GOP insiders: "Ron Paul rule" was just for 2012 and no longer exists

[jct74]

GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states

By DAVID M. DRUCKER
3/21/16 10:47 AM

The Republican Party does not require a presidential candidate to win eight states to qualify to be placed in nomination at its upcoming Cleveland convention, GOP officials say.

The Republican National Committee's "Rule 40(b)" makes eligibility for the GOP nomination contingent upon winning a majority of the convention delegates in at least eight states or territories, an achievement generally accomplished by winning at least eight primary or caucus elections. However, Rule 40(b) only applied to the 2012 Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., that nominated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Party officials and knowledgeable sources have confirmed over the past few days that Rule 40(b) doesn't exist for the purposes of the upcoming convention. That means at this point, the three candidates left in the race, front-runner Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, are all eligible for the nomination, as, possibly, are the Republican contenders who have since suspended their campaigns.

Ben Ginsberg, a Republican elections lawyer who was involved in rule-making process for the 2012 convention, said that Rule 40(b) isn't transferrable to the 2016 convention. Ginsberg explained to the Washington Examiner that what was passed in 2012 applied only to 2012, and that the 2016 convention must pass its own rule determining nomination eligibilty.

...

read more:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/g...limited-to-winner-of-8-states/article/2586357

 

[CaptUSA]

Yeah, we knew this. Hell, they made up the "Ron Paul" rule at the last convention. They always change the rules. It is their party.

 

[jct74]

Yeah, we knew this. Hell, they made up the "Ron Paul" rule at the last convention. They always change the rules. It is their party.

It's news to me. First time I have seen anyone claim that it applied only to 2012.

 

[CaptUSA]

It's news to me. First time I have seen anyone claim that it applied only to 2012.

So, if you remember, going into 2012, the rule was 5 states. We all thought that would apply. Then the "ayes" had it and the rule was changed. I'm saying that they change the rules every convention and this one will be no different. Most of the rule changes are minor, but these ones will get attention.

 

[jct74]

GOP panelists eager to scrap rule that helps Trump
Four early appointees to the rules committee say the Republican convention rule is an artificial one.

By Kyle Cheney
03/30/16 05:19 AM EDT

All four early appointees to the rules committee for this year’s Republican National Convention told POLITICO they’re prepared to weaken or scrap a rule that could limit the convention’s alternatives to Donald Trump.

The four took issue with a rule, originally imposed by Mitt Romney forces in 2012 to keep rival Ron Paul off the convention stage, requiring a candidate to win a majority of delegates in eight states to be eligible for the party’s nomination — a threshold only Trump has exceeded so far. If preserved, the rule could block John Kasich or Ted Cruz from competing with Trump at the convention, set for July in Cleveland.

If the committee scraps the requirement entirely, it could open the door to multiple candidates, possibly even some who never entered the primaries, competing for the party’s nomination at a brokered convention. And even a lower threshold would make it easier for Trump’s rivals to challenge him.

“I’m not a big fan of the eight-state threshold. I think that’s an artificial number,” said David Wheeler, a rules committee member from South Dakota. “It was designed to prevent Ron Paul delegates — their votes from being counted. I don’t think it’s necessary to do that this year.”

...

read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/republican-convention-rules-trump-cruz-221355

 

[jct74]

Ted Cruz comes out strongly against changing Rule 40(b) and invokes Ron Paul's name.

Cruz: If Washington Dealmakers Change Convention Rules "There Would Rightfully Be A Revolt Of The Voters"

By Tim Hains
Posted on March 30, 2016






Ted Cruz tells Hugh Hewitt that it would be a huge mistake for GOP "power brokers" to change Rule 40 of the Republican convention rules, which states that a candidate must win 8 states to be considered for nomination.

"There is a little bit or irony in that it was the Romney team that put this rule in place [in 2012]," he said. "To prevent Ron Paul from being put on the ballot."

