RNC Consent Decree Ends After 35 Years

After 35 years, the consent decree that prohibited the Republican National Committee (RNC) from engaging in ballot security activities was terminated by a federal judge.  RNLA Chair John Ryder, former General Counsel to the RNC, stated:

Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ended the consent decree that had banned the Republican National Committee from engaging in activities to ensure that elections are open, fair, and honest since 1982.  Despite years and much money spent searching for evidence of Republican voter suppression, the Democratic National Committee could not present evidence to the court sufficient for the consent decree to remain in effect.  We applaud the fact that the RNC may now, on the same, lawful, non-discriminatory basis as other political organizations, ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote and that the votes of ineligible voters are not counted.

In November, the judge noted that the DNC had not presented any evidence of voter suppression, let alone any by the RNC:

“As far as what’s before this court, you’ve presented me with no evidence of actual voter suppression efforts on the day of the election, much less tying it to the RNC,” [Judge John Michael] Vazquez told DNC attorneys.

The judge had kept the consent decree in force after a December 1 sunset date to give the DNC an additional opportunity to present evidence of voter suppression or violation of the decree's provisions by the RNC.  It failed to do so:

In order to extend the decree, the DNC needed to show that the RNC violated the terms of pact. . . . However, Vazquez, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in his ruling that despite the various claims, the Democrats had not shown any violation "by a preponderance of the evidence." . . . 

"We are gratified that the judge recognized our full compliance with the consent decree and rejected the DNC’s baseless claims," said RNC communications director Ryan Mahoney. 

"Today’s ruling will allow the RNC to work more closely with state parties and campaigns to do what we do best, ensure that more people vote through our unmatched field program." 

While the consent decree has been in effect, other Republican organizations, such as the RNLA, NRCC, NRSC, Republican state parties, and other groups, have worked to ensure that elections are open, fair, and honest.  As Mr. Ryder noted, we look forward to a new era where the RNC can, if it so chooses, be a part of this effort to protect the right to vote of every eligible voter.  

Obama-Appointed Judge Confirms There is NO Evidence of Republican Voter Suppression

Since 1981 the Republican National Committee has been under a consent decree regarding election integrity operations. For years the RNC has avoided any and everything to do with such activities.  The Democratic National Committee and its allies have been frothing at the mouth on this issue, despite no evidence of ANYONE on the right engaging in voter suppression.  Today, a federal judge appointed by President Obama, Michael Vazquez, made a statement that should put the argument over voter suppression to rest for good:

 “As far as what’s before this court, you’ve presented me with no evidence of actual voter suppression efforts on the day of the election, much less tying it to the RNC,” Vazquez told DNC attorneys.

This statement is worth breaking down.  In 2016, in the entire country the DNC with its large staff, money and nationwide affiliates could find “no evidence” of “actual voter suppression.”  The word actual is important because the DNC, Democrats and left-wing groups have accused Republicans in the media and fundraised off such claimed “voter suppression.”  Yet, the DNC could find “no evidence.” 

The DNC and liberal allies will no doubt latch on to the fact that the judge granted a deposition of Sean Spicer based on comments he made in a news article.  However, again, the judge stated:

“I want to give you a realistic expectation that I’m not going to be inclined to grant any additional discovery unless, through material issue of the consent decree, you have real evidence that what he said was not accurate,” he said.

The RNC did not engage in election integrity operation in 2016 or for years prior.  More importantly, an Obama-appointed judge agrees that there is no “actual voter suppression” by Republicans.   Now it is up to the media to focus on the real problems with election administration and to call out Democrats for "fake news."  

RNLA Congratulates Ronna Romney McDaniel as Next RNC Chair

Washington, DC — Today, the Republican National Committee (RNC) announced that Ronna Romney McDaniel will be the next Deputy Chair of the RNC, in line for the position of Chairwoman when current RNC Chairman Reince Priebus becomes President Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff next month. While the Republican National Lawyers Association is fully separate from the RNC, we congratulate our fellow Republican organization on an excellent selection for its next leader and congratulate Ronna Romney McDaniel.

