In my last post, I covered how the RNC rules change changed the Republican National Convention from a volunteer-centric political process to an autocratic, candidate-focused pep rally. The Romney campaign team thought they had the general election in the bag and wanted to insure that a primary challenge, in 2016, would fail. Many convention delegates were so focused on unseating President Obama that they ignored the danger of changing the Republican Party Presidential nominating process forever. A large number of movement conservatives voted against this at the convention but were foiled by a scripted call on the voice vote.
This change doesn’t have to be a permanent one.
The RNC Rules Committee will be meeting, from April 10-13, 2013 in Los Angeles. 50 committee members, one from each state party organization, will meet to consider two proposals:
- The Maine Proposal, which simply repeals the Rules change and restores the rules to to the 2008 convention rules
- The Mort Blackwell (Virginia RNC Committeeman) proposal, which restores all but one adopted rule at to the 2008 convention rules .
While the proposals are technically different, the intent is basically the same; the delegates can’t be bound to vote according to the Presidential preference vote. In California, this means nothing today but a repeal of the controversial Rule 16 (a) 1-2 permits us to try to change our delegate selection from the the existing, candidate-centric approach, used by the CRP, to the volunteer-centric approach, used by many other state parties. If either proposal passes, the CRP can reform to the more grass roots-friendly approach and existing caucus delegate selection states can retain their format. If neither proposal passes, the RNC goes the way of the “California model”, thereby codifying power in the hands of the political consultants in DC.
My recommendation is to pass The Mort Blackwell proposal. I’ll explain the “inside baseball” behind my recommendation.
Mort Blackwell is a respected, long time GOP Committeeman and conservative activist. His credentials are recognized by all “movement conservatives”: social conservatives, tea partiers, value voters, and the liberty wing. The Maine proposal is being advanced by Mark Willis, the Maine RNC Committeeman who challenged Reince Preibus for the RNC Chairman’s spot this past January. He is regarded by some as a “Ron Paul insurgent” which is silly but that opinion could sway votes against the repeal. While I supported Willis’ bid for RNC Chairman, and know his intentions are pure, this delicate vote is too important to let prejudices get in the way. Both Blackwell and Willis’ repeal proposals give power back to the grass roots so I would ask all movement conservatives to contact their state party’s Rules delegate and ask him/her to support the Blackwell proposal.
In California, requesting support for the Blackwell repeal proposal is even more important. Our Rules delegate is long-time activist and former CRP Chairman Shawn Steel. While I dont think there is a more fair-minded committeman than Shawn Steel, he did call out Willis for his bid against Preibus. Steel thought he needed more political experience to run the RNC. :
“I understand the ambition of a new member wanting to run for a high RNC office,” Steel wrote, according to The Daily Caller report. “Moreover, debate is always valuable for the membership. But given the strange Maine ballot experience, Mark may want to find another time to consider a run for the party’s top position after he has more experience in national politics.”
While I think Steel will analyze both proposals with an eye towards doing what is best for the Republican Party, perception can sometimes become reality. Steel respects Blackwell and has publicly stated that he will be weighing the merits of the Blackwell proposal:
“I am going to talk to Morton [Blackwell] on this and learn as much as I can,” said Shawn Steel, California’s national committeeman who has been active since he was a Teenage Republican campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964. “On one hand, there is a case to be made against opening the door to keep changing the [presidential nomination] rules over four years. But on the other hand, three-fourths of the RNC is an awfully big threshold to reach before making changes and changing a particular rule would have to be something that has strong support for it to get that far.”
Moreover, I think Steel WANTS to do away with the “California model” if his proposal for the CRP convention is to be taken at face value:
What the California Republican Party needs to do is bring the power right down to the precinct level. That was the message of Shawn Steel, California’s Republican National Committeeman, Friday to the Southeast chapter of the Los Angeles County Lincoln Clubs.
Steel said California should become “a Texas-style Republican Party.” That state holds caucuses in each precinct where delegates are elected to a county convention and later to a state convention.
“They had 8,000 delegates,” Steel said at the meeting held at Geezer’s Restaurant in Santa Fe Springs. “That’s a political party. That’s a movement.”
