In an effort to resolve the ongoing convention issues, a call has been published for the State Central Committee to meet this Friday evening, March 12th, at 5:00 via zoom. The meeting can be viewed live over Facebook. (Bring your PJs and popcorn, it’s likely to be another long meeting.)
Some changes to the Party Plan will be proposed to resolve the convention issues:
Amendment to Article XI.
In Article XI, strike out “by three-fourths of its members present” and insert in its place
“by a three-fourths vote”
Amendments to Article XII.
Proposed by Chairman Anderson
In Article XII, strike out paragraph 3 and insert in its place the following:
“3. An RPV State Convention to nominate candidates for statewide office shall use the following alternative method, which temporarily takes precedence over contrary provisions in other Articles of the State Party Plana.
a.The State Central Committee shall act on the reports of each State
Convention Committee on behalf of the Convention.
b. Neither the number of delegates nor the fraction of a delegate vote
assigned to a delegate may be limited.
c. Units must accept delegate filings made on the form issued by the RPV
d. Certified delegates from each unit must cast their ballots at polling
locations designated by their unit committee. Multiple unit committees
may designate the same polling location. If any unit committee fails to
designate a polling location by the deadline for certifying delegates, the
parent district committee may designate a polling location for delegates
from that unit.
e. The RPV State Convention may not consider any amendments to the RPV
State Party Plan.
Proposed by Kristi Way
In Article XII, insert at the end the following new subparagraphs:
● “It shall not be in order for a State Convention to consider amendments to the Party Plan.
● “A delegation to a State Convention may not have more than ten (10) delegates and ten (10) alternates per delegate vote. No delegate may have less than 0.10 votes.
● “The State Central Committee may adopt a binding convention rule allowing for remote voting whereby one or more units may designate a polling location at which certified delegates from those units may cast a ballot during the convention.”
Proposed by Mike Ginsberg:
In Article XII, insert at the end the following new paragraph:
“4. A State Convention to nominate candidates for statewide offices held under Article
VIII shall be subject to the following additional provisions, which temporarily take
precedence over contrary provisions in other Articles of the State Party Plan:
● It shall not be in order to consider amendments to the Party Plan.
● Neither a delegation’s number of delegates nor the fraction of a delegate vote assigned to a delegate may be limited.
● The Official Committee may set a uniform filing form for delegates applicable to all Units.
● Certified delegates shall cast their ballots for nominees at remote polling locations within or adjacent to the area represented by the Official Committee.
Congressional Districts shall have the following number of remote polling
○ 1st District: no fewer than 1 and no more than 3 locations
○ 2nd District: no fewer than 1 and no more than 2 locations
○ 3rd District: no fewer than 1 and no more than 2 locations
○ 4th District: no fewer than 1 and no more than 3 locations
○ 5th District: no fewer than 4 and no more than 6 locations
○ 6th District: no fewer than 3 and no more than 5 locations
○ 7th District: no fewer than 1 and no more than 3 locations
○ 8th District: no fewer than 1 and no more than 1 location
○ 9th District: no fewer than 4 and no more than 6 locations
○ 10th District: no fewer than 1 and no more than 2 locations
○ 11st District: no fewer than 1 and no more than 1 location
Each District Committee shall determine the sites of the remote polling locations in its Congressional District and the RPV Executive Committee shall approve them. Shared locations between congressional districts will count towards the total number of remote locations allowable in each congressional district. Voters in units located in more than one Congressional District shall vote at a polling location of the District in which the majority of the unit resides.”
If the pro-primary folks on the SCC continue to be obstinate and recalcitrant, refusing the obvious compromises that will provide for an unassembled convention, perhaps it’s time to throw in the towel and allow the SCC to chose our statewide candidates for 2021. With the more conservative, pro-convention, members in the majority on SCC, we should end up with a pretty decent slate of candidates and it would save the party and the candidates enormous amounts of money.