RNLA Chair Kimberly Reed said: "As the first female Chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association, I congratulate Ronna Romney McDaniel on being named Deputy Chair of the RNC. She ably led the Michigan Republican Party in a pivotal year that turned the key swing state of Michigan from blue to red for the first time in a presidential election since 1988. We look forward to her bringing that talent to the RNC to make a difference for our nation at the start of the Trump."

The RNC Chair is the national leader of the Republican Party, tasked with bringing the disparate coalitions that compose the Party together to advance Republican policy goals and elect Republican candidates. Ms. Romney McDaniel, Michigan native and niece of 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has served as Michigan’s representative to the RNC and as Chair of the Michigan Republican Party. She worked tirelessly on behalf of Republican candidates in Michigan this election cycle, bringing together different coalitions within the Party in Michigan.

RNLA’s Michigan Chapter Chair Jason Hanselman stated: "Congratulations to Ronna Romney McDaniel. Ronna is an excellent choice after leading the effort to win Michigan for Donald Trump, the first Republican Presidential candidate to win Michigan in 28 years—something many people said was impossible. Ronna's vision, leadership, and fundraising acumen allowed the Michigan Republican Party to achieve historic victories this year. And winning the election once was not enough for Ronna. She also worked tirelessly to defeat Jill Stein's wasteful recount effort—recruiting and organizing volunteers while overseeing the litigation that ultimately ceased the recount in Michigan. I wish Ronna the best in this new endeavor and am confident that she will bring to the RNC the same level of excellence she brought to the Michigan Republican Party." 

"The person who leads the RNC has a tremendous impact on the Republican Party and the entire country. Ronna Romney McDaniel is an excellent choice to succeed Reince Priebus," said Elliot Berke, President of RNLA.

RNLA is the national organization of Republican attorneys. The mission of RNLA is to advance professionalism; open, fair and honest elections; career opportunity; and Republican ideals. For more information, please visit http://www.rnla.org.

###

The RNLA Board of Governors Announces John Ryder as the 2016 Republican Lawyer of the Year

The Board of Governors of the Republican National Lawyers Association is pleased to announce the selection of John Ryder as the 2016 Republican Lawyer of the Year. This award recognizes lawyers for outstanding professional accomplishments and years of dedicated service to the Republican Party and its ideals.

Mr. Ryder will be presented the award at a special reception in his honor on September 27 at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C.  More details on the reception may be found here.  Photos from our 2015 Republican Lawyer of the Year Reception honoring Bobby Burchfield and featuring Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and RNC Chair Reince Priebus can be found here.

John Ryder has served the Republican Party in a variety of ways. He has been Chairman of the Shelby County Republican Party and served on the Tennessee State Executive Committee from 1986 to 1996 and from 2002 to 2014.

In 1996, he was elected to the Republican National Committee from Tennessee. He brought with him over two decades of experience litigating redistricting cases in Tennessee, the cradle of one person, one vote. On the RNC, he was appointed to the Redistricting Task Force in 1997 by Chairman Jim Nicholson. Ten years later, he was asked to Chair the Redistricting Committee of the RNC by Chairman Michael Steele.

Perhaps more importantly, John has been a leader in the area of the Rules of the Republican Party. He served on the RNC Standing Committee on Rules from 1996-2004 and from 2008-2016. He has served on the Convention Rules Committee in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016. He served as a member of the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee in 2008-2010, a committee which helped develop and refine the presidential nominating system.

In 2013, Chairman Reince Priebus appointed John as General Counsel of the RNC, a position he still holds. The RNC General Counsel is a volunteer position. Given the challenges of the past year, this means that John has donated countless hours to the Republican Party.

Additionally, he has been a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1984, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 and as an alternate in 1992. He was a Presidential Elector in 1988 and 2004.

He is a member of the Board of Governors of the RNLA.

John is a member of the adjunct faculty of Vanderbilt University School of Law, where he teaches Election Law.

John is a member of Harris Shelton Hanover Walsh in Memphis, Tennessee, where his everyday practice is concentrated in the areas of commercial litigation and bankruptcy. Mr. Ryder has represented secured lenders, unsecured creditors committees, trustees and debtors in the bankruptcy process. He has served as trustee and receiver. He has participated in a number of major bankruptcies, including The Julian Companies, Microwave Products, Wexner & Jacobsen, FCS, Braniff and others. He is a frequent lecturer on bankruptcy and commercial law topics.

