Saturday the State Central Committee, (SCC) the controlling body of the Republican Party of Virginia decided (42: for 39: against & 1: abstention) for a primary in 2016. The decision comes after months of heated debate among activist and party officials regarding the best method to use. Proponents of a Convention argued, (among other things) that the conventions worked in 2009 for Bob McDonnell and in the 1980’s for Dick Obenshain and Ronald Reagan, and they would work again. There were also arguments presented by Steve Albertson that a convention would potentially be RPV’s biggest fundraising opportunity and perhaps give the Party the opportunity to raise as much as $600,000 (although it is unclear if any money was made from the 2009, 2013, or 2014 conventions). There was at least one argument made suggesting that Democrats would have the ability to participate in a Primary since Virginia does not require party registration.
Primary proponents argued that the largest indoor venue in Virginia (The John Paul Jones Arena) has a maximum seating capacity of 14,500 and would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. One person argued that the 2012 Presidential primary had 265,533 voters participate and would likely have even more in 2016 given the prospect for more candidates on the ballot. Arguments were also raised that a Convention would prevent or at least limit participation by the disabled, handicapped, families, elderly and those less fortunate. A large argument was made over Military servicemen and women, and their ability to participate in political functions referencing D0D Directive 1344.10 (see insert below) which requires military personnel to receive special permission to participate. Conventions also do not allow absentee balloting so military personnel on duty would not be given the option to participate.
“4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:
4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof),management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9.)”
It is worth noting that at least three straw polls were referenced in support of a Primary. The Chairwomen of the College Republican Federation of Virginia stated that her straw poll had indicated a strong desire for a primary among College students as the Convention would have come around March 19th which is during mid-terms and spring break for many Colleges in Virginia. The President of the Virginia Federation of Republican Women (VFRW) spoke briefly and recommended a primary stating that 399 women voted for a primary and 290 voted for a convention in the VRFW straw poll. The 9th District representative also stated that his district had overwhelming asked him to support a Primary. The only other reference to voting the constituents selection was made by the 3rd District Chairman who said “the 3rd district wants a convention”.
Many SCC members voiced fear for their businesses, reputation and family as they had received threatening phone calls at 2:00 AM in the morning asking them to vote for a convention. The contact information was made available by Chris Stearns who is the 3rd Congressional District Chairman and former leader of the Ron Paul Revolution. Stearns sent names, home addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of fellow SCC members to the general public. This factor was a major reason a majority of the Committee asked for a secret ballot. Chris Stearns and Russ Moulton argued that voters should be held accountable and insisted on a roll call vote for the Secret Ballot during which they checked off each name who voted for or against the Secret Ballot. Several primary proponets were overheard saying “we could care less if the vote was open or private but members of the conservative fellowship want to vote for a Primary and avoid the wrath of [party activist] Russ Moulton.
There were several points made by Russ Moulton (who was carrying a proxy) and Chris Stearns (among a few others) suggesting that “…the grassroots despise Congressmen making deals behind closed doors and so why would the Republicans now do the same thing?” The comments clearly appeared to be made in reference to members wishing to vote by secret ballot.
Several spectators, including Alec Thomas (1st Vice Chairman Mike Thomas’s son), began commenting that Russ Moulton had openly supported and voted for a secret ballot just a few meetings prior to remove one of their fellow members (Jon Berkley-former Chairman of the 5th Congressional District Committee).
A secret ballot ultimately won. When the vote was announced it was discovered that one gentleman even changed his vote on whether or not to use the roll call method or secret ballots for the Primary vs. Convention vote. When questioned as to who changed their vote, the gentlemen stood up in the room and said he changed his vote because he did not agree with the harassment that had taken place. Eventually the vote finally took place (by secret ballot) and the Primary was selected. The decision for a Primary also came with a compromise (or more accuracetly a promise) that the SCC would adopt a Convention for 2017.
Chairman Whitbeck, among many others encouraged SCC members and guests to leave united and said “contrary to public opinion we are here to win elections” trying to refocus the attention of the group on the real purpose of the Party. Wendell Walker (The Chairman for the 6th Congressional District Committee) stated “Remember the scriptures…A house divided against itself will not stand.. We need to stop all of the infighting and get behind one another and elect Republicans.” Wendell Walker was speaking in support of the secret ballot.
I may break with some of my colleagues on this but I am not in favor of the secret ballot method for issues of such magnitude and would have preferred if the vote had been open. With that said the SCC members should not have received the level of harassment they received. After all SCC members are volunteers, not paid elected officials and we should not let our frustration with Washington carry over in how we treat our fellow Republicans and friends.
Representation is just that – representation. Some districts and auxiliary organizations asked their SCC members to vote for a Convention and others for a Primary. Most asked their members to end the in-fighting, unite and start winning elections. A majority of activist seemingly requested a primary and as a reflection the majority of SCC voted for a Primary. If one does not agree with their member they have the right to challenge him/her and if elected, may represent their constituents to the best of her/her ability.
I think we sometimes lose sight of what James Madison and Thomas Jefferson petitioned for so many years ago and that is a democratic republic where the ultimate power is derived from the citizens. Naturally, many citizens have differing views and there is a healthy tug of war between the conflicting views. Like it or not, we all have the same right to our views and we should show a healthy respect for our fellow citizenry and their representatives. This respect should apply to State Central Members, and we should cease the dreadful witch-hunting mentality. If one truly disagrees with their SCC member or elected public official and feels they don’t properly represent the constituency one has the right to challenge/replace their representative. Let me be clear, no elected party official or public representative deserves to have their home address published online or be called and threatened at 2:00 am in the morning. I know that as conservatives of this great Commonwealth, we are better than that.
To read more please check out these stories posted by my Colleagues.
