In the days after this April’s Republican Party of Virginia 2016 State Convention, I wrote a piece called “End the Slate.” In it, I decried the opaque and arcane manner in which Virginia Republicans select their at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention.
This system allows a handful of party insiders on the Nominations Committee (which included me this year) to recommend to the Convention a slate of candidates. Delegates are then given no real choice in who represents them…they can either vote for the slate, or they can vote against it and be faced with an alternative slate. Delegates are never given a real opportunity to express their own preferences.
In most years this hasn’t been controversial (even if it has caused decades of griping and grumbling), as in normal years it has always been thought to not really matter who we send to represent us at the national convention. As such, the slate has always been adopted without much fuss, and they’ve usually included current and former statewide elected officials, senior party leaders, major donors, and other pals of the party insiders on the Nominations Committee.
This year, as we all know, has not been a normal year. At the time of the state convention, a contested national convention (where no candidate had a majority going in) appeared to be a very real possibility. In that scenario, the individual candidate preferences of the national delegates would be of the utmost importance. As I wrote previously,
In most other years it hasn’t mattered who the delegates were, as the results of the national convention were already known on the basis of a single candidate’s having secured the bound delegate votes necessary to clinch the nomination. This year, it is not overly dramatic to say that those whom we selected could quite literally determine who the next President of the United States will be. In large part, this informed the preferences of committee members this year.
Given this dynamic, the Nominations Committee slate took on a new importance. For many in attendance who didn’t understand the party’s rules, customs, and processes, this gave the understandable impression that the system was “rigged.” And in a very real way, it was. A delegate representing his or her home county should have the right to expect, when they arrive at the Convention that has been called for the purpose of electing delegates to the national convention, that they will have some meaningful choice in the matter…that they will be entitled to vote their preference, instead of being called upon to be someone else’s rubber stamp. From “End the Slate“:
Our failure to accommodate the reality of 2016 and the possibility of a contested national convention gave rise to a tsunami of ill-informed vitriol about our process, only about half of which is unjustified.
Setting aside the opportunistic demagoguery from certain quarters, it is entirely legitimate and correct to say the process lacks transparency, and places too much power in the hands of a few leaders at the expense of the grassroots of our Party. I’m not yet sure what method I would recommend to replace it, but it must be replaced.
Many members of the Virginia delegation to this year’s RNC, along with allies from around the country, backed amendments to RNC rules that would have barred the practice of nominating committee slates. As Ken Cuccinelli explained here, the main proposed amendment would have read as follows:
Congressional districts and state parties may not nominate delegates or receive nominations for delegates via a nominating committee or via any group the purpose of which is to select or recommend one or more delegates for a slate or ballot.
As TBE readers will know, this and every other reform amendment was unfairly blocked by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and his allies. That means it is up to the states that use nominations committees to put their own houses in order. Luckily, there is now a broad-based effort afoot in Virginia to do just that.
Newly-elected 8th District State Central Committee Representative Sandy Liddy Bourne will introduce a resolution at the upcoming August 27 meeting of that body that would start the process of amending the Republican Party of Virginia’s rules to specifically require direct election of national delegates at all conventions. (This would not only address the state convention, but also the egregious local nominations committee processes some districts, like the old 7th District, have used in the past to shut out grassroots participation) [Ed. Note: Former 7th District strongman Linwood Cobb takes issue with this. We’ve been on the opposite side on many issues, and he’s got a habit of scowling at me when I greet him and try to shake his hand, but as far as I know Linwood is an honorable man. I will take his word that the old 7th District didn’t do nomination committee slates. I was misinformed. Linwood, I apologize for having mistakenly maligned your record.]. Sandy’s resolution reads as follows:
Let it be resolved that the membership of the State Central Committee place the following amendment into the Party Plan Amendment Committee for review with the recommendation that it be passed and brought before the State Central Committee at its next meeting for a vote of approval.
I propose that we amend Article VIII, Section L. of the party plan, which currently reads as follows:
SECTION L. National Convention Delegates
Procedures concerning Conventions at which delegates and alternates to National Conventions are elected shall comply with the applicable Rules of the National Republican Party.
to be changed to read as follows:
SECTION L. National Convention Delegates
(a) Procedures concerning Conventions at which delegates and alternates to National Conventions are elected shall comply with the applicable Rules of the National Republican Party.