Mr. Ryder served as Shelby County Assistant County Attorney from 1978 to 1990 and from 1994 to 2014. He edited the Laws of Shelby County Annotated, the first compilation of Private Acts affecting Shelby County. He served as Delinquent Tax Attorney for Shelby County from 1990 to 1994, and he served as member of the Shelby County Home Rule Charter Commission and presently represent the Shelby County Election Commission.

Rules Committee Meets for Thoughtful Debate and Consideration of Rules

The Convention Rules Committee is meeting in anticipation of the Republican National Convention next week.  The 112-member Rules Committee is composed of one male and one female delegate from each state and territory.

This important Committee is led by the following RNLA members, among many other excellent Republican leaders:

• David Asp - MN
• Vincent DeVito - NY
• Harmeet Dhillion - CA
• Randy Evans - GA
• Peter Feaman - FL
• Richard Forsten - DE
• Bob Kabel - DC
• Anne Lewis - GA
• William Palatucci - NJ
• John Ryder - TN
• J.L. Spray - NE
• Mike Stuart - WV
• Lawrence Tabas - PA
• Harvey Tettlebaum - MO

We thank these RNLA members for their able leadership and dedication to ensuring the future of the Republican Party.

In contrast to the media hysteria regarding the Rules Committee in the preceding months, the debate has been conducted by the Committee members thoughtfully and respectfully.  In all the debates, the Committee members emphasized openness, transparency, the rule of law, and how to make the Republican Party and RNC responsive to the people.  In most cases, after careful consideration and debate, the members have decided not to make major changes to the rules.

An Quick Overview on Convention Rules; Delegates are Legitimately Bound

RNLA Member James Bopp, Jr., wrote a nice informative blog post over at The Hill yesterday discussing convention delegates and the current RNC rules. Now, most familiar with the situation know that the idea of a revolt on the floor has been an impossibility for some time. Yet, the mainstream media and liberals continue to try and resuscitate the movement like voters from beyond the grave in California.

James Bopp points out with a high level of specificity the reality of the situation. GOP delegates are legitimately bound, deal with it, as the alternative would likely result in the destruction of the Republican Party itself.

The advocates of this view say they want to “Free the Delegates” or affirm their right of “conscience” and they cite GOP Convention history, a Supreme Court decision, and current RNC Rules to support their position. They are right about history, but wrong about Supreme Court precedent and current RNC Rules. Absent the adoption of a contrary RNC Rule, state party rules and state laws which bind delegates are legally valid and respect for the Rule of Law requires that delegates vote in accordance with these requirements.

Throughout the blog post, Bopp goes on to debunk David French of National Review’s three main points that he contends could potentially free up delegates at the Convention. French’s three main points consisted of the following.

“1. State legislatures cannot violate the First Amendment rights of Republican delegates.”
. . . [T]he First Amendment right here is not an individual right of each delegate but a right of political association that requires the association to act. So Mr. French overstates his point by a slight of hand, while correctly arguing that the First Amendment protects political party rules against contrary state laws, he erroneously characterizes it as “the First Amendment rights of Republican delegates.” Delegates have no individual First Amendment right to vote as they please contrary to a state law. . . .

“2. Traditional and current Republican rules and practices allow delegates to vote their conscience.”
Of course, it is true that, through most of its history, delegates were not bound by any state party rule or state law to vote for any particular candidate at the GOP national convention. Historically and now, delegates are selected by state party conventions or caucuses, and only rarely by election in a primary by the voters – this is why our primaries are called “Presidential preference primaries.” 
But as primaries have become more popular in order to gauge grassroots Republican support for a particular candidate, state laws and state party rules that bind delegates to the results of these primaries have also become more popular. So the critical issue is what do the RNC Rules say about this. . . .

