Ambassador Randy Evan’s Confirmation: It’s About Time, But for the Left It’s Not About Facts

Today former RNLA Chair Randy Evans was finally confirmed to be Ambassador to Luxembourg after his nomination first was announced last September. The delay in confirming Ambassador Evans was part of the Democrats' general obstruction of President Trump's nominees.

The stated reason for the delay and opposition to Ambassador Evans was stated by Senator Bob Menedez on the Senate Floor today:

I oppose Mr. Evans nomination . . . my concerns center around his tenure on Georgia’s state election board from 2002-2010 . . . In March of 2005 Georgia passed a controversial new law requiring voters to show a photo ID. . . Multiple voices accused the Board of a deliberate attempt to mislead voters and possibly suppress minority turnout. 

The problems with this are numerous.  The Board of Elections of Georgia is bipartisan.  Ambassador Evans was hardly acting alone.  Is Senator Menendez saying the Members of the Commission who were appointed by the Georgia Democrats of working to “suppress minority turnout?” Ambassador Evans was merely working in a bipartisan fashion with the Democrats to implement a law pasted by the Georgia legislature.  It was the duty of all commissioners.

Second, the numbers tell a very different story on “voter suppression.”  In the 2008 election in Georgia, African-American turnout was up an amazing 7.5%.  And it was not just 2008 when President Obama was first on the ticket, as the Atlanta Journal Constitution stated in 2012 on the voter ID law:

Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period. . . .

Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006 — before the law was implemented — to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.

It was expected that African American turnout would spike in 2008, when Barack Obama became the first person of color to win the presidency. And it did rise to historic highs in Georgia.

Black participation fell in 2010, as it did for all demographic groups. Still, a far greater share of black voters turned out in 2010 than in 2006, showing that Obama was not the only factor driving turnout.

It is incredible that Democrats used a bipartisan commission’s work as an excuse to oppose Ambassador Evans.   Does anyone believe they would have opposed one of the Democrats on that Georgia Election Commission at the same time if they were nominated by Hillary Clinton? 

The larger issue is the terrible games that Democrats are playing with nominations.  The Democrats also opposed the first openly gay Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, for a similar length of time.  He was finally confirmed less than a month ago.  America needs its Ambassadors and Democrats need to accept that Trump won and stop attacking worthy nominees.

Important Work by Don McGahn as White House Counsel

Today, Politico profiled 2017 Ed Meese Award winner Don McGahn's important work as White House Counsel to President Trump:

McGahn’s . . . office of roughly 26 attorneys provides the administration with the intellectual underpinning for its most significant decisions, including the military strikes in Syria, the legality of the travel bans and immigration executive orders, the vetting of political appointees and the policing of conflicts of interest. . . . 

McGahn's friends and fellow lawyers say he’s well-equipped to play a leading role as a trusted legal and political adviser. 

“McGahn is involved in everything. I am not exaggerating,” said longtime friend Randy Evans, [former] chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association. “When you prove to be a reliable voice, who not only gives good legal answers but also good political ones, that is increasingly what happens. You get called on more and more.” . . .  

On hiring, McGahn must approve every lawyer within each agency’s general counsel’s office, down to the most junior member. . . . Outside the executive branch, McGahn is moving to radically reshape the entire judicial system by hand selecting over 100 judges to fill lower court vacancies. . . . McGahn also shepherded Neil Gorsuch through the Supreme Court confirmation process, one of the longest-lasting policy moves a president can make and one of the few highlights of Trump’s first 100 days in office. . . . He’s also taken a leading role in pushing the administration’s efforts to examine and trim back the federal government’s broad array of regulations, according to Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society, who took a leave to advise Trump on the Supreme Court and worked closely with McGahn on the confirmation fight. “Every White House counsel has enormous influence, and Don McGahn is no exception to that,” Leo said.

Thank you, Don McGahn, for your important work serving President Trump and the country as White House Counsel.  You can watch Mr. McGahn's remarks from the 2017 National Policy Conference upon receiving the Ed Meese Award here (beginning at 35:25).

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.  

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.

Randy Evans on History and Importance of Supreme Court Vacancies

RNLA's Chair, Randy Evans, published a thoughtful analysis of the history of Supreme Court nominations and the significance of the current battle over the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the vacancy left by the death of Justice Scalia:

Make no mistake, the Constitution empowers the president to nominate people to serve as justices on the nation’s highest and most powerful court. The very same document leaves no doubt that the U.S. Senate has the right to confirm, reject, or simply ignore the president’s choice. . . .

From the theater so far this year, some might think that this is the first time battle lines have been drawn over a Supreme Court vacancy with such serious consternation. Yet, believe it or not, 17 presidents have submitted nominees that were not confirmed. . . . While not the rule, the simple truth is that the president does not always get to have his choice automatically confirmed to the court.

The reason why Republican Senators are standing united in not holding hearings is the importance and power of Supreme Court Justices:

The suggestion that the current battle over Justice Scalia’s replacement is about President Obama ignores pretty settled history. Fights over seats on the U.S. Supreme Court between the president, the Senate, and sometimes the Congress have occurred since the court began. . . . After all, nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court are serious business. Nominees, if confirmed, serve for life, subject only to removal by impeachment. . . . And, as life spans have increased, justices now serve decades after confirmation to the bench. More significantly, rightly or wrongly, they can make as much or as little law as they choose; and, absent a constitutional amendment, there is little that the president or Congress can do about it.

This vacancy affords a rare opportunity for the people to speak directly on the future of the Supreme Court:

Interestingly, when it comes to the other two branches of government, the American people get to weigh in and decide which direction to go next. As history now has it, the president and the Senate have that same chance in this all-important election year — to hear from the American people about which direction to go next. 

In November, just a few months from now, the American people will get the chance to voice their own opinions about which direction to go next. Why would the president and the Senate not want to hear what the American people have to say before such an important decision? After all, the Constitution does begin with “We, the People of the United States…”

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