(b)(i) All individuals who qualify as candidates to run for delegate and alternate to a National Convention shall be on one ballot, whether in electronic or paper form, with no recommendation or screening of candidates other than ensuring their proper qualifications. Delegate candidates shall be ranked in descending order of their vote totals, and the top number of delegates matching the number of delegate positions shall be declared the winners of those delegate positions. The next ranking delegate candidates of the same number shall be declared the winners of the alternate delegate positions.
(b)(2) In the event there is a tie for delegate, there should be a runoff between the candidates who have tied with the loser receiving the status of first alternate delegate. If there is a tie for the last position of alternate delegate, that position should be determined by a coin toss.
Sandy Liddy Bourne is to be commended for hitting the ground running as a new member of State Central, and for proactively taking steps to address an old problem that this year’s state convention called to everyone’s attention. Although Sandy and I won’t agree on everything, this is a good example of the great majority of things where we can all work together in the party’s best interests.
If adopted, Sandy’s proposed resolution would put the question to the subset of the State Central Committee tasked with studying and drafting amendments to the party’s Plan of Organization (i.e., its rules). That group can make tweaks or offer alternative suggestions, but it would ultimately be up to the State Central Committee at a future meeting to adopt such an amendment.
I, for one, will heartily back such a move, and suspect that it will have well more than the level of support necessary for passage. It is long overdue.
29 comments
[…] While the RNC has not yet moved to provide guidance or leadership to the states on ways to avoid similar controversies in the future, several state parties that experienced problems last year are currently working toward remedies. Among those is the Republican Party of Virginia, where for at least the past 44 years a committee of appointed party insiders has been responsible every presidential election year for hand picking a slate of at-large delegates to be rubber-stamped by the quadrennial state party convention. We wrote about the need to end this establishment-inspired practice last summer (“End the Slate” and “End the Slate – Part Two“). […]
Why not have them elected at the primary?
You know that of course this is a trick to ensconce minority rule for conventions rather that the stated goal of getting rid of slating..
Quite.
As a newcomer to this discussion, I’m grateful for the information, but taken aback by what appears to be cynicism. If the world is filled with as many corrupt evil doers as the cynics seem to believer, we are all doomed.
Can we give the accusations and name calling a break and figure this stuff out? Please?
There are going to be corrupt evil doers, always were, always will be. And all that is necessary for evil to thrive is that the good stand by and do nought.
Going into it with that understanding better prepares one for the fight.
The SCC will dither. This proposal does not address the faux convention/supra mass meeting so that it really doesn’t matter what is resolved, the particular electorate is still flawed.
The makeup of the SCC prevents resolution and they’re not about to give up power nor representation.
I’d love to see the systemic issues resolved starting with the base and moving upward? But let’s go with the ‘Slating is bad’ because it will fit on a bumpersticker.
Why DO we have token/quota seats on SCC for Republican women, collegians, and millenials? In our RPV?
So you didn’t get your Cucinelli “grassroot rules” by the national committee, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and his evil allies, therefore why not followup, after what I take as a not so humble “my bad” slating participant and chief organizer apology (more like an acknowledgement really which everyone knew in the first place), with applause and promotion of a rookie SSC member who is now going to carry the water for you at the state level to work the agenda.
One might ask oneself why you couldn’t simply have introduced these proposed amendments to the party plan yourself if you feel you and your associates have been so thoroughly and unfairly undermined at the national level? What was holding you back from following up with the SCC personally and directly? Certainly along with Cucinelli, the other major players pushing these changes for your proclaimed deeply felt benefit of the voting base masses, a personal effort was a reasonable expectation and called for to make a case before your fellow colleagues of the SCC and the party voting base that elects the SSC membership. Why not sit up in front of the assembly and make your case instead of melding into the collective urging on others to “do the right thing” for your heartfelt proposals for the good of the voters? You don’t seem bashful in maligning and expressing condensation to others in your replies when they choose to disagree and dispute your positions why so seemingly hesitant to step into the light and own these proposals and the outcomes and the results they produce?
Your lecturing of others that have some real doubts on not only what the true political end goals are here but where your and Cucinelli actual underlying state political motives begin and end on this issue may well be perplexed if they indeed have not determined the real game afoot here already. A word of advice I’m sure unwanted but still I feel germane to your machinations rests in an old country saying “the difference between ‘involvement’ and ‘commitment’ is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was ‘involved’ – the pig was ‘committed’. You do a lot of cackling on this issue might make a thinking voter reflect.
