8/7/08 GOP State Committee Meeting Notes

The Gop 8/7/08 GOP State Central Committee meeting, as interpreted by a GOP insider from Weber County

By Ricky Hatch
Legislative Chair, District 6

Intrigue, innuendo, implications, inferences, and "intertainment" - they were all there on Saturday August 23 at the State Central Committee (SCC) meeting at the Merit Medical Building in South Jordan.

The cause? Mitt Romney's request to release all of Utah's national delegates so they could vote for John McCain. In 1,000 words or less, I'll try to give you an accurate picture of this surprisingly complex issue.

Fact: Our state party's bylaws state: "On the first ballot, the national delegation shall be bound to vote for the candidate who has received the most votes in the Republican Presidential Primary...." This seems pretty clear, especially since Mr. Romney received 90% of Utah's Republican votes in February.

Now add a dash of confusion: Mitt Romney sent a letter to the State Party asking to have the delegates released, as he is "no longer a formal candidate."

And a teaspoon of controversy: At the State Convention, a motion was made to do something similar to releasing the delegates. Keep in mind that Mr. Romney had already withdrawn from the race at this point. The state delegates overwhelmingly rejected this motion by tabling it indefinitely.

Sprinkle with perceived condescension: Does the Utah GOP State Central Committee have the authority (let alone the gall) to go against the 3,000+ state delegates and 265,000 primary Republican voters and release these delegates?

Mix all of this in a room with 92 committee members (and at least 92 opinions) and you've got a raucous Republican Ratatouille.

Here's how Stan Lockhart presented it: The word "candidate" in the bylaws is ambiguous. Does it mean that the delegates are bound to the candidate who at the time of Utah's primary election got the most votes? Or does it mean that they are bound to the candidate at the national convention who got the most votes during the Utah primary?

The first interpretation (a primary-election candidate) binds them to Mitt without exception. The second interpretation (a convention-election candidate) leads to another not-so-simple question: Will John McCain be the only nominee at the national convention? Even though Mitt Romney withdrew from the race, is he still considered a candidate? FYI, the RNC's Rule # 40 states that in order to be a candidate, you must "demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of 5 or more states." Romney certainly had that in the 11 states he carried before withdrawing. Does he have the authority to remove himself as a candidate, or are the delegates bound to follow their state bylaws and vote for him?

Let's look at this through 1968 lenses and pretend, for argument's sake, that Mr. Romney were Robert Kennedy (it's just pretend, so calm down). Robert Kennedy was the presumptive Democratic nominee, but was assassinated before the national convention. How much sense would it make to cast the votes for someone who was not even alive? Yet, that is what this first interpretation says the delegates must do. Using Robert Rules of Order, that would be considered an "absurd result."

Thankfully, Mr. Romney is alive and kicking somewhere between Denver and Minneapolis. But should our delegates be bound to him? Using the "absurd result" argument, the state party wrote a "standing rule," which is basically a band aid used to clarify ambiguity in our bylaws until the bylaws can be changed. This was reviewed by the party's legal firm and submitted to the SCC. The standing rule clarified that the candidate referred to in our bylaws meant the candidate at the time of the national convention. This means that if Mitt Romney is still considered a candidate the first week in September, our delegation will be bound to vote for him. If he is not considered a candidate, the delegation must vote for John McCain, who got the 2nd most votes (15,000) in Utah.

There was a lot of discussion about whether this was using a back door, circumventing the rules of the party and the desire of the state delegates and voters. Some argued that this was changing the bylaws, which can only be done at the State Convention. Others said that standing rules like this are used only to clarify the bylaws, and therefore are under the jurisdiction of the SCC. Some said that we should focus on giving support to Sen. McCain. Others said that if we don't follow our own rules, how can anyone trust us. Both sides had meritorious arguments, and I'll admit I changed opinions at least once.

After 20 minutes of pro/con debates, the SCC voted 70 – 12 to pass the standing rule. Now the real question is whether or not Mitt Romney is considered a candidate. I guess we'll find out in September.

I'm sure Stan Lockhart had been getting a lot of heat from the RNC to release these votes, and I'm sure many people think he came up with this "candidate" ambiguity as an excuse to release the votes. I can't question his motives or his methods. But as I read the rules, they weren't clear to me. Regardless of this standing rule, I sure hope we get them clarified before the next presidential election.

I had to leave the meeting a little early, but I heard Lt. Governor Herbert say that Jon Hunstman will be speaking at the National Convention. This is the first time in Mr. Herbert's memory that a Utah Governor has spoken at a national convention, and is quite an honor.

Oh, and I accidentally stole State Senator Curt Bramble's seat in the middle of the meeting. Oops!

Articles about the releasing of delegates:

GOP central committee to meet about Romney delegates

State GOP Convention: Party chairman wants delegates to back McCain

It's the rules: Utah to vote for Romney