California Republican state chair Ron Nehring has written a proposed party bylaw, that would provide for party meetings to endorse candidates for partisan office before the June primary. See this story, which has a link to the proposed rules. The party will decide whether to adopt this change at its statewide meeting in Sacramento, June 18-20.
Any blood oaths going to be required to be in a party hack gang ???
That provides additional reason for moving the party central committee elections to the presidential primary, since the body making the nominations will be the committee members from the district.
There are only provisions for district office (Representative, Senator, and Assemblyman), but nothing for statewide office.
It doesn’t appear to have considered the issue of special elections, at least as far as timing.
I wonder whether it requires VRA pre-clearance?
The basic procedure is that the central committee members from each district will meet in convention and choose among candidates who have filed, and are registered with the Republican Party for one year before the election (convention?) A majority is required for nomination, with the last place candidate eliminated in each round.
The convention may be cancelled if there is an incumbent Republican – unless he has voted for a tax increase or consorted with Democrats.
If the nominee does qualify for the general election (Top 2), then a second convention may be convened – but only if there are Republican candidates.
This is one more example of how the “top-two” system is not good for democracy and progressive politics. The “nominations” should be made by the voters in their respective political parties at primary elections – not made by those people who are in control of those parties.
Phil Sawyer hits the nail on the head. A party belongs
(or should) to the registered voters who make up its membership. Even a so-called “right-winger” like myself can see that only the state can really protect the participatory rights of the voters so as to ensure them a voice in their party’s affairs. Somewhere along the line, California did an about face on its progressive election traditions and embraced the elitist idea that political parties are “private” institutions and the state should let the “leaders” of the parties do anything they want to do, regardless of what the wishes of the registered voters might be.
A case in point is the American Independent Party where the Election Code had heretofore provided a very fair method for organizing the party–one that gave the ultimate power to the registered voters in the party. That is no longer the case after Prop. 14. As it stands, the 400,000 + registered voters of the AIP
have absolutely no voice whatsoever in the affairs of their own state party.
Check this out:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/02/crp-chair-ron-nehring.html
Scroll and read the actual by-law amendment Ron Nehring is putting forward to determine Republican nominees in the new open (jungle) primary next year. If Tony Krvaric (Fairlight founder and Nehring’s protegy) becomes Southern region Vice-Chair, he will be in charge of the district (AD) nominating conventions – control of who our nominees are for state and federal offices. Only CRP members and Central Committee Members will get to vote for who the Republican nominees will be (not the public anymore) which is absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional!
Ron Nehring is proposing that the regional vice chair control the local convention — coincidently while Tony Krvaric runs for vice chair unopposed. Smells like expansion of power to me.
Jim Riley
It does not say “consorded with Democrats”. It states “endores or supported a non-Republican candidate for elective office.”
In California elective offices include officer of the
American Independent Party State Central Committee and
the American Independent Party National Committee.
If I get this proposal corectly, if a Republic incumbant
“endorses or supported” a person for Chairman or Vice
Chairman of the State Central Committee of the American
Independent Party or National Committeeman or Committeewoman on the American Independent Party National Committee a “convention may not be cancelled”
in a district that has a Republican incumbent holding office. Is that correct? Also what about Republican
Office holders giving indorsements or supported persons
running for membership in American Independent Party
County Central Committees within California, viz.,
does those district “conventions may not be cancelled”
also?
Is the proposed rule only apply to offices in the State
of California? If Ron Paul runs third party in 2012,
like he did in Montana in 2008, and a incumbant indorsed
him who is a Rupublican district office holder, does that mean that district convention may not be cancelled?
It looks to me like the RINO’s (or as Chelene Nightingale spells it RHINOS) are trying to prevent a
repeat of “faithless Liberty Republicans” backing some
one that is pro-Freedom if the 2012 Republican Convention comes up with a RINO ticket.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
P.S., I am a recovering Republican since 2004. I was a member of UROC from 1964 to 2004. UROC is the United
Republicans of California. Which I first joined as a TAM (Teen Age Member) in circa 1964 at the suggestion of Joe Shell.
P.P.S. What about the California district Republican office holders that backed Tom Tancredo for Colorado Governor last year against the Republican? While the
GOP have a purge? I have known Tom Tancredo since are
days as YAF activists in the 1960’s.
last year. He ran against
Gary Odom
You are incorrect as to the power of the registered vote
in California. Prop. 14 was a bad statute and I hope the courts will repeal it.
The American Independent Party is get stronger even with
Prop. 14 hanging around our necks. This is because we
left the Constitution Party on June 27, 2008.
We may go National again (like circa 1992 and before)
and give the people of these United States who are pro-
Liberty and pro-Life a choice in 2012. Marysville will
be the location. The current State Chairman of AIP
and a former State Chairman Ed Noonan live near there.
It will be part of “Secession Days” of Nevada County.
Suggested dress in 1850’s style, since that will honor
the secession of the Republic of Rough and Ready, which
departed the United States of America on my birthday,
viz., same day different year.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Thank you, Gary Odom (#4, above)!