Lawrence, you’re uninformed. Sandy is not going to “carry the water” for me or anyone else. She did this on her own, and is to be commended. The normal route for a Plan amendment is to simply make a motion for the Party Plan Committee to take up consideration of an issue. I and others planned to do just that. Sandy’s route is unconventional, but accomplishes the same thing and in a manner that draws good attention to the issue. For you to suggest that there is some underlying and devious motive (which, naturally, you can’t identify) behind my support for Sandy’s initiative indicates you’ve not been paying attention. I WANT the competition to be for delegate votes, not for jockeying to be appointed to the nominations committee. Why do I want that? Because the delegates deserve to have the choice, and they can be better trusted to elect the kinds of people to the national convention who will support rules and candidates I agree with. It’s just that simple. If you want to continue drinking conspiracy theory Kool-Aid, you’re entitled to do so. But you’re not entitled to your own facts.
Somebody comes to town, somebody leaves town. I’m glad there is someone doing something to fix the party. I, too, fear this is just optics.
Let’s look at the specifics in Harrisonburg. Ken had a slate, he said you may have this many or I will take them all, because I have more zombies.
What is the purpose of the statewide slate as opposed to running local for local representation?
1) To elect the people that couldn’t win locally for one reason or another,
2) To reward as the party sees fit,
3) To make sure we satisfy the politically correct quotas (checking the boxes so they can’t say ‘look, they don’t have any Hittites attending’)
And how would this be accomplished, the delegates would cast an up or down vote on the several hundred that filed? My rolodex is already jammed full of the non-Republicans I have to monitor and object to — you want to run up my Kinko’s bills even higher???
The state voted for a nominee, a group of ‘Republicans’ said: ‘Screw that, I can get what I want by packing zombies into a statewide mass meeting.’
Here’s the money quote:
“…the delegates deserve to have the choice, and they can be better trusted
to elect the kinds of people to the national convention who will
support rules and candidates I agree with.”
I do not care to enable a system that lets you or anyone else bypass the will of the state and of the party. This is why people will vote to blow $4 million dollars on primaries.
Before you try to ‘fix’ (all senses) the convention rules, how about we fix the entire process?
Why do I get the distinct sense sometimes that you disagree just for the sake of disagreeing? We’re talking about something that allows party activists (whom you deride as “zombies”) a more direct say in who represents them at the National Convention, and this is somehow an attempt by me or others to “bypass the will of the state and of the party”? How’s that?
While I do like being contrary, there is usually a reason for it.
The number allowed, and the qualifications to be a party activist/zombie at our faux conventions are:
a) unrealistic number — why and how are these numbers calculated, when factoring division and apportion, we Agenda21 our base — everybody gets to be a delegate or fraction thereof.
(this gigantic number makes conventions cost more and restricts the venue)
b) qualifications to be a delegate to SC: They are; be able to fill out a form (‘that’s only a suggested donation, you don’t have to pay anything’) that has some weasel words about supporting the nominee (or being your own woman and caring to focus more about issues in the 10th.) and showing up (and we’ve got a bus or limo or the Bearing Drift zeppelin to get you there)
Joe Year-round Precinct Captain gets the exact same vote and influence as Sam ‘Show up for Shak’ Tea Party guy.
Your SCC created/approved/tolerated system enabled and encouraged delegates for a 13% Statewide candidate to dominate the process.
Tell me how not recognizing/respecting the statewide Chair for the nominee that DID win the statewide contest is ‘the right thing to do’
Until the statewide and district mass meeting issue is fixed, a primary
will always win and the party will run red with blood because of it.
In my district, the zombies all had crazy eyes, and voted the Black/Staton/Cruz slate.
Looking forward to seeing all of you on the 27th. Many thanks to Steve for writing the supportive article. I posted my thoughts about the amendment here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/sandy-liddy-bourne/taking-corrective-action-to-elect-delegates-to-the-national-convention-giving-a-/10154330742384178
Ok my turn. Yes Albertson was on the nominating committee. That’s no secret. What is a secret is while Albertson was on that nominating committee he was doing Cuccinelli’s bidding.
Question of the year, what is a Georgetown lawyer trailing after Cuccinelli like his personal tracker.? Meanwhile, applying his finger to the scale? Not only to the nominating committee but to SCC seats???? Riddle me that!
Otherwise I would agree the nominating committee should be dissolved. Dissolved is the appropriate word that is missing from this amendment. Add that language and I’m good.
WW: Words. Angry. Cuccinelli!!!
Me: Get well soon, dear.
The truth hurts. How do you live with yourself knowing YOU are the one not telling the truth. Remember you told me Ken had you make the alternate slate. The 13 Cruz delegates. Are you denying it now??? All the while YOU were on the nominating committee. Careful with that thumb, looks like it’s stuck on the scale.
