RNC Rule 38

[PaulSoHard]

http://www.fairvote.org/response-to...-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T54Yj7NYvw7

Can an RNC rules expert please read and explain this article to us? I think it could help our cause.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

http://www.fairvote.org/response-to...-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T54Yj7NYvw7

Can an RNC rules expert please read and explain this article to us? I think it could help our cause.

Wow, very interesting read. I would also be interested in the opinion of someone more familiar with the rules. Tampa could be very interesting and uplifting.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

we explain that the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience

To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.”

the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule.

the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38.

Looks good

 

[Sentinelrv]

I wonder just how many stealth delegates we really have and if they were to all band together to abstain from voting, would it be enough to cause a brokered convention. If we can't deny Romney the 1,144 delegates before the convention, this may be our final option to prevent a Romney nomination. If it's not something that's organized before the convention, I can imagine many supporters doing it on their own.

 

[Titus]

Ok in figuring out what rule 38 defines, first look at the text.

"No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule."

Ok, so what is the unit rule?

According to the free dictionary.com, the unity rule is "A rule of procedure at a national politcal convention under which a state's entire vote must be cast for the candidate preferred by a majority of the state's delegates."

This would mean that the state is free to bind delegates, even a winner-take-all binding along the primary results. What is cannot do is state that, Mitt Romney/Ron Paul has a majority of the delegates, so the rest of you must vote for the winner. In essence, it prevents Mitt Romney from forcing all the non-Romney delegates to vote for him in the states he won.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I wonder just how many stealth delegates we really have and if they were to all band together to abstain from voting, would it be enough to cause a brokered convention. If we can't deny Romney the 1,144 delegates before the convention, this may be our final option to prevent a Romney nomination. If it's not something that's organized before the convention, I can imagine many supporters doing it on their own.

I may be mistaken but the article suggests that even the other candidates' "bound" delegates can vote directly for Paul on the first ballot itself so the question is - will we have 1144 at RNC & hoping that there aren't 1144 Romney-backers either, whom do we offer as Ron's VP to form a "deal" to attract enough delegates to reach the magic-number!

 

[carterm]

um, maybe the campaign knows this and wants us to shutup?

 

[EvilNight]

the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38.

If this interpretation is correct, then there is no such thing as a bound delegate.

I would say getting a firm answer to this by the time Tampa rolls around just might be important...

 

[Bronies-4-Paul]

um, maybe the campaign knows this and wants us to shutup?

Very good point.

 

[RDM]

Someone send a email to Judge Napolitano and ask him to interpret the rule, but make it clear to him NOT to make it public and only send the email back to the sender.

 

[RDM]

Here's a interesting take on this rule from a article written back in Nov. 2011.

RNC rules could lead to a rogue convention next year
The RNC ruling on Florida underscores the party’s problem. As amended in 2010, Rule 15 (b) (2) prohibits in no uncertain terms early winner-take-all contests: “Any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other meeting held for the purpose of selecting delegates to the national convention which occurs prior to the first day of April in the year in which the national convention is held shall provide for the allocation of delegates on a proportional basis.”
Florida’s delegates may well be challenged, triggering a wider review of use of winner-take-all rules, given Rule 38. Consider, then, Republican convention delegates elected in a winner-take-all state. If determining that the winner was strongly opposed by most voters in that state — as easily can happen with plurality voting — those delegates may decide to support a different candidate.
These delegates’ decision might be all the easier if it’s clear that key nomination contests were affected by non-Republicans voting in open primary states. Although centrist pundits often applaud open primaries for giving independent voters greater power to influence party nominations, that goal is in direct conflict with party supporters who seek a truly representative nominee for their party. It’s their party’s nomination contest, after all, and many Republican activists want to win the White House with a candidate who will be true to party principles…

While Romney is far ahead in New Hampshire, many Republicans will see that contest as tainted. New England Republicanism represents a declining stock in the national party, and non-Republican voters can swing the vote. Gaining the nomination based on a low-plurality win in Florida and narrow victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina grounded in votes from non-Republicans may not be enough to persuade delegates to ignore party rules. http://hotair.com/headlines/archive...s-could-lead-to-a-rogue-convention-next-year/

 

[zadrock]

I'm suddenly feeling rather giddy.

So we just need to load up on delegates in WTA states - FL, TX, NY, CA in particular.

I picked the wrong year to live abroad... :o

 

[RonPaulwillWin]

Can we get a rule 32 next?

 

[Cyberbrain]

I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure the article takes far too much leeway in interpreting the GOP rules.

Rule 38: "No delegate or alternate delegate shall be
bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional
district to impose the unit rule."

All this means is that an ENTIRE state delegation cannot be bound to a single candidate based on the majority delegate vote for that state. This rule is why every state has unbound superdelegates. See 1880 Republican Convention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1880_Republican_National_Convention


The article also mentions this:
"[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose."

I know I saw this somewhere in the rules but I cannot find it now, but I'm pretty sure it does not mean what it appears to mean. I'm going to keep looking for it.

 

[wgadget]

Listening to some guy on Bloomberg talking about the election in France and he was just saying that the delegates can abstain on the first vote and then vote for their guy on the second vote. If it weren't for the French accent, I would have thought he was talking about Ron Paul.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE83I0EZ20120422?irpc=932

 

[Occam's Banana]

Here's a interesting take on this rule from a article written back in Nov. 2011.

That is from the article referred to as "[our] Politico commentary" in the first paragraph of the article referenced in the OP.
The earlier 2011 article can be found here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69048.html
(The link in the OP article to this earlier article didn't work for me.)

 

[DEGuy]

What about Rule 34?

 

[Sentinelrv]

I hope this is true, because I'm starting to see it talked about all over the internet, here, the Daily Paul, Facebook, etc... It is spreading whether it's accurate or not. Should we be stepping up our efforts to get more stealth delegates?

 

[soulcyon]

This rule has been there for 4 years, why is this surfacing as news to people? Hasn't anyone actually read the rules, or do people start digging deeper into the system when the going gets tough?

No offense but, we should be focusing more on Texas/California rather than a rule that is colliding with other rules.

--- on topic:

"No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule."

This only talks about binding delegates based on popular votes. So this means we need to clarify what the "primary" process actually is about, because AFAIK it's basically a sped up version of a caucus (and in some states, there are conventions + primaries). Also, which states actually bind delegates based on popular vote (directly)?

 

[Professor8000]

I'm suddenly feeling rather giddy.

So we just need to load up on delegates in WTA states - FL, TX, NY, CA in particular.

I picked the wrong year to live abroad... :o

TX is not a winner take all state. We are porportional.