Now that the unpleasantness of Tropical Storm/Hurricane Isaac has passed Tampa, the Republican National Convention is in full swing. Last night, at number of events across Tampa, conventioneers met to mingle and enjoy the nightlife the city has to offier. I joined a large group of the Virginia delegation, including Attorney General Cuccinelli, for the RSLC/Future Majority Project/American Conservative Union Nuestra Noche Midnight event in historic Ybor City. It was a fun party, and it gave me a chance to reconnect with some old friends from across Virginia and the country.
There were a few topics on everybody’s mind – the storm and the mess it had made of the first day’s schedule was number 1. But we also talked about another storm that had been brewing, this one being man-made.
Over the weekend, a proposal was made to change the way delegates are treated at future conventions. An addendum to current Rule 15 (it was renumbered Rule 16), the change would have effectively allowed a presidential candidate who had won a state nominating primary or convention a veto over the sitting of a delegate they wished to challenge.
As has been the case with any rules changes regarding the candidate selection process, this rule was met with an uproar from grassroots activists, challenging the ruling and claiming that this proposal would represent major interference with the process for choosing state delegates and effectively shut down the grass roots in states with primaries. Ron Paul supporters, whom the rule was ostensibly aimed at, reacted as they usually do, complaining of establishment conspiracies and the like. Letters and memos began flying around the internet from delegate to delegate, spinning people up about the issue. Multiple delegations threatened to file minority reports to the Rules committee report, and the typical grassroots vs. establishment rhetoric was churning hot and heavy.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, as typically happens in these situations. The Rules Committee redrafted Rule 16 to read the following:
“Rule 16(a)(2).
For any manner of binding or allocating delegates under these Rules, if a delegate
(i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the National Convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule,
(ii) nominates or demonstrates support under Rule 40 for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound or allocated under state law or state party rule, or
(iii) fails in some other way to carry out the delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule to cast a vote at the National Convention for a particular presidential candidate, the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the Secretary of the Convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates.”
The point of the rules is simple: to prevent faithless delegates, who intend to support a candidate other than the one to whom they are pledged by a primary win. This was an issue in Virginia, where a number of Ron Paul supporting delegates won Congressional District delegate selection conventions without realizing that they were bound under Virginia law to support Mitt Romney on the first ballot in Tampa. But it wasn’t just an issue in Virginia, but in many states with rules requiring delegates to vote for the candidate who won their state primary or party caucus on the first ballot. No presidential candidate wants to have the statewide results he won in a primary thrown out by an handful of activists chosen in a semi-democratic way that most voters didn’t particpate in. At the same time, I can see the argument that the state parties deserve the ability to choose their own delegates and have them seated under their own processes.
Was this a huge fight about the future of the party? Not really. But in the heated three way fights going on now over control of the party between the establishment, the Tea Party and the Ron Paul RINOs, many of these issues get blown up far beyond their actual impact – and import.
At some point in the near future, we, as a party, need to reevaluate the point of these nominating conventions and whether they are worth the cost and headaches. With many states choosing their delegates via primaries or binding their delegates hands by state law, the idea of a convention where a candidate doesn’t win on the first ballot is becoming a thing of the distant past. With these events really being grand spectacles where a decision already reached is ratified, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to be fighting over issues like this. Fortunately, outside of the echo chamber here on the ground in Tampa, there wasn’t much press coverage of this short-lived fight.
To sum up, after day 1, the first and only real crisis has been averted, and we can go back to watching the media try to turn Hurricane Isaac into Hurricane Katrina part 2, and I am anxiously anticipating Governor Christie’s keynote tonight.