This is a no-brainer for movement conservatives in California; Steel is considering the Blackwell proposal and that bodes well for our fight to win back the RNC from the consultants. Steel likes the caucus idea for the state convention; one would think he’d lean towards letting state committees decide theor fate in the RNC delegate selection process. Movement conservatives would do well to contact Steel and ask him to announce his support for the Blackwell proposal before the Rules meeting in Los Angeles.
I want to be clear about how conservatives should contact Shawn Steel. The man is a champion of grass roots advocacy. He was a welcoming speaker for Ron Paul, at the 2011 Fall CRP convention proclaiming “as long as I’m involved, there will be a place in this party for Ron Paul Republicans“. He backed up his words with action at the 2012 RNC in Tampa, too. If you are a movement conservative, who wants the RNC restored to the grass roots, you have a good ally in Shawn Steel. Contact him and ask him to support the Blackwell proposal but do so with the respect reserved for a statesman—Steel is one.
Comments 16
So let me get this straight. You, Brian Brady, who have ardently defended the current SDGOP endorsement process on the premise that local party leaders need to decide which candidates will get local party support because run-of-the-mill party members make bad decisions – a premise that has put the local GOP endorsement in the hands of a few party leaders and a few consultants – now call upon people to support something that will “restore the rnc to the grassroots?”
Let me sit back and enjoy this for awhile.
Now that I’m done, Steel is right (although he and I have not always seen eye-to-eye). Anything that takes the power of party governance to the lowest level possible should be pursued. That accomplishes two things (1) maximizes the likelihood that the majority of party voters support their own party’s endorsed candidate, (2) maximizes the number of party members who are invested in the candidate selection process, and (3) provides an incentive for right-leaning independents to join the party. Until and unless the state and local parties in CA adopt something to invest those party members, there is no reason for anyone to get involved in an ‘inside baseball’ game between DC consultants and state party leaders who are seemingly (on the whole) just as disconnected and self-interested in their objectives.
I don’t know the actual number, but there are around 70 people on the Central Committee and it takes 2/3 of them to endorse a candidate. The members of the Central Committee are elected by their community.
So if people are unhappy with the endorsements, elect different Central Committee members and fund different candidates for the Central Committee to endorse.
There is nothing wrong with the process. Brian is trying to get people involved in it. Not from the top down, but from the bottom up. It works better than sitting around complaining about it.
And Brian is putting his money where his mouth is. I don’t think a community meeting can start business until Brian shows up anymore. The guy is all over the county encouraging people to get involved. He also takes his ability to vote for or against endorsements as seriously as anyone I have met.
I am not sure your point was made, D. Morton. If you are looking for hypocrisy or an abuse of power, wrong target. But…I do commend you for being wrong about someone other than Tony Krvaric. New fiddle, but the same tune.
Mr/Mrs Morton, you’re conflating voters with grass roots activists. The two aren’t the same.
Ihe position I have always held is in agreement with Mr. Steel; a caucus/delegate model (which is what the RPSDC is) would probably produce the best candidates.
I would prefer that the Central Committee model be expanded too. In my perfect world, Republican voters would elect a precinct captain,. Precinct captains would elect delegates (which would make up the County and State Commitees). Delegates would elect an executive board of 4-5 officers and a regional (Assembly Caucus) Vice Chair.
As Mr Steel said–that’s how you create a movement.
Brian,
I lost count. Does that make the eventual candidate four or five steps removed from the actual voters?
It depends; each state party is different.
The delegates vote to nominate the party’s candidate. In California, the delegates are selected by the candidate and the winning candidate, in each Congressional District, gets his/her delegates sent to the convention. Thus, the candidate is one step away from the primary voters in the Presidential Primary Poll.
In Iowa, the IGOP uses a caucus/delegate system. The Presidential Primary Poll has no bearing on the delegates.
About 1700 delegates are elected to the county convention, at the precinct level, by Republican in that precinct.. There are 99 county conventions where the precinct delegates elect delegates to go to the District conventions. There are 4 district conventions where delegates are elected to go to the state convention.
At the state convention, 25 delegates are elected (in addition to the State Party Chair, National Commiteeman, and National Commiteeewoman), for a total of 28. Thus, the candidate is 3-4 steps from the voters in the Presidential Preference Poll.
I know I am naive, but shouldn’t the candidate be the one that gets the most votes directly from the voters?
Maybe you could start with all of the linked articles, Hypocrisy. I think it might answer your questions.