See…this is what I’m talking about. You “accuse” me of coordinating delegates with Ken Cuccinelli. Together with the state director, I was Virginia delegate coordinator for the Cruz campaign and worked with the national director on that. So, I guess you busted me!! Yes, a VA delegate coordinator drew up a Cruz list of delegates for the national coordinator…one that was never voted on. Shocking. But keep yelling “Cuccinelli” loud enough and maybe you’ll get some soft headed allies to see a scandal here.
Steve Albertson stop playing stupid! “Coordinating” delegates for Cruz is not the problem. Coordinating delegates for Cruz while on the nominating committee is the problem.
It’s a bit inappropriate for you to be on the nominating committee in that copasity. It’s also inappropriate for you to be on that committee doing it at the request of a campaign. See I was on the leadership team for Cruz as well in the 2nd. District. I’m sure you recall. I also coordinated delegates for Cruz but was not on any committees for that convention.
Furthermore stop deflecting the issue to Cuccinelli from YOU. The man didn’t have a gun to your head. You made the conscience decision of your own free will. That’s a whole other issue on its own.
That simply is not true. This little conspiracy theory doesn’t hold water. Sorry Waverly, but you’re wrong.
Jeanine I truly adore you. I thought I could trust Steve. As long as we all play ball the way we’re told it’s all good. The problem is I won’t put my thumb on the scale and burn the grassroots. I will never support a closed primary that the party isn’t in control of or doesn’t pay for. We cannot allow the GA to effect our 1st amendment right of free accisication.
I also will not accept getting the whole story from our allies in other states. See Ken and his new tracker should have been a bit more upfront with their intentions. Things could’ve been different? We’ll never know now.
When you stand up higher than the rest in a storm, you’re going to catch more bolts. While Steve might be a debbil, I don’t think he’s THE debbil.
Doesn’t have to be a full-blown conspiracy theory, overlapping interests will suffice.
That was a Winchester lawyer.
Nominating committee didn’t have much choice. Steve, like the rest of us, has his agenda, but he also has a reputation for being fair and a straight shooter. But he, and Ken, and the other fella who likes the flashbulbs, are still kinda radioactive, so it’s good to have a new face with less baggage.
I read with interest the proposed party plan amendment Sandy is proposing. Sandy is a very thoughtful and talented new member of the RPV SCC. She will be a tremendous asset to the RPV. I look forward to her leadership over the next four years.
I am very perplexed by your statement,
“This would not only address the state convention, but also the egregious local nominations committee processes some districts, like the old 7th District, have used in the past to shut out grassroots participation).”
How far back in history do you go when you say “the old 7th District,”.
I was elected Chairman of the 7th District Committee in April of 2002. We never presented a slate of delegates to the national convention or any other convention to the 7th district convention to be voted on. Each candidate stood alone and could have been elected.
I can only conclude that you are referring to the 7th district committee prior to 2002 or you are trying to rewrite what actually occurred.
The BS Elephant pretends to be some factual source of information and news but the facts have never mattered with the contributions that write here. An explanation would be appreciated. Or we could enjoy another lie printed here.
Perhaps using sticky notes to vote with instead of a ballot w/names printed on them? Ya know sticky notes that can be pre-written on and stuck together for cheating purposes? Whispering amongst attendees instructing them who to vote for? I wondered what they were promised for showing up, because they certainly didn’t have a clue politically what was going on. You were there at that meeting, it was 2012. I witnessed the cheating first hand, who organized it I don’t have a clue, I just know what I saw and heard. It was disgusting and shameful, and embarrassing to be a Virginian. Just thinking about makes me sick. The VA GOP is corrupt and stinks to high heaven.
You’ve called us that name so many times, Linwood, that I suppose we should give you a loyal reader award. Because I’m not an asshole like you, I’ll take your word for it that I was misinformed about the 7th, and will correct the post. Thanks for the constructive dialogue, and for your continued patronage.
I support this, but it begs the question once more–if choice is good enough for the state convention delegates, why isn’t it good enough for mass meeting attendees? They should be able to express their preference too, and they can do this if we give units only the same amount of delegates as votes (not five for every vote, which basically eliminates competition when there’s underfiling, which is nearly always the case) and require that delegates declare for a candidate (just as we had them do at the state convention).
I very much like the current practice where everyone (in almost all cases) can be a delegate to a state or local convention.
I could get behind this.