HUGH HEWITT: So Senator Cruz, I’ve got my Republican Rosetta Stone, so I could translate that. Are you endorsing Rule 40?

SEN. TED CRUZ: It is the rules that govern the convention. And of course, the Washington power brokers shouldn’t try to change the rules to steal the nomination. Of course, we should operate under the rules that govern the nomination.

HH: Now those were the rules adopted in 2012. There’s a Politico story today already of members of the new rules committee want to do away with Rule 40 as an arbitrary imposition of Team Romney in 2012. What do you make of that assessment by them? And they are not members of Team Cruz or Team Trump.

TC: Well, I think that would be a terrible idea for the Washington power brokers to change the rules, because they’re unhappy with the candidates who the voters are voting for. Under the rules, and you’re right, there is some irony in that it was the Romney Team that put this rule in place to prevent Ron Paul from being put on the ballot. And it was the Washington establishment that put this rule in place. So now when the Washington establishment candidates are losing, they want to change the rules to try to parachute in some candidate who hasn’t earned the votes of the people. That is nothing short of crazy. Under the rules, we should operate under the rules. Now I believe, still, that we’re going to earn 1,237 delegates before the convention by winning in the races that are coming up. But there is a real possibility that nobody gets to 1,237. And if that’s the case, we should operate under the rules that existed when this whole process started. And those rules say that in order to be on the ballot, you have to have won eight states. Only two of us will meet that threshold – me and Donald Trump. Those will be the two names on the ballot. And I think if the Washington deal makers try to change the rules to cook the books and insert their favorite deal maker, I think there would rightly be a revolt of the voters. We would have had elections in 50 states, and we need to honor the will of the voters and respect what they decide.

HH: Are you going to instruct Ted Cruz loyal members of the rules committee to fight any change to Rule 40?

TC: Well, I think the delegates are naturally going to know that rules changes designed to subvert the will of the voters are a bad idea. And I would expect the delegates who were elected supporting me would have that thought. But I would also expect the delegates supporting Donald Trump would have that thought, that we need to respect the will of the voters. And if it comes to a contested convention, where I’ve got a ton of delegates, and Donald Trump has a ton of delegates, then the issue will be decided on who can earn a majority. And it’s worth noting these delegates are by and large elected by the people in their respective states, and that’s how the rules work. And to win the nomination, you have to earn a majority. And that’s what the convention will be for if no one can get to a majority before the convention.

HH: So we’re making a little news here, because you’re being much more clear than anyone has been thus far in the process leading up to this. You want to deny John Kasich the opportunity to be on the ballot under the current rules, even though he’s a home state governor and it’s in Cleveland. Is that a good idea, Ted Cruz?

TC: Well, let’s be clear. It’s not me denying John Kasich anything. He keeps losing. He went 0-27. It’s the voters who voted against him in 27 states in a row. Then he won his home state, and then he proceeded to lose two more states, Utah and Arizona. He is not going to win Wisconsin next week. And if you lose state after state after state, under the rules, you don’t get to be on the ballot. Elections have consequences. If you want to be the Republican nominee, the answer isn’t to go to Washington and convince a bunch of lobbyists that you’ll support business as usual. The answer is to win at the ballot box. If you want to beat Donald Trump, and listen, I’ve been very clear. I think nominating Donald Trump would be an absolute disaster. It would hand the general election to Hillary Clinton, which would have catastrophic consequences for this country. But if you want to beat Donald Trump, the way to do so is not some backroom deal in Washington that steals the nomination and hands it to someone who hasn’t won at the ballot box. The way instead is to beat Donald trump at the polls. That’s what we’ve done. We’ve beaten Donald to date in ten different states all across this country, all the way from Alaska literally to Maine. And we’re going to continue beating him, and we’re going to win a majority of the delegates, I believe, and earn the nomination, and then beat Hillary Clinton in November and turn this country around.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...rt_of_crazy_to_change _convention_rules.html
http://www.hughhewitt.com/senator-ted-cruz-campaign-2016/