“3. If the Republican Party wishes to bind delegates to Trump, it will have to change the rules to do so.”
This is just not so. As explained, state party rules and state laws are currently valid and enforceable, since there is no RNC Rule that prohibits them.  So the shoe is on the other foot. A RNC Rule prohibiting binding must be adopted by the National Convention, to be effective at the 2016 Convention, to relieve delegates of their state binding. Certainly those advocating a “conscience amendment” implicitly understand this and they are right. . . .

The entire post is worth reading for those somewhat familiar with the rules and certainly to those with little knowledge of the process. 

Bopp also penned an article discussing why any changes to the rules of the Convention should not take effect until the Convention adopting the change adjourns.  Attempts to change the convention rules themselves could have a devastating effect on the party itself.

The RNC Rules Meeting - Media Hypes 54-2 as Bitterly Divided

If you skim articles like the one below in Politico, you would think that the RNC rules committee, and the entire Republican Party, was tearing itself apart.  Typical quote is (emphasis added):

The vote bitterly divided the party, pitting a small group eager to advance the proposal against RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and his allies, who warned that implementing the change would further inflame Donald Trump, who has accused the committee of overseeing a “rigged” process that’s stacked against him.

As a guest attendee and member of the audience, I saw no bitter division either at the Rules Committee or the meeting as a whole.  The Party was in good spirits and saw Governor Kasich, Senator Cruz, and Dr. Carson for Donald Trump with equal respect and interest.  I heard officials for all campaigns and RNC Members from across the country on board with supporting the nominee, whoever that may be. 

As far as what the actual substance of the Rules Committee hearing, it was a debate of whether the convention should run under the rules of the United States House of Representatives or “Roberts Rules.”  In other words, this was not for or against a candidate, nor was it debating any sort of substantive change in the Party’s principles. 

It was a debate discussed respectfully with everyone truly getting along.  Of course, the media loves a fight, so it is only in the last sentence of the Politico article that summed up what the meeting was really like:

“There’s been a little bit written in the press about the work of this committee,” [Committee Chair] Ash said. “Let’s be clear about one thing: This committee has done a good job standing together.”

As far as the substance, the Democrat Convention and every Republican Convention in the Party’s History except 1884 have been run under House rules.  As RNLA Chair Randy Evans and Board Member John Ryder stated:

“We’re basically in the seventh inning of a ballgame, and I don’t think it’s right to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game,” argued Randy Evans, an RNC member from Georgia. “Any change we make would be viewed with a very large degree of cynicism.”

John Ryder, a member from Tennessee who is the RNC’s counsel, warned that it would “subject this committee to enormous political criticism.”

The committee agreed by a voice vote that I was told unofficially was 54-2.  No real controversy.  However, it did provide a lot of media establishment types a chance to hype a fight.  Problem was, there really wasn’t one.  

Facts About the RNC Rules Committee

Much is being made about the RNC Rules Committee meeting being held today.  RNLA will be live tweeting from the Rules Committee hearing.  However, it is important to note what the RNC Rules Committee is and is not. 

The RNC’s Standing Committee on Rules exists to administer the rules passed by the previous national convention delegates and to help govern the party between Conventions.  

The RNC’s Rules Committee does NOT write the convention rules.  To clarify how those are written:

1. The rules for the 2016 Convention will be decided and enacted by the delegates to the 2016 Convention.

2. Two delegates, elected from their state delegations, will serve on a Convention Rules Committee that will write the rules for the 2016 convention.

3. Delegates elected by the grassroots are the only people who will write the rules that will govern the 2016 Convention. 

For more on this, follow the RNLA on twitter today starting at 2 p.m. Eastern at: https://twitter.com/TheRepLawyer

RNLA Chair Randy Evan's Expertise on the Republican Convention and Delegate Processes

As the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination continues to be competitive, Randy Evans, RNLA’s Chair and a member of the Republican National Committee, has been sharing his expertise on the delegate selection process and the Republican National Convention.  Here are some of his recent statements:

On March 18, Randy spoke to the Atlanta Journal Constitution and provided "Five answers about an open Republican convention in Cleveland."  The key point is the Party will not try to change the rules to work against a candidate:

Q: Will the party change the rules to try to prevent a Trump nomination?

