Jump to content

  •  

Photo
- - - - -

Romney Campaign Unfairly Ousts Ron Paul Delegates


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 eagle_eye222001

eagle_eye222001

    Captain of the Guard

  • Church Militant
  • 11,745 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 24 June 2012 - 03:46 PM

http://bostonglobe.c...y6EK/story.html

Evan Kenney had just turned 18 and registered to vote for the first time when he campaigned to be an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention. Lauding Ronald Reagan’s principles and blasting Keynesian economics at the Lynnfield caucus in April, the Wakefield High School senior beat out several well-known Massachusetts Republicans, including the party’s most recent nominee for governor, Charles D. Baker Jr.

But earlier this month, Kenney was one of 17 delegates and alternates disqualified by a Republican committee deciding who gets to represent Massachusetts Republicans at the national convention in Tampa. Kenney and others had failed to deliver in time an affidavit swearing, under the penalty of perjury, that they would support Mitt Romney’s nomination for president.

An affidavit is never mentioned in the Republican Party’s rules for selecting delegates and has never been required of delegates in the past, GOP critics say. Suspicions are steep this year because Kenney and the others are supporters of Ron Paul, the libertarian candidate whose quixotic campaign for president culminated in an effort to take over state caucuses nationwide. The delegates must vote for Romney, based on his strong primary win in Massachusetts, but Paul’s supporters hope to use the convention to draw attention to his agenda, including auditing the Federal Reserve and requiring wars to be declared by Congress.

In Massachusetts, Paul’s Liberty Slate swept the Republican caucuses in April, stealing delegate spots that were expected to go to Romney’s friends and allies, whom he had selected. Massachusetts, a state dominated by Democrats and typically marginalized at national Republican events, could have an unusual share of the limelight at this year’s convention, since its former governor is the party’s expected presidential nominee.
Some libertarian-leaning delegates balked at the notion of signing legal affidavits pledging what they had committed verbally at the caucuses where they were elected. Many later submitted them, but not until after the deadline.


“I’ve been rudely awakened to the realities of politics. I feel I’ve been cheated.” Evan Kenney

Posted Image


As a result, the committee disqualified them, winnowing the number of Liberty delegates and alternates to the convention from 35 to 19, said organizer Brad Wyatt. (One Liberty delegate was added due to the changes in the roster.)

“I’ve been rudely awakened to the realities of politics,” Kenney said. “I feel I’ve been cheated.”
A spokesman for the Massachusetts Republican Party would not say why the affidavits were required of delegates this year, and the chairman of the Allocations Committee would not agree to an interview. Instead, the chairman offered an e-mailed statement saying that the Romney campaign, through its representative on his committee, had the right to reject delegates for “just cause.”
“Governor Romney’s campaign, through its representative on the Allocation Committee, made the decision not to certify certain delegates and alternate delegates who were unwilling to sign and return on time the affidavit,” McGrath said in the statement. “The Allocation Committee agreed, by a unanimous vote, that these individuals’ failure to sign and return the correct affidavit on time constituted “just cause” for not being certified as national delegates.”

The actions by the GOP establishment in Massachusetts are further disenchanting some libertarians and conservatives who have traditionally been suspicious of the party’s top-down leadership. In a state where Republican registration has dwindled to just 11 percent of registered voters, the party can hardly afford to alienate enthusiastic activists, they say.
“I’m very disappointed and disheartened about the way we’ve been treated,” Wyatt said. “It’s almost unbelievable.”

Among the new activists is Carol Claros, a Worcester single mother and nurse who represents the first generation of her Colombian family to be born in the United States.
In the weeks leading up to the caucuses, Claros, who got interested in politics through Paul several years ago, worked with Wyatt and other activists to drum up attendance and support for the Liberty delegates. They did it “the old-fashioned way,” Claros said. “We reached out to our voters. We got a list of Republican donors . . . we must have called 2,000 people in the state. I was like a phone warrior.”
At her caucus, attended by more than 200 people, she was the nervous first speaker — but the second-highest vote-getter, she said. Even that day, though, she said, she heard that Romney’s chosen delegates were being advised they should plan to go to Tampa.
The Paul delegates were going to be challenged.

The party has decided not to count the provisional ballots provided to voters whose registration couldn’t be confirmed on the day of the caucuses.

And a Republican challenged on a technicality the election of six Liberty delegates and alternates in Romney’s Congressional district. That challenge was dismissed by the Allocations Committee.




Moral of the story: when you lose, break the rules.

#2 Aloysius

Aloysius

    it is a Divine purpose that rules and not fate.

  • Church Militant
  • 21,801 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:28 AM

sigh...

many people have advised the Massachusettes folks to join the lawsuit by Lawyers for Ron Paul. Apparently their lawsuit is being fast tracked in federal court, joining the lawyers for Ron Paul lawsuit may be a way for them to get reinstated.

there is little hope for a fair process at this point, but Doug Wead has suggested that the campaign may have a couple of tricks up its sleeve for the convention.

but in any event, it's gonna serve the GOP right if they get their cans handed to them in november. maybe we should find a way to get Romney electors in the electoral college disqualified. :smokey:

#3 Basilisa Marie

Basilisa Marie

    PM Pham

  • Church Militant
  • 2,655 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:40 PM

A friend of mine was a delegate for Ron Paul, and had a very similar experience with the Romney campaign when he went to the convention in Washington State. It's sick.

#4 Papist

Papist

    acta non verba

  • Church Militant
  • 10,699 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:04 PM

Sorry Al. Posted Image

#5 CatholicCid

CatholicCid

    PM Pham

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 2,617 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:37 PM

I'm somewhat confused.