Mr. Brady: and how do you think such a radical redefinition of the County committee (which as you describe it sounds like something I’d be inclined to join you in supporting) will be received? Would you continue to support the RPSD leadership if they outright reject such a proposal? I ask this with confidence that the current leadership will balk at the idea of decentralizing the power of endorsement, which is the very source of their influence and main revenue stream (member comm fees).
On an unrelated topic, I think its adorable that Michael Schwartz follows me around on this blog. It makes me feel special.
Where are we headed next?
Not sure yet. I’m feeling spontaneous on this lovely Friday afternoon.
A regular pied piper.
“Mr. Brady: and how do you think such a radical redefinition of the County committee (which as you describe it sounds like something I’d be inclined to join you in supporting) will be received?”
Well. The problem (as I see it) is that the redefinition has to start with the CRP. but frankly, I don’t know. I hope you’ll join me in advancing this should I suggest it.
“Would you continue to support the RPSD leadership if they outright reject such a proposal? ”
I will for the sole reason that I signed on for a 4-year hitch. I’d like to see a few things changed but I”m more interested in:
(a) attracting Republican voters to get involved in RPSDC
(b) increasing voter registration
(c) winning CD52 back in ’14
(d) putting Republicans on the Coronado, Imperial Beach, San Diego, Del Mar, and Solana Beach City Councils
That’s my two-year game plan. We have board elections in ’14 and my term expires in ’16 so this board has my support an the board members are supporting my efforts.
“I ask this with confidence that the current leadership will balk at the idea of decentralizing the power of endorsement, which is the very source of their influence and main revenue stream (member comm fees).”
I don’t believe that to be true. Our leadership wants to get Republicans elected to office. If the delegate/caucus plan will do that better, I think most folks would support it
Author
Many thanks to Rules Committee Delegate Shawn Steel. Rule 16 was defeated soundly today at the RNC Rules Committee meeting
Mr. Brady: I’ve been thinking quite a bit about your previous post, and while I fully agree and support the principle of using the caucus system to fully invest party members (read: voters) and activists at the precinct level, but the potential minefield is in the deployment of such changes. For this caucus system to actually work as intended, and not just become another layer isolating party members and activists from the endorsement process, will require a commitment from local GOP leadership to focus the organization on facilitating participation at the precinct level. This commitment would have to be in the form of bylaw amendment(s) that codify the transfer of candidate selection/endorsement power to the newly formed caucus-based process and obligate party leadership to dedicating the resources necessary for the caucuses to function. With these mechanisms in place, then I would be fully willing to support the caucus proposal.
“Our leadership wants to get Republicans elected to office. If the delegate/caucus plan will do that better, I think most folks would support it.”
Not true of the recent past. ‘Our leadership’ has built a pay to endorse system where endorsements have a tendency to fall toward those candidates who can promise the greatest amount member comm dollars and/or influence for party leaders. This system would be greatly threatened by an actual ‘movement’ you seek to create. While the past is the past, I would for the future to prove me wrong on this.
“For this caucus system to actually work as intended, and not just become another layer isolating party members and activists from the endorsement process, will require a commitment from local GOP leadership to focus the organization on facilitating participation at the precinct level.”
I don’t disagree. I think it could actually be achieved through the Registrar of Voters, by having each precinct elect a GOP Precinct Captain (PC). PCs could run by by actually meeting Republicans in their respective precincts. Those PCs could:
1- elect delegates to the state party
2- vote on all endorsements at a County Convention
3- populate the Clubs and GOTV committees
4- elect a regional chairman (by Assembly District)
5- create a movement
“This commitment would have to be in the form of bylaw amendment(s) that codify the transfer of candidate selection/endorsement power to the newly formed caucus-based process”
That’s the idea.
“and obligate party leadership to dedicating the resources necessary for the caucuses to function”
That costs money. If it couldn’t be done through the Registrar of Voters, I suppose you could have PC elections by signed petitions (I ask for GOP voters’ signatures, so do you, dupes get thrown out, and the most signs wins the PC job)
“With these mechanisms in place, then I would be fully willing to support the caucus proposal.”
Good. We have four years to affect that sort of change. I’m getting my feet wet this year but I”d like to see this happen in 2016.
Please keep the ideas coming