A: No. As a member of the Rules Committee, I can say there is no appetite to rig the convention. On the other hand, there are a number of rules proposals that the RNC Rules Committee will take up at the RNC spring meeting in April. They range from unbinding delegates to changing the number of states required for nomination to permitting pledging of delegates.

By then, we will have better picture of where things are, but I do not expect any significant rules changes. We may have to consider some modifications to address the logistics of an open convention if that remains a realistic possibility, but we will just have to wait and see on that.

While the rules committee process will be fair and no one is out to favor one candidate or another, there are still issues of legitimate debate. For example, Randy explained an issue  regarding the withdrawn candidates:

Another issue the RNC is likely to take up at its April meeting is the status of delegates belonging to candidates who have suspended their campaigns. “There’s a genuine debate on the rules committee, as to how a suspended candidacy or a terminated or withdrawn candidacy operates to release their delegates. 

“I think each candidate who earned those delegates should have an important say,” Evans said. 

More recently in the Augusta Chronicle, Randy summed up that this is still an election:

“They know at the end of the day it is just about counting noses. We’ll have a vote, and at the end of the day, you win the vote or lose the vote,” said Randy Evans, the Republican committeeman from Georgia and a member of the national convention’s Rules Committee.

We wish to thank Randy and the other hard working men and women of the Republican National Committee for striving for a fair process.  Randy is available for interviews; contact press@republicanlawyer.net for more information.

The RNLA's Florida RNC Meeting Reception Is Rapidly Approaching. RSVP Today!

The RNLA Florida RNC Meeting Reception for RNLA Sponsors, RNLA Members and RNC Meeting Attendees will take place on April 20, 2016, on the patio (weather permitting) of the Rivals Waterfront Sports Bar located inside of the Diplomat Resort & Spa.

Special leaders and invited guests will be in attendance including RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, RNC General Counsel John Ryder, RNC Debate Committee Member and Georgia Committeeman Randy Evans, and Kasich for President's General Counsel Mark Braden.

Pictured: (Left to Right) RNC General Counsel John Ryder,
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus & RNLA Chair Randy Evans

To attend this reception you must be an RNLA Member or Sponsor this event.  Sponsors will receive additional perks.  Contact Brittany Walker at walker@republicanlawyer.net or Michael Thielen at thielen@republicanlawyer.net for details on membership or sponsorship.

Thank you to Manny Iglesias for graciously sponsoring this event.

To RSVP for this event, click here.  

Earlier in the day on April 20, the RNLA is also hosting a State Party Executive Director EDO Training and an Election Law CLE and Ethics Training Seminar. 

Questions About the Convention? RNLA Chairman Randy Evans Responds

Randy Evans is Chairman of the RNLA and is also a Member of the Rules Committee and the Debate Committee of the Republican National Committee (RNC).  He served as outside Counsel to the Speakers of the 104th-109th Congresses of the United States (Gingrich and Hastert).  He was a Senior Advisor the Newt 2012 Presidential Campaign. Evans will be attending the RNLA Reception for RNLA Sponsors, RNLA Members and RNC Meeting Attendees in Florida on April 20, 2016, at the Rivals Waterfront Sports Bar.

With the Wisconsin primary looming, the buzz around Republican National Convention rules has continued to increase in both frequency and volume. Randy Evans recently fielded questions on the Convention rules on MSNBC:

1.  What are the chances of an open convention with no candidate getting to the 1237 bound delegates needed to win the nomination on the first ballot?

Generally speaking, I have consistently said since January that there is a one in three chance that Republicans end up with an open convention. Largely, this is the result of the way the process was changed, the number of candidates, and the mathematical challenges of getting to that number.

With only 10 winner-take-all states and 46 proportional states, the ability to get a majority of delegates in any one state or throughout the process is very challenging until the race gets down to just two candidates.  With that said, I continue to believe it is much more likely that there will be a presumptive nominee, even if one candidate ends up just short of the 1237 delegates.