#3 It is up to your political party to determine how it will make its endorsements, if any. It is free to use a primary election if it so chooses.
The Republican Party already has procedures in place for determining which statewide candidates it will consider to be its “nominees”, these were contingent upon passage of Proposition 14.
#6 “consorts with Democrats” was a paraphrase.
I don’t know how your various conjectures would be interpreted. It doesn’t really make sense to cancel the convention just because there is an incumbent. If the central committee members are content with the current incumbent, they will nominate him with 95%+ of the vote. If they think he has been disloyal, they will recruit a challenger, just like they did before Proposition 14.
Rather than worrying about how other parties might make their own endorsements under Top 2, I’d be thinking about your own party.
The basic framework of the Republican Party is sound. But issues you might want to consider are:
(a) Who makes the endorsements. The GOP restricts participation to members from the district, which seems reasonable. They limit participation to elected central committee members.
The American Independent Party could conceivably hold a convention. The most populous assembly districts have around 8,000 AI members, but probably not all would show up. Or it could hold a primary. Or perhaps it could use a random sample of registered members.
(b) Who may be endorsed? The Republican Party limits its endorsements to members who have filed. There really is no need for such a limitation. It is not likely Republicans, particularly members of a central committee, would vote for a Democrat. Or perhaps you could query any candidates who have filed whether they want the endorsement of the party.
If those voting can vote for any candidate, then there would have to be an option to not make an endorsement. There is also a possibility of multiple endorsements.
#9: The party won’t hold a primary, due to the expense. Even a vote-by-mail primary would be too expensive for statewide offices, but it might be practical for district offices.
In state legislative and smaller districts, the party could hold a “firehouse primary” to choose a candidate. Voters would cast their ballots at one central location.
There’s no legal way to stop candidates who fail to get the party’s endorsement from also running in the “top two.” But the party could require all candidates seeking its endorsement to pledge to support the winner. I would love to see that, since it might cause some voters to have “buyer’s remorse” for passing the “top two” monstrosity.
#10: Didn’t the California Republicans adopt those procedures in March 2010?
#4: In 1915, Gov. Hiram Johnson, leader of the California Republicans//Progressives, strongly supported a “top two” referendum for state offices (there were then still a substantial number of voters registered with the Progressive Party). 58.2% voted “no” on the proposition.
To Steve Rankin (#12):
If Governor Hiram Johnson, in 1915, supported the “top-two” system, then he was wrong on that issue. Like you, I believe that this system is a “monstosity.”
P.R. as a major progressive reform was killed by the statists in World War I.
It is only the voter petitions for const amdts and laws (as in CA) — i.e. the APPROVAL by the SOVEREIGN Electors-Voters of CA Prop 14 — TOP 2 — that prevents the U.S.A. from totally blowing up.
P.R. and App.V. — The WAR for REAL Democracy continues on many, many fronts — against the EVIL party hack monarchs / oligarchs.
#12/9 Phil Sawyer’s party, the Peace&Freedom Party, values grass-root activity and might well hold a primary despite the expense.
California senatorial districts have about 900,000 persons, and assembly districts around 450,000. A firehouse primary may not be feasible.
#12/9 The procedure proposed for the Republicans would occur after candidates file. In California, a candidate may not withdraw. The only vacancy provisions are in case of death.
#12/10 I had noticed that the new bylaws only apply to district elections (ie legislature and congressmen). But then I looked at the current bylaws, and they had the provisions for “nominating” statewide candidates. These were clearly written before June 2010, since they were specifically contingent upon the voters adopting the Top 2 reform.
#12/4 Are you sure that there were substantial numbers of voters registered with the Progressive Party in California in 1915? Johnson was Theodore Roosevelt’s running mate in 1912, and Roosevelt-Johnson supporting elector candidates were chosen in the Republican primary. There was no provision for independent candidates, and the Taft supporters were unable to qualify a new party. The elector candidates were forced to run as write-in candidates, and individuals candidates had to be written in.
#12/4 Wouldn’t the 1915 proposal simply have used the same system that Californians use for electing their county supervisors?
#15: According to George Mowry’s book The California Progressives, there were, in 1916, still 45,000 registered Progressives and 300,000 more without party designation. None of these people were eligible to participate in the Republican primary unless they re-registered.
Several years before 1915, California voters had approved the “top two” for county and municipal elections.
I favor nonpartisan elections for county and municipal officials in my state.
To Jim Riley (#15):
While the Peace and Freedom Party of California does, indeed, place a high value on the views and activities of grass roots activists in the Party, and that is a good thing; I consider myself to be in the reformist, more moderate wing of the Party and I place an even higher value on the beliefs of the registered Party voters as expressed in the primary elections. It is my contention that we, as elected or appointed leaders of the Party, need to always be trying to represent the Party membership as a whole – as best we can and still be true to our own individual convictions.
Philippe L. Sawyer, Member:
Sacramento County Central Committee
Peace and Freedom Party of California