 

[jct74]

some analysis from Hot Air:

With all due respect to Mr. Wheeler, it’s precisely these sorts of answers which increase anger among the base and cast a rather unflattering light on the entire process. We can save for another day the debate over whether keeping Ron Paul’s delegates off the floor was the “right” thing to do in what is purportedly a semi-democratic process, but rules are supposed to apply to everyone. Granted… they did apply to everyone for a single week in 2012, but these sorts of discussions make it rather obvious that the rules are not supposed to be guidelines which ensure a steady, predictable process, but instead are set up as situational weapons to train upon whoever you don’t like.

Even if we leave the optics aside, messing around too much with Rule 40(b) is going to open the door for various unintended consequences. Last season’s requirements mean that only candidates who win the majority of delegates in eight or more states can have their name entered into consideration on the floor. Would they reduce the threshold to some lower number… let’s say five? Or would they scrap it entirely? Assuming that Ted Cruz is really surging and has a shot at finishing strong (which should almost certainly be the case) he should be able to meet the eight state threshold anyway. Lowering the number to two puts Marco Rubio back on the table and he quit the race. Is that what we’re looking for?

And as the Politico piece notes, if they scrap the rule entirely, the door is now open to all manner of chaos. Should we actually be looking forward to a convention where someone who didn’t even run (Romney?) or dropped out before the voting even began (Walker? Perry?) comes out as the nominee? I understand the natural temptation for those who are extremely dissatisfied with the final mix of contenders to shout, YES! But at that point we’ve essentially disenfranchised everyone who came out to vote, volunteered or worked on the various campaigns, substituting the decision of a collection of party officials for the judgement of the base.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/...ers-eager-to-dump-8-state-delegate-threshold/

 

[jmdrake]

There was a thread on this a month ago. Technically speaking Rand Paul's name could go into nomination. I don't think that will happen, but it could.

 

[otherone]

I ask in all seriousness:
Why bother having primaries at all? They just make themselves look like asshoels...attacking each other, cheating, breaking their own rules...why doesn't the RNC just pick their man and then have more time to attack the Dems?

 

[Wooden Indian]

I ask in all seriousness:
Why bother having primaries at all? They just make themselves look like asshoels...attacking each other, cheating, breaking their own rules...why doesn't the RNC just pick their man and then have more time to attack the Dems?

And spoil the illusion of choice?

 

[otherone]

And spoil the illusion of choice?

LOL! How North Korea-ish!
Isn't that precisely what they are doing now?

 

[pmbug]

It's news to me. First time I have seen anyone claim that it applied only to 2012.

The process is the same every election cycle. Most people don't pay attention to the details because they are usually just a formality. 2012 mattered to Ron Paul people, but not to most everyone else. 2016 matters to most everyone now because the race is close/contested.

Every GOP convention (whether Senate District, State or National) has a rules committee that prepares a rules document prior to the convention. When the convention starts, this suggestion is presented on the convention floor as the temporary rules for that convention (for that specific convention). The delegates then have a chance to amend/change the rules before adopting them as the permanent rules for that convention. Generally, whatever rules the rules committee presents gets adopted without any material changes on the convention floor, but it is possible that something important enough gets altered if there is sufficient will/support amongst the floor delegation.

Rules committees generally take the rules from the previous convention and tweak them slightly if necessary. What happened in 2012 was unusual and even delegates who weren't Ron Paul supporters weren't happy with what happened.

I've been scouring news for indications on what the rules committee (or RNC/floor delegates) are favoring and I've posted a summary here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ation-Chance&p=6183381&viewfull=1#post6183381

Essentially, I expect that, one way or another, the 2016 rules are going to allow Trump and Cruz on the convention floor ballot and no one else. Longshot odds for a more drastic change that would allow Kasich and Rubio on the convention floor ballot - I don't expect this will pass.

