[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 15:08:40 PST 2012

That's very helpful, Aaron -- although the RNC position is the same as
arguing that if someone is already going to sentenced in a year in jail for
stealing someone's wallet, he or she might as well get a free pass and no
extra time for beating the victim over the head as well.

Note that the RNC's December 2011 report on state rules lists Puerto Rico
has having a winner-take-all contest in March without any penalty. So it's
not just that they are letting Arizona and Florida violate the prohibition
against winner-take-all. Yet, as Aaron points out, some Republicans don't
agree with the RNC position -- for instance, Michael Steele, who was chair
from 2009-2011, said in the Adam Smith article: ""The rule is absolutely
clear — it should be proportional."

One almost might think it's the big money wing of the Republican party
willing to set aside rules in order to create a firewall to boost the
candidate most able to have the financial resources to compete in what is
an extremely expensive state. Maybe not, but it sure begs the question if
the RNC can't come up with a better reason than "how can we possibly
penalize a state for breaking more than one rule"?

As to South Carolina, Jeff, it's only being penalized for going early, just
like New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan and Arizona.

- Rob

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"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!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120129/48bb2b16/attachment.html>