[EL] Jim (& other RNC members) -- any insight into why RNC ignores its 2010 rule on winner-take-all primaries before April 1?

Sun Jan 29 14:13:42 PST 2012

What's the status of South Carolina--I've seen reports they're being
punished as well?

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Aaron Blake <BlakeA at washpost.com> wrote:

> The RNC position on this has been that, because it's already punishing
> states like Florida for breaking the rules once (by moving up their
> primaries), it cannot punish them for not following the delegate-allocation
> rules. Basically, they say they can only take away half their delgates
> once, and there's no good mechanism for preventing them from breaking
> another rule. Whether they are in violation of one or two rules, the
> penalty is the same.
>
> I will say that I have spoken with several RNC members who don't agree
> with this position and could potentially force the issue.
>
> The Tampa Bay Times' Adam Smith recently had a good take on this
> situation:
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/if-gop-fight-drags-on-so-could-argument-over-floridas-delegates/1212342
>
>
> Aaron Blake
> The Washington Post
> The Fix
> www.PostPolitics.com
> blakea at washpost.com
> twitter.com/FixAaron
> 202.503.4669
>
> -----law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu wrote: -----
> To: Election Law <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>,
> Jim Bopp <JBoppjr at aol.com> <JBoppjr at aol.com>
> From: Rob Richie **
> Sent by: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> Date: 01/29/2012 04:11PM
> Subject: [EL] Jim (& other RNC members) -- any insight into why RNC
> ignores its 2010 rule on winner-take-all primaries before April 1?
>
>
> Hi, Jim,
>
> I thought you might be able to clear up for this listserv why the
> Republican National Committee apparently plans to allow Florida to hold a
> winner-take-all primary this week without penalty.
>
> In 2010, the Republican National Committee adopted this rule: "Any
> presidential primary,caucus, convention, or other meeting held for
> the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs
> prior to the first day of April 19 of 41 in the year in which the national
> convention is held, shall provide for the allocation of delegates on
> a proportional basis." (See Rule 15b at:
> http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf )
>
> The 2010 rule also changed the the schedule in a way designed to have
> initial nomination contests in February. When Florida insisted on holding a
> January primary, South Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire also moved their
> contests into January. The RNC responded by taking half the convention
> delegates away from SC, NH and F, along with states like MI and AZ voting
> earlier than allowed under the rules (but not Iowa, because Iowa doesn't
> bind delegates with its straw poll in January).
>
> Florida, however, in addition is prepared to violate the 2010 rule on not
> using winner-take-all. Like Arizona and Puerto Rico, which also are holding
> winner-take-all contests before April 1st, it apparently is facing no
> penalty for doing so -- seemingly inviting a convention challenge to those
> delegates.(As an aside, South Carolina was given an exemption from the rule
> -- Gingrich likely will end up with all 25 delegates if the final vote
> shows him carrying all 7 congressional districts, as anticipated.)
>
> Below is a link to a story from Marketwatch. It has a curious quote
> from Kirsten Kukowski, identified as spokeswoman for the RNC. She says the
> national group gave no formal nod to Florida’s winner-take-all system, but
> doesn’t  approve or disapprove of such plans.
>
> But why wouldn't the 2010 rules indicate the RNC disapproves of such a
> plan? Is there a way to understand why the RNC enforces some rules and not
> others?
>
> Finally, although the media generallly doesn't get this issue, as most
> pundits in their hyper way treat all contests as if they were
> winner-take-all (thus the silly focus on who "won" Iowa with less than 25%
> of a straw poll), but Florida's decision to violate the rules has a very
> real impact on how candidates campaign and who may win the nomination
> contest. For instance, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have both said that they
> will focus on states with proportional allocation, as they earn rewards for
> political activity and votes even when not finishing first. Here are links
> to some FairVote's resources on this topic:
>
> Delegate allocation rules in 2012 GOP race<http://www.fairvote.org/delegate-allocation-rules-in-2012-gop#.Txt02mNSTut>
>
> Open, closed and mixed primaries, state-by-state<http://www.fairvote.org/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two#.Txt1umNSTus>
>
>
> South Carolina Primary: One Candidate May Easily Win All Delegates<http://www.fairvote.org/south-carolina-primary-one-candidate-may-easily-win-all-delegates#.Txt17GNSTus>
>
> Understanding How Proportional Representation Worked in NH<http://www.fairvote.org/gop-primaries-proportional-representation-nh/#.TxnnwlsppGY>
>
>
> *State-by-State Popular Votes and Delegates won in GOP 2012 Primary Races*<http://fairvote.org/gop-2012-primary-race-results>
>
> Thanks,
> Rob Richie, FairVote
>
> ######
> EXCERPTS FROM...
>
>
> http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2012/01/27/gop-tries-to-quash-rumors-of-change-in-floridas-winner-take-all/
>
> GOP tries to quash rumors of change in Florida’s winner-take-all
> January 27, 2012
>
> Rumors have been circulating around Florida in recent days that a
> challenge is looming to the state’s winner-take-all primary system, but
> Republican officials there say the chances of such an appeal being
> successful are virtually zero.
>
> All of Florida’s 50 delegates are likely to go to either former
> Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the two
> frontrunners in the GOP contest there. There has been talk that the
> runner-up in a tight race might contest the winner-take-all rule, since
> many other states dole out delegates proportionately to election
> results......
>
> ....Kirsten Kukowski, spokeswoman for the RNC, says the national group
> gave no formal nod to Florida’s winner-take-all system; it doesn’t approve
> or disapprove of such plans. The state, however, was penalized for holding
> its primary earlier than April 1 and lost half of what had been a
> 99-delegate slate for moving up its election. It was one of several states
> that lost half its delegates for moving their primaries ahead of the
> national committee’s planned schedule, including Arizona, Michigan, New
> Hampshire and South Carolina.
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>
> Rob Richie
> Executive Director
>
> FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> www.fairvote.org  <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
> (301) 270-4616
>
> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
> http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a
> gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
> 10132.) Thank you!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120129/6c80f7b6/attachment.html>