 2.  If Mr. Trump is the nominee, what are the chances of a third party challenge?

Very minimal.  As a lawyer, especially one that commissioned a project that collected all the rules, requirements and deadlines for candidates to get on the ballot, I can tell you that the chances of a ground up start of an independent or new third party challenge are virtually zero.  Too many deadlines are imminent and if a candidate started tomorrow, it would be virtually impossible to meet the deadlines that exist.  The only real possibility would be if a candidate with substantial donor support hijacked an existing third party and used it as the vehicle for getting on the ballot.  Otherwise, no candidate could get on enough ballots to have a realistic chance of winning the required 270 Electoral Votes.

 3.  Do you think Mr. Trump will get to the 1237?

On the GOP.org website, anyone can war game the possibilities. I have run 10 different scenarios.  Of those 10, there are 2 possible scenarios where he could get to the 1237 number prior to the Convention.  Basically, once the race dwindles to 2 real candidates, Mr. Trump could win in many proportional states 100% of the delegates with only 51% of the vote.  The more likely scenarios put him between 75 and 100 delegates short.  If that happens, I expect he would still win on the first ballot since there are enough unbound delegates from candidates who have dropped out or simply unbound under state party rules to close the gap.  As the gap grows beyond 100, the challenge gets exponentially more difficult given how deep the conviction against him is among some institutional power brokers to his nomination.  And, of course, there is always the chance of a change in political winds where he is not close.  I don’t see that based on what’s happened so far, but in this political cycle, anything is possible.

 4.  Will the Party change the Rules to try to prevent a Trump nomination?

No.  As a Member of the Rules Committee, there is no appetite to rig the Convention.  On the other hand, there are a number of rules proposals that the RNC Rules Committee will take up at the RNC Spring meeting in April.

They range from unbinding delegates to changing the number of states required for nomination to permitting pledging of delegates.  By then, we will have better picture of where things are, but I do not expect any significant rules changes.  We may have to consider some modifications to address the logistics of an open Convention if that remains a realistic possibility, but we will just have to wait and see on that.

 5.  What is the worst case scenario for the Republicans?

Really, the worst case is if no candidate is close to the 1237 and organized groups decide to filibuster the process.  We only have a Convention hall and hotel rooms for a week.  If it runs longer than that, then real logistical issues start to develop including the real risk of losing a quorum as folks leave, hotel rooms run out, and the Convention hall has to be used for other purposes.  Ending the week without a nominee would be a real challenge, but it is also an extremely remote possibility.  Yet, in fairness, we try to prepare for every possibility – both real and remote. It does highlight the wisdom of moving the Convention from August to July to give us more time to put things back together after the Convention if necessary.

6.  How do delegates bound to former candidates get released? 

Some say upon suspension of a campaign, they are released.  (In fact some state statutes or state party rules so state.) Some say that only upon the 'termination' of a campaign, they are released.  So far no candidate with delegates has actually 'terminated' their campaign.  Some say that only if a candidate actually releases the delegates, they are released.  (Again, some states include this option) 

Typically, it is a matter of state of law, although it remains an unsettled issue for the vast majority of jurisdictions.  As you might imagine, with Trump projected to be just short, this is a really big deal since he would need at least some unbound or 'released' delegates to reach the requisite 1,237.  Similarly, Senator Cruz needs those delegates to stay unbound and vote for him or their original candidate to keep Trump from going over the top.  It remains a looming issue with many insiders hoping that it never actually become a necessary issue to decide.

7.  Does the threshold of eight states get reduced? 

At the last RNC Rules Committee meeting, the Rules Committee almost adopted a rule that would have eliminated the threshold altogether and left open the possibility that any candidate - nominated at the convention or not - could become the GOP Nominee.  That possibility was averted in the final minutes of the last Rules Committee meeting.

Currently, the nomination threshold only becomes relevant only if Governor Kasich can win either 2 or 4 more states.  Hence, his strategy of targeting a handful of states is the best shot he has.  If he gets to 3 or 5 and the threshold is reduced accordingly, then he would be the third candidate in nomination on the first ballot and the implications are huge.  A three candidate first ballot is much more likely to produce an open convention than a two person race which, depending on how 'released' or 'not released' delegates vote, virtually guarantees a nominee on the first ballot.

