state electoral process. My understanding of the events may be lacking but it seems to me that its not about “rules don’t matter” but rather to much grey area in allowing how the rules may be interpreted. Get rid of the grey and the angst goes away for most. I say most because there will always be those that only like the rules they can create as they proceed along.
“taken together with the votes on the other appeals, SCC also succeeded in sending the strong signal that cheating by recruiting Democrats to participate in Party elections is not a profitable strategy”
I’m still at a loss as to how we determine who is a Democrat at these events. And I’m still concerned that we are closing the door on getting people to change parties and participate in our processes by locking them out of our processes if they aren’t a lifelong Republican.
you are right. & this has been my question all along (& the question of many). this is not the way to win elections
When has the RPV central committee ever been concerned about winning elections. Look at their results:
– lost 5 out of the last 6 statewide elections
– lost two very winnable senate special election
– lost the last two presidential elections
These folks have no clue how to run the RPV, al they care about is party purity.
they must have lost my comment — wonder if Dem Gov Mills Godwin came to a Republican unit meeting. deny him entrance? cause he could be the next Republican Governor. oh snap. he DID switch sides. maybe a Republican welcomed him.
If he had registered prior to the meeting as a Republican, then he could vote if affiliation proven. Yes, he can even show up, but if not a registered Republican then he can attend but not vote. That’s the difference.
I’m not interested in promoting fraud in our GOP intraparty elections so that unprincipled Republicans take away the grassroots ability to participate in the process. There has to ground rules. Slating was an attempt to destroy the grassroots.
May be the case in some localities, but not in Fauquier County where one side purposefully and actively chose to recruit Democrats and other non-Republicans to affect the outcome of the county canvass.
Again, other than witness statements which are inherently not reliable, how do we know who were Democrats lying about their intentions and how many were former Democrats who were going to support the Republican in November?
Former Democrats need to make a new party affiliation if they’re going to be participating in that political party’s process. I’d expect the same treatment if I wanted to mess with a Democrat election. There shouldn’t be any blank check, free ticket of entitlement to sabotage our intraparty elections. You want to be an activist in the party, then you prove affiliation. Other than that, you can change your mind however you want to come November, in fact, we all can.
PS I wouldn’t say all those witness statements were “inherently unreliable” – you’re calling into question folks’ integrity, they’re not all ignorant wusses. I was at our 2nd District Mass Meeting, and there were known Democrats there, participating.
Considering how 2nd District came out with this compromise, I’ll take it. But won’t ever forget the taint of what Wagner, Longo, Taylor et al tried to pull off.
How did you guys know they were Democrats? How did you know they hadn’t changed their minds and decided to vote for the Republicans in November? Were any of them challenged?
Witness testimony is well known in legal circles as unreliable, so that’s my point there, not questioning anybody’s integrity. I just don’t know of any reliable way to prove someone is a Democrat short of them being a Democratic Party committee paid member or officer. And I doubt they are giving out their membership lists.
No sense arguing. The stench of what happened at the 2nd District Mass Meeting (and apparently in other districts as well) will remain for a long time.
Brian, most of the time this isn’t a problem, because people who aren’t Republicans typically don’t go to a Republican mass meeting. In both of these cases, however, there was strong evidence (including copies of contemporary emails and campaign literature, none of which was challenged) that such recruitment did in fact take place. I completely agree that we want to welcome new Republicans, but they’ve got to be Republicans first. I know some of the people who did these things were never under the apprehension they were doing anything wrong (esp. some of the folks in Fauquier, where this apparently was not particularly extraordinary). But the fact is that it WAS in contravention of the Plan, and doing nothing (or saying our hands are tied) is just an invitation for repeat performances elsewhere. It may be that the sides that originally won will win again; that’s OK, but this time there should be no questions about whether the win is legitimate.
You can say that what happened in Fauquier was in contravention till you are blue in the face, that doesn’t change the fact that the SCC violated the State Party Plan.
Heck, it was obvious when the SCC accepted the appeal from the 5th District without the necessary 25 signatures. The SCC lacks integrity – just like Obama.
I hope Fauquier, Campbell, and the 5th District sue. The SCC can use their last $5,000 to defend their actions.
Steve, even if there is evidence of recruitment, we have no real way of knowing how many people showed up and intended to vote for a Democrat in the fall or how many were there intending to support Republicans down the road. There are steps to take in the the mass meeting – like challenging folks and requiring them to state that they’re on accord with the party and intend to support the parties nominees in the fall, and I don’t believe those things were done. Coming in after the fact based on witness testimony and some emails just doesn’t strike me as a good idea.
Acknowledging that this is a problem and actively working our elected officials to get party registration enacted would solve this problem better than overturning the mass meeting and forcing them to rerun it in an election year.
The win in Fauquier and Campbell were legitimate. both candidates won decisively and NO ONE has ever been able to find enough Democrats who participated or voted in either county to overturn the results. In Fauquier the winning candidate won by over 200 votes. The 1st District knew that only 55-100 Democrats voted and even if they were excluded, Jones would have lost.