Can an affidavit be required? Not has it been required in the past, but is it actually illegal for the Mass. Republican Party to require it?

And why would they be reluctant to sign an affidavit if they are required to vote for Romney regardless due to his primary win?

Not really sure how any of these party rules work.

Edited by CatholicCid, 25 June 2012 - 01:37 PM.


#6 eagle_eye222001

eagle_eye222001

    Captain of the Guard

  • Church Militant
  • 11,745 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:49 PM

I'm somewhat confused.

Can an affidavit be required? Not has it been required in the past, but is it actually illegal for the Mass. Republican Party to require it?

And why would they be reluctant to sign an affidavit if they are required to vote for Romney regardless due to his primary win?

Not really sure how any of these party rules work.


It may not be illegal to require an affidavit if its in the rules......but the thing is that this was not in the rules. So basically the GOP in the state were unhappy with the results of the process that was set up, so they basically did something outside the rules to corral the result in their favor.

The people of Massachusetts may have voted for Romney, but nowhere does it say the delegates have to vote for him....much less on the first round.

The Ron Paul leaning delegates are reluctant to sign an affidavit because then they would be legally bound to vote for Romney on the first round of voting as opposed to being able to vote for whoever they wanted for as the rules actually say.

#7 CatholicCid

CatholicCid

    PM Pham

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 2,617 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:56 PM

It may not be illegal to require an affidavit if its in the rules......but the thing is that this was not in the rules. So basically the GOP in the state were unhappy with the results of the process that was set up, so they basically did something outside the rules to corral the result in their favor.

So, since it wasn't in the rules, it was illegal to require delegates to sign affidavits?

The people of Massachusetts may have voted for Romney, but nowhere does it say the delegates have to vote for him....much less on the first round.

The Ron Paul leaning delegates are reluctant to sign an affidavit because then they would be legally bound to vote for Romney on the first round of voting as opposed to being able to vote for whoever they wanted for as the rules actually say.

But, aren't a majority of the delegates (38 out of 41) actually bound to vote for Romney on the first round of voting due to their system of proportional representation? [I believe the 3 unbound delegates would be super delegates.]

From the article:

Some libertarian-leaning delegates balked at the notion of signing legal affidavits pledging what they had committed verbally at the caucuses where they were elected.



From Googling around:

Bay state Republicans allocate their apportioned delegates in proportion to the vote share each candidate receives in the statewide election. The Massachusetts Republican Party has added the caveat that only candidates over the 15% mark in that statewide vote are eligible for a portion of the delegates.

http://frontloading....ocation_06.html

Proportional Representation
Some states allocate delegates proportionally: 50% of the vote earns half the delegates, 25% earns a quarter of delegates and 10% earns a tenth of delegates. Of the states relying on proportional allocation of delegates, fifteen use a proportional representation system for allocation of delegates, most with a minimum threshold that a candidate must receive in order to earn a proportionate share of the delegation.

  • States using proportional representation: Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky (with a threshold of 15%), Louisiana (with a threshold of 25%), Massachusetts (with a threshold of 15%), Mississippi (with a threshold of 15%), North Carolina, New Hampshire (with a threshold of 10%), New Mexico (with a threshold of 15%), Nevada (based on primary, not caucus), Oregon, Rhode Island (with a threshold of 15%), South Dakota (with a threshold of 20%) and Texas (with a threshold of 20%)

http://www.fairvote....op#.T-kU1HjTy4B

Ron Paul has won 2 of the 3 available delegate slots in Massachusetts’s 1st District in Saturday's state caucuses.
While all delegates are required to vote for Romney during the first round of the Tampa convention (but not during a second vote), district voters are allowed to choose whoever they want to fill those roles.

http://www.policymic...strict-caucuses

Edited by CatholicCid, 25 June 2012 - 08:00 PM.


#8 Aloysius

Aloysius

    it is a Divine purpose that rules and not fate.

  • Church Militant
  • 21,801 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:48 PM

there is some gray area in terms of what is legal and what is illegal in these conventions. on the one hand, they are private party events and can be run however they want, on the other hand there is a great deal of overlap in terms of federal election law since it's the election of a federal nominee. but when they violate their own rules, at the very least they have committed fraud even if they haven't violated federal election laws, which in some cases they might have.

there's also the difference between the national republican party rules and the state rules. in actuality, the national rules do not recognize any state's binding, so any delegate can theoretically vote for whomever they wish but then may later be subject to penalties from their state for breaking state law or state party rules; but they would not have broken national party rules or federal law in any way. in practice the people at the National Convention who have no intention of following any rules that don't suit their wishes will probably just announce their vote as Romney no matter who they try to vote for.

in any event, granting that the delegates are bound to vote for Romney in Massachusettes and assuming that they did indeed pledge verbally to do so during their conventions, this refusal to credential them is still an outrage--they're refusing to credential them for failing to file something that was NEVER required by the rules to be filed (and from what I read, for some of them it was for failing to file it according to an arbitrary deadline that was also not in the rules). those delegates were duly elected (and yes, Ron Paul wants to have supporters there even if they are bound to Romney, for a couple other maneuvers they're going to try to steer the party towards something good one day) and followed all of the rules that the state republican committee had established.

the unfairly ousted Mass. delegates should 1) join the Lawyers for Ron Paul lawsuit and 2) go to Tampa anyway and raise a big fuss at the credentials committee, and make sure to yell it out to any news media that will listen--you were elected, you had the right to serve as a delegate, and they took it from you because you didn't fulfill arbitrary demands that were never in the rules to begin with.

I'm glad I'm a PA delegate and won't have to vote for Romney. If Paul makes it on the convention ballot, I'll vote for him, and if he doesn't, I will demand that the chairman of my delegation register my abstention as my vote.