If you were following Liberty at the RNC Summer meeting this past week, you already know that eight members of the RNC Resolution Committee refused to make a motion to discuss the Resolution to Restore the Voice of the Grassroots.
Over all, out of the nine resolutions that were brought before the RNC Resolutions Committee, seven were passed. Six out of those seven were substituted with language molded by the RNC’s Steering Committee during the weeks leading into the summer meeting, and only one of the resolutions presented — the most widely sponsored resolution the committee even heard, and the only one of the resolutions presented which had nine sponsors — was the only one about which no motion was made to discuss or reconsider.
This despite numerous pleas for a discussion as to the controversial manner that the 2012 Rules were passed and demands to have a discussion on the future role of delegates to the National Convention.
The Resolution Committee had a number of options on the table to choose from:
1.) They could have discussed the resolution and either passed or failed in the Committee;
2.) They could have forwarded it to the general session with a negative recommendation;
3.) They could have forwarded it to the general session with no recommendation; or
4.) They could have refused to make a motion to even discuss the resolution.
Ultimately they chose to follow the fourth option, which was along the same line of thinking they used when they ignored the calls for division on the floor of the 2012 Republican National Convention.
I personally spoke with many representatives of the 168-member body before and after the presentation in the resolution committee. Many of those representatives agreed with the resolution’s sentiments, specifically that the rules may not have been properly passed and that there really is no way to ensure the integrity of the 2012 National Convention Rules vote. Unfortunately for the grassroots, they did not want to co-sponsor for any of the following reasons:
• They did not want to resolve to return to the 2008 rules;
• They did not want to rehash the past;
• They believed that it was ‘Out of Order’;
• They believe the party needs the 2012 rules to be competitive;
• They do not want a repeat of 2012, vis-a-vis the lost control of the delegate situation;
• They do not understand the entire situation;
• They were new and still figuring out what is happening around them; and/or
• They want to streamline the nomination process and need Rule 12 to make the necessary changes.
As per the rules governing Resolutions, if just 3 more members from 3 different states would of stood alongside those who stood with the grassroots this resolution would of at least guaranteed a discussion among the full body of the RNC in the General Session.
Essentially, it would be impossible to raise these arguments up again at any future RNC meetings.
The only opportunity to influence rules 1-11 and 13-25 would be through Morton Blackwell’s approach through the Rules Committee. Unfortunately the RNC decided to refer all rule change amendments to brand new 10-member subcommittee as they did with all 3 amendments brought forward at the Rules Committee this past week.
Prior to 2012, the RNC had to wait four years to receive input from elected delegates to change the rules of the party.
After the Ginsberg power grab and the implementation of Rule 12, the RNC could change the rules through raised amendments from the Rules Committee which is made up of more 50 people, each representing a each state or territory. Those changes which received a majority vote would then be brought before the full 168-member body and would then need the support of 3/4 of that body in order to adopt the changes.
Now with the creation of a 10-member rules subcommittee, the changes brought to the full rules committee will be referred to the subcommittee and then offered back as a slate of changes to the rules committee. This makes it difficult on Rules Committee members as the pressure to make even the smallest beneficial changes will be locked with potentially bad changes.
The subcommittee is scheduled to meet every month in Washington, D.C., and it is the party’s belief that this will help speed up the changes.
Personally, I see this as a further power-grab. The Rules Committee is more than capable of handling these changes, and there is a representative from every state and territory each of whom could provide input from the state he or she represents.
It is also important to note that Rule 12 only offers the opportunity to change the rules up to two years before the National Convention. That means there are only three meetings left. It is important to remember that the RNC is planning to streamline the National Convention to a maximum 60-day period and future tweaks to a number of the rules is needed to make that a possibility.
Here is the final list of official Sponsors of Resolution to Restore the Voice of the Grassroots:
Chief Sponsor Mark Willis NCM, Maine
Marti Halverson, NCW Wyoming
James Wilson-Smack, NCM Nevada
Diana Orrock, NCW Nevada
Curly Haugland, NCM North Dakota
Dave Agema, NCM Michigan
Sandye Kading, NCW South Dakota
Barry Peterson, SC Idaho
Ashley Ryan, NCW Maine
Carolina Liberty PAC (www.carolinalibertypac.com)
Please be sure to reach out to the t
On a postive note, I want to mention one HUGE VICTORY that did occur from the RNC Summer Meeting:
I have seen so many activists supportive of this measure and they may not be aware of the role that Nicole played in making it happen and what an amazing victory that it signifies for grassroots activists. This may have been the only thing we actually had input in that passed this entire week.
Thank you to all of you who petitioned their committee members to urging them to pass it.