[EL] Big development regarding the "white knight" proposal at RNC Rule...
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Fri Apr 22 09:17:45 PDT 2016
If you don't follow the advice of your lawyer, what is the point of having
one?
It is inconceivable to me that the Chairman of our national convention will
ignore or contradict the RNC General Counsel's interpretation of our own
rules and that the convention will not adhear to that. JIm Bopp
In a message dated 4/22/2016 11:37:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com writes:
Jim wrote:
“Of course, RNC Rules takes precedent over whatever parliamentary
authority the RNC uses and John Ryder, as RNC General Counsel, is the final
authority on the interpretation of RNC Rules, so this seems to have settled the
issue.”
It was my understanding that John will technically advise the Chair, who
then makes a ruling in the event of a dispute over the interpretation of the
rules, but that such ruling is subject to an appeal to the entire
convention. Is this correct?
Best,
Sean Parnell
President, Impact Policy Management LLC
Alexandria, Virginia
571-289-1374
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 7:55 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Big development regarding the "white knight" proposal at
RNC Rules commit...
Regarding your second point below, whether someone else can be nominated
(without a suspension of the rules or a new rules change) after balloting
begins at the RNC convention, there was a very important development which
largely shuts that door.
Yesterday, a possible Rules change was discussed at the RNC Rules
Committee meeting that would have changed the parliamentary authority for the Rep.
national convention from the House Rules to Roberts. One reason expressed
by its supporters for this change was their concern that a new candidate
could be put on the ballot during voting ,after several ballots resulted in
no nominee, based simply on presiding officer's authority, as Mark argues
below, rather than by a vote of the convention delegates.
During the debate, RNC General Counsel John Ryder said that the "white
knight" concern was not well founded because the RNC Rules themselves, s
pecifically Rules 40(e), does not permit reopening of nominations, once voting
has begun, without a suspension of the rules that requires 2/3 vote of the
delegates.
_Click here: RNC rules panel rejects proposal to simplify convention
procedures - Washington Times_
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/21/rnc-rules-panel-rejects-proposal-simplify-conventi/)
Of course, RNC Rules takes precedent over whatever parliamentary authority
the RNC uses and John Ryder, as RNC General Counsel, is the final
authority on the interpretation of RNC Rules, so this seems to have settled the
issue.
This also has confirm my view, expressed below to Mark's original post,
that RNC Rules prevent reopening of the nominations, once balloting had
begun, unless the rules are suspended by a 2/3rd's vote.
Unfortunately, many in the media missed this important development about
an issue that it has widely discussed. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/3/2016 7:45:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) writes:
Regarding your two points discussed here:
(1) Rove's statement:
Rule 40(b) only prevents a candidate who is not supported by a majority of
delegates from 8 states from being formally nominated and from giving a
nomination speech (together with seconding speeches), but doesn't prevent
votes for the candidate from being cast and counted.
Under current Rules, this statement is obviously wrong. When the tally is
announced after the vote of the delegates, only the votes for nominated
candidates will be announced. If someone votes for their favorite Fantasy
Candidate, he or she will not be included in the tally announced by the
convention chair at the conclusion of the vote.
This is provided for in Rule 40(d): "When at the close of a roll call any
candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice
President of the United States has received a majority of the votes entitled to
be cast in the convention, the chairman of the convention shall announce the
votes for each candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this rule. Before the convention adjourns
sine die, the chairman of the convention shall declare the candidate
nominated by the Republican Party for President of the United States and Vice
President of the United States." Paragraph (b) is the provision of the Rules on
nomination of candidates.
Thus, only duly nominated candidates will be announced in the final tally
and thus eligible to win the nomination.
(2) whether someone else can be nominated (without a suspension of the
rules or a new rules change) after balloting begins.
No. There are several reasons but the most obvious is that under 40(e),
"If no candidate shall have received such majority, the chairman of the
convention shall direct the roll of the states be called again and shall
repeat the calling of the roll until a candidate shall have received a majority
of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention." The Rules does not
allow for new nominations between roll calls but only conducting the next
roll call.
Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/2/2016 6:01:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu_ (mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu) writes:
Thoughts on Rule 40(b), which some people are saying will prevent the GOP
Convention from considering anyone but Trump (and maybe Cruz) for the
presidential nomination?