8.  Can a candidate 'pledge' delegates to another candidate? 

Currently, the rules are silent on the issue and state rules suggest delegates are bound ONLY to the candidate who earned them.  However, candidates can release and urge their bound delegates to support another candidate, although such 'requests' are only that - 'requests.'  On the other hand, if the rules are clarified or amended to permit pledging of bound delegates, then then dynamics again change.  Such a change would permit a coalition of all or most of the candidates who are not the frontrunner to 'broker' a deal supporting a nominee who was neither had the requisite 1,237, nor even had a majority of the delegates.  Basically, permitting pledging delegates is the first step toward a ‘brokered’ convention. 

9.  Can new candidates enter the field after the first ballot? 

Interesting question:  40(e) says "If no candidate shall have received such majority, the chairman 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."  There does not appear to be any provision for re-opening nominations or making new nominations from the floor.  So, absent a rules change, how one of the 'establishment' candidates gets to be a 'candidate' remains unclear. Remember, however, the Convention can change its own rules.  Currently, that does not appear likely.

10. If delegates cast ballots for candidates not in nomination (i.e. they did not have the support of a majority of eight states to be nominated), does that lower the number needed to win?  In other words, if Rubio's delegates vote for Rubio, but he is not in nomination, does that lower the total votes cast for purposes of deciding what a majority is?  

The applicable rule is Rule 40(d) which says:  “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.”

The operative question is the phrase “the votes entitled to be cast in the convention.”  Traditionally, this has been the majority of the total votes eligible to be cast, not those actually cast.  So, regardless of how counted, the majority for purposes of determining the nominee will remain 1,237 absent a change in the Rules. 

At the last Rules Committee meeting, one change passed provides that votes for candidates not in nomination would be recorded by the Convention Secretary, but not included in the tally to determine the nominee.  The inclusion of recorded votes in the minutes, but not tallied votes for electing a nominee would not change the need to get to 1,237. 

Not surprising, some now question why such recorded but not tallied votes should not impact, “the votes entitled to be cast in the convention.” Absent a change in the rules, however, the 1,237 threshold will remain as the threshold for any candidate to become the nominee.

The events of the next weeks will continue to generate substantial interest in the RNC’s rules and regulations surrounding the Convention.

Republicans Point to the Role of States Post-SCOTUS Ruling

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges strikes down laws in 14 states that ban same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion as he did in the last three major gay rights cases.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus stated,

The Supreme Court failed to recognize the states’ constitutional role in setting marriage policy, instead finding a federal role where there is none.  In doing so, they have taken power away from the states and from the people to settle the relevant issues for themselves.

Speaker John Boehner reacts to the ruling,

All human beings are created equal by God and thus deserve to be treated with love, dignity and respect. I am, however, disappointed that the Supreme Court disregarded the democratically-enacted will of millions of Americans by forcing states to redefine the institution of marriage. My views are based on my upbringing and my faith. I believe that marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one woman, and I believe Americans should be able to live and work according to their beliefs.

Governor Jeb Bush declares,

Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage,” former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said. “I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.

Governor Scott Walker calls for a constitutional amendment,

I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges “has been with us for millennia.” In 2006 I, like millions of Americans, voted to amend our state constitution to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism. The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made…

Senator Marco Rubio shifts the focus an says,

This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years…While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood.

Senator Lindsey Graham notes,

I am a proud defender of traditional marriage and believe the people of each state should have the right to determine their marriage laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, and I will respect the Court’s decision.

Governor Bobby Jindal states,

The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.

RNLA Chair Randy Evans on Why the RNC Chair was Re-Elected

RNLA congratulates the newly elected RNC Leadership Team.  Also, RNLA Chair Randy Evans wrote in the Atlanta Business Chronicle on Why RNC Chairman Reince Priebus was re-elected.  A few highlights below:

Yet, behind the scenes, Priebus has built a political juggernaut capable of winning elections from county courthouses to statehouses to both houses of the Congress. The distance from where the party began when he took office to where it is today is by all accounts monumental. Now, with a third term to do it, he has set his sights on the ultimate prize for a political party chairman the White House in 2016. . . . 

Every election cycle, Priebus has taken the lessons from the last to build toward the next. When the RNC was so heavily in debt in 2011, he spent the year laser focused on raising money. When Republicans lost the Presidential election in 2012, Priebus ordered a top-to-bottom review. 