Heck, the First District even ignored its own precedent of upholding the canvass for the 98th House District where Pogge defeated Noll. There the margin of victory was about 20 votes and the committee identified 35 Democrats, but still upheld the election because no one was challenged the day of the election.
What the SCC did was noting more than top down government management, just like Obama does.
NoIRSAudit
A week ago I asked you to provide verification for your claims about the number of democrats who voted, I also provided an option for you to contact me directly if there is sensitive information.
You stopped commenting for a week, so perhaps you did not see my encouragement.
“I have seen you make this claim repeatedly. If true, the practical remedy for this situation is easier to determine. Can you identify the source material for this claim so we all can see? If the source information requires disclosure of names, you can feel free to email me, and I will publish my analysis with names redacted. [email protected] (remove the NOSPAM) I have never encountered and do not know Russell or Jones.”
http://thebullelephant.com/jim-riley-virtucon-brings-the-hammer-down-on-fauquier-appeal/
I mean no disrespect, but you seriously can’t be trying to suggest the SCC (especially this SCC) has anything in common with Obama?
I wouldn’t think one has to be a “lifelong Republican” – but proving voter registration should be a factor. If you’re not registered as a Republican, then it’s a non-starter at the table. It’s a little disingenuous for a bunch of folks to show up at the Mass Meeting, known Democrats, and vote in our intraparty elections. Securing the integrity of those elections is important…just as preventing voter fraud in the general elections.
According to you, no one in Virginia can participate in Republican elections because there is not one single individual in Virginia who is registered as a Republican. Remember, no party affiliation?
Really? I’m not a registered Republican? Strange, I do remember checking the Republican box when I registered to vote in Virginia many years ago. If you vote in a primary, you get your party’s ballot (or at least the one you request).
Then if you’re saying it can be a free for all and you want the Democrats to run and control the GOP, then we’ll just let business be as usual. Personally, I believe in a closed primary election system, and party affiliations for all elections.
You have to ask for the party ballot. And yes, the problem is that we have no real way of knowing who is who. That’s why I have been pushing for closed primaries and registration.
We have never had party registration in Virginia but it’s amazing how many people think they are registered republicans or registered democrats. They aren’t but I don’t usually tell voters when they claim they are ‘registered’ republicans.
The election officials ask you if you want a republican or democrat ballot when you vote. If you registered to vote and checked a republican box, it wasn’t in Virginia. Perhaps Maryland? They have party registration, not that it matters there.
We don’t have voter registration by party in Virginia. That’s why some of us have been pushing for it – it would make all of this easier.
I guess it’s been many years since I registered to vote, and at that time we could select or declare our party. I just assumed it was that way still.
With the scenario noted I’d say this is a major problem, not just the one of “open primaries.” That’s how we had unscrupulous Mass Meeting issues this year.
Not in Virginia. In other states, you can. I was registered a Republican in Pennsylvania before moved to Virginia in the 90s. To my knowledge, we have never had party registration at the state level.
I don’t think we’ve ever had registration by party in Virginia. Perhaps you were registered in another state? Our call lists come from people who have voted in republican primary or convention, those who belong to the party, those who identified as republicans when contacted. That’s one of the reasons why going door to door is so important, to identify republicans so they can be added to our lists and contacted in future elections.
Brian, then how come during campaign time there are voter “rolls” that we can to do calls on behalf of the GOP candidates? We aren’t calling Democrats from that list. 🙂
Those are usually from primary voter rolls, or lists bought from third party groups. And one of the constant complaints I hear – and dealt with when I ran – is calling Democrats using supposedly Republican lists.
Chairman of the 10th district, John Whitbeck spent countless hours last week and many more hours on Saturday, trying to work this out. He stands behind the report and recommendation of his ad Hoc committee http://thebullelephant.com/rpv-appeals-committee-rules-sen-frank-wagner-slating-virginia-beach/. To be consistent, VA Beach meeting should also have been overturned although it’s likely that Ken Longo would have prevailed anyway. It is unconscionable what was done in VA Beach, disenfranchising 1000 people http://thebullelephant.com/dilatory-silliness-virginia-beach-slating-contest/ After spending most of the day trying to work out a settlement Chairman Mullins saw the necessity of putting forth this compromise, although it certainly won’t please everyone. John Whitbeck found the best possible compromise under the circumstances and he is to be commended and thanked for the many hours he spent working on it. Were it not for him, this compromise would not have been reached and those of us at the meeting may well have been there until the wee hours of Sunday morning. Thank you Chairman Whitbeck for sparing us many additional hours in that room! After 8 hours, we were all ready to go home!
“However, as I’ve written elsewhere, our job on SCC is to serve a number of competing interests—not just the interests of ensuring the most just outcome in every single contest.”
That right there says it all. PATHETIC.
So, the rules don’t really matter. Kind of like how Obama works.
The RPV & Obama… Peas in a pod