 

[FindLiberty]

GOP is probably working on a new Rule 500: A slight variation of the Euchre non-Trump rule that will be required to help Clinton win.

 

[CaptUSA]

I ask in all seriousness:
Why bother having primaries at all? They just make themselves look like asshoels...attacking each other, cheating, breaking their own rules...why doesn't the RNC just pick their man and then have more time to attack the Dems?

In all seriousness? It's about fundraising. The whole point of a primary for the national campaign is to have several different candidates working to add donors to the lists. They also want to develop narratives on pseudo-political issues that keep people paying attention to them.

But remember, it's their party. That's why we were trying to become the party at the local level. To make it our party.

 

[CPUd]

 

[WTLaw]

How the process works:

 

[jct74]

I got the impression after reading the Washington Examiner article in OP that Rule 40 was dead for the purposes of 2016, but these excerpts below from factcheck.org and The Hill seem to contradict that. I really hope the rule does stay in place and the Republican Party has to reap what they sowed in 2012.

There will be numerous opportunities for delegates to rewrite rules prior to the 2016 convention.

In an interview with USA Today on March 23, Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said likely there will be some rule changes.

“It’s … kind of silly to believe that the Romney delegates would write the rules for a convention in 2016 that, at this point, would be made up mostly of (Texas Sen. Ted) Cruz and Trump delegates,” Priebus said. “The delegates are the delegates won by the people that are being bound by the decision of the delegates.”

Priebus added, however, that he thought it was unlikely the delegates would alter Rule 40.

“I haven’t heard a whole lot of horsepower out there looking for a change on the rule,” Priebus says. “A few people speaking out in the wilderness, but the truth is there is no, at least at this point, groundswell to start changing the rules at the convention.”

Typically, rules are carried over from convention to convention, Putnam, told us. But the threshold for nomination eligibility has evolved over the last few decades.

“There might be a new version written by the rules committee,” Putnam said, which would then need to be voted on by all of the delegates to the convention. In the 1960s, a rule was added to require nominees to obtain a plurality of delegates in at least three states, as a way to limit the number of people whose names could be placed into nomination. The threshold was later upped to a plurality of delegates in five states.

Putnam believes it will be difficult to change the rule, given that most of the delegates are likely to be supporters of Trump or Cruz and would have a vested interest in keeping the rule as it stands to prevent consideration of another candidate.

At the Republican National Committee winter meeting in Charleston, South Carolina, there was some discussion of lowering the threshold to candidates who have received just one delegate. But the discussion was tabled, and there did not appear to be widespread support for it, Putnam said.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/kasich-barred-by-convention-rule/

The rule getting the most attention ahead of the convention is Rule 40(b), which was adopted in 2012 and states that a candidate must have won a majority of delegates in at least eight states to be on the convention ballot.

Republicans who wanted to help 2012 nominee Mitt Romney adopted the rule as a way to shut out Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his vocal supporters in Tampa Bay. Under a previous rule that allowed a candidate on the ballot with a majority of delegates in five states, Paul would have been on the convention ballot.

...

Standing Rules Committee Chairman Bruce Ash said he doubts Rule 40(b) will be changed given the atmospherics.

“To make a change in 40 (b) in the middle of a contest would change where the goal line is for all of the contestants,” Ash said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-rules-committee-plays-pivotal-role-this-year

 

[tsai3904]

Trump and Cruz will clear the 8 state majority delegate threshold so they will have no incentive to have their delegates vote to change the rule. Any change to the rule would only benefit other candidates.

 

[TheCount]

Trump and Cruz will clear the 8 state majority delegate threshold so they will have no incentive to have their delegates vote to change the rule. Any change to the rule would only benefit other candidates.

Depends on who it looks like Kasich's delegates will side with. The rumor is that many of the delegates are personally anti-Trump, which means that it might actually turn out better for Trump to have them vote for Kasich rather than side with Cruz.

 

[CPUd]

The way things are going now, Trump may have a hard time finding 8 delegations to put him on the ballot.