In 2014, Priebus not only led a winning team at the ballot box, but he looked beyond the fall elections and focused the RNC on changes to increase Republicans’ chances of winning in the 2016 Presidential election. These changes were not minor tweaks aimed at pacifying unhappy candidates

RNLA Leaders Help Pass Important RNC Rules Change on Presidential Debates

At the RNC meeting in Memphis last week, RNC General Counsel, RNC Committeeman from Tennessee, and RNLA Vice Chair John Ryder made a successful amendment to the RNC rules for the party to take control of the Republican Presidential Debate process in 2016:

Members of the Republican National Committee will start debating new rules — and potential penalties – they hope will give the party more control over the 2016 GOP primary debates during its annual spring meeting in Memphis this week.

“All this springs from a fundamental belief that hey, the Republican nominee ought to be chosen by the Republican Party,” RNC Chief of Staff Mike Shields told reporters before the meeting started this week. “And we actually ought to say how in how that nominating process goes and how the debates go.”

This all stems from the RNC’s autopsy report after the 2012 election. The 100-page report said the party can better serve its candidates by stepping in to regulate these televised showdowns in 2016. Some Republicans complained of too many debates with moderators asking unfair questions that ultimately weakened the eventual nominee.

. . .  “I think the party should have more control over who moderates, and we should have more control over the partners,” Priebus told TheDC. “And if we can come up with a mechanism to take more control over the debate processes, that’s what we’re going to try to do.”

Ryder’s amendment is pure common sense and it had wide backing.  RNC Chairman Priebus cited how all the current likely Republican presidential candidates backed the change, including Senator Paul who spoke later at the event. 

The strongest endorsement may have come from a key candidate last time.  Senior adviser to Newt Gingrich’s 2012 campaign, RNC Georgia Committeeman, and RNLA Chair Randy Evans spoke in favor of the amendment even though arguably no candidate benefited more in 2012 from the debate platform that Gingrich.  Evans pointed out the debates will still be there in a strong fashion:

Randy Evans, a national committeeman from Georgia, said the party should still have rigorous primary debates to weed out weak candidates. Evans, an adviser to Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign that he said "lived or died by debates," also said these face-offs can help introduce under-funded candidates to voters.

"We want folks to be able to come from nowhere and have a chance to win," said Evans.

The other reason for the RNC taking a role in the debates was the Candy Crowley and George Stephanopoulos factor. From Crowley violating the basic rules of a moderator by taking sides to Stephanopoulos asking about the right to contraception from Democrat talking points, the Republican Party should have fair moderators at their debates.  As John Ryder stated:

RNC committee member John Ryder said the party should have debates only with moderators who are Republicans or friendly to GOP causes, instead of "reading off talking points from (Obama campaign manager) Jim Messina and Obama for America."

"That's just not a good way to run a railroad or run a presidential primary," said Ryder, the Tennessean who introduced the change.

Lastly, it is important to note that the debates will have substance, more substance than when CNN asked Herman Cain his favorite pizza as RNC’s Sean Spicer said:

“The Party is going to have a greater say in our Republican primary debates,” Spicer said of the change at the meeting in Memphis. “For too long it has been the media that decided when we were going to debate, who was going to be in the debates, what questions we’re going to ask, what subjects were going to be covered … Frankly as we all know, the liberal media does not have the interests of the Republican Party at hand.”

“This has nothing to do with tough questions,” Spicer insisted. “Anyone who has not listened to your show, or read Breitbart, or The Daily Caller knows the conservative media is a heck of a lot tougher than the mainstream media with their focus on the issues that matter to conservatives and grassroots activists as opposed to just the left-wing liberals out there. And so one of the things we recognized is they have a voice in this process. And so we need to get people from NewsMax, people from The Daily Caller, people from the Washington Examiner, people from Breitbart, Townhall.com, National Review – legitimate conservative journalists to have a voice in questioning the candidates for the nomination.”

Thanks to John and Randy, Republican primary voters will be better informed and Republican Presidential candidates will be better off in 2016.