Karl Rove said on Hugh Hewitt's radio show that Rule 40(b) only prevents a
candidate who is not supported by a majority of delegates from 8 states
from being formally nominated and from giving a nomination speech (together
with seconding speeches), but doesn't prevent votes for the candidate from
being cast and counted.
The second half of his statement (allowing for counting of votes) appears
to be wrong per Rule 40(d), but perhaps only if a candidate (Trump in
this case) receives a majority (1,237) of the votes entitled to be cast:
(d) When at the close of a roll call any candidate for nomination for
President of the United States or Vice President of the United States has
received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention, the
chairman of the convention shall announce the votes for each candidate whose
name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this
rule. Before the convention adjourns sine die, the chairman of the
convention shall declare the candidate nominated by the Republican Party for
President of the United States and Vice President of the United States.
I suppose what is apparently excluded is the announcement of votes for
anyone other than those formally nominated, if there is a majority winner. It
may be cutting it too thin to say that votes can be counted but just not
announced; of course, if Trump gets 1,237, he gets the nomination, and it
doesn’t matter whether votes for others are counted or announced.
As I read the rule, the situation may change on a second or later ballot.
Provided there is at least an hour between roll call votes, a majority of
delegates from 8 states, many of which would be unbound, could certify that
they support another candidate, making that candidate eligible to be
nominated. Here is the text of Rule 40(b):
(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and
Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a
majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states, severally,
prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of
Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a
certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number
of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8) or more states
shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than
one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination
pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.
I think that is a fair reading of the rule, not a hyper-technical reading.
Such a reading should not be treated as an underhanded attempt to avoid
application of the rule and deny Trump the nomination. So Cruz or Kasich or
even someone else could be eligible to be nominated on the second ballot or
on a later ballot, even if they can’t be nominated on the first ballot. A
rule could reasonably be adopted, or I suppose the chair could simply
decide, that an hour or an hour and a half would elapse between ballots. (I don’
t know of any rule that requires a roll-call ballot to begin to be taken
immediately after the conclusion of an earlier ballot, but perhaps there is
such a rule.)
There is a provision (Rule 40(a)) allowing for a motion for nomination by
acclamation if only one candidate has been nominated, but I think any such
motion could be contested and at least a voice vote be demanded if there
is substantial dissent. There was a voice vote when Sen. Goldwater was
nominated by acclamation in 1964 on motion of the losing candidate, Gov.
Scranton:
“Eventually, however, the motion of acclamation was carried by a
resounding voice vote and Governor Scranton returned to the stand to say that he and
his wife were happy about the whole thing. They even managed to look as if
they were.” Tom Wicker, Goldwater Nominated, Special to the New York
Times, July 16, 1964,
https://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/640716convention-gop-ra-2.html.
The chair could reasonably rule that the motion has not carried –
particularly if a majority of the delegates are not in favor of giving Trump the
nomination – and then we'd be off to a second ballot. There is at least some
support for the concept that adoption of a motion by acclamation requires
unanimous consent, http://www.roberts-rules.com/parl06.htm, though I doubt
that the drafters of the rule intended to require unanimity. Here is the
Rule:
(a) In making the nominations for President of the United States and Vice
President of the United States and voting thereon, the roll of the states
shall be called separately in each case; provided, however, that if there is
only one candidate for nomination for Vice President of the United States
who has demonstrated the support required by paragraph (b) of this rule, a
motion to nominate for such office by acclamation shall be in order and no
calling of the roll with respect to such office shall be required.
I wonder what list members think, especially list members who may have
experience in dealing with convention rules. Note also that, contrary to what
is being widely stated, there is no requirement that the candidate have
won a majority of delegates from 8 states in a primary or caucus; it is
enough if a majority of delegates from 8 states certify their support for the
candidate. I don’t think that delegates who are bound to vote for a candidate
can certify support for another candidate, but some aren’t bound on the
first ballot and many are not bound on later ballots.
I’m overwhelmed with work right now, and barely was able to get this post
out to the list. Please pardon me if I’m not able to do more than just
read any responses.
My apologies also if I’ve missed something obvious, which might be the
case.
Best wishes,
Mark Scarberry
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto: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/20160422/2c43deb2/attachment.html>
View list directory