The Delegate Fight: 2012

[Erc]

TL;DR:

1) Amendments to the final report of the Credentials Committee may be proposed from the floor; however, no amendment may affect the delegates from more than one state.

2) No delegate may ever participate in votes concerning his own credentials.

3) No contested delegate has voting rights at all at the convention unless they are restored by a vote of the Republican National Committee or the Committee on Credentials.


Basically, Florida's delegates indeed cannot vote on questions concerning their own credentials.  Arizona delegates can vote on questions concerning Florida's credentials if and only if either the Republican National Committee or the Committee on Credentials rules in their favor when they ruled on the contest earlier.

Another thought.  If the greenpapers are right all states are to complete their delegate selection by June 23, however in Utah are primary is June 26th.  Another challenge? Penalty?

The date in question is July 23, not June 23.  Nebraska cuts it the closest, with their State Convention not held until July 14.

[Erc]

In a reminder to us all that the whims of the superdelegates may be fickle, we have the first switch of the season:

Carlos Méndez (PR) has switched his support from Gingrich to Romney.  This gives Romney the unanimous support of the Puerto Rico delegation.

[J. J.]

Torrie, here is the rule regarding the penalty:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the only challenge could be that FL should get its full number of delegates.  Then that would create a vacancy that would default back to the state rules:

Rule 17 c

(c) Where neither the rules adopted by a state
Republican Party nor state laws provide a method for
filling vacancies in its national convention delegation,
the state Republican Party should make every effort to
elect those individuals filling the vacancies in the
delegation in the same manner as the delegates were
originally elected or selected, or by vote of the state
Republican Party executive committee or if the state
executive committee has not filled the vacancy by ten
(10) days prior to the convention, by vote of the state
delegation. This section shall not apply to the delegates
allocated to the state in Rule No. 13(a)(2).



The problem is that the FL rules then would kick in:

Rule K:
In the event a delegate or an alternate delegate is unable to attend the Republican National Convention, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, or his or her designee, shall select his or her replacement.

Rule M (part):

In the event that the Republican National Convention refuses to seat the full allotment of Florida delegates, all remaining delegates shall be Delegates at Large and shall be selected by the Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida from the original delegation. In that event, the Chairman shall select at least one (1) delegate from each congressional district, with the advice and consent of each State Executive Committee Congressional District Chairman.

http://rpof.org/wp-content/uploads/RPOFRule10.pdf

If the credentials committee were to rule that they shouldn't be penalized under Rule 16, arguably under Rule M, but definitely under Rule K.  It doesn't do any good unless the credentials committee decides to violate their own rules.

[Torie]

Those rules are not helpful if some additional penalty is decided upon for winner take all early states, as to who will be removed, and who added.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, notice that rule 15(b) covers both violations, the too early primary and the too early winner take all allocation method. Yet, the sole penalty for violating rule 15(b), and one violates it either by violating just one or both of its provisions, is losing half your delegates - and nothing more. On top of that, this intent reflected in the clear language, is reemphasized by the insertion of a critical "and/or" in Rule 16, along with the use of the term "election or selection process," with the word "selection" encompassing the allocation method.   There is no ambiguity. Therefore, I just don't see it happening.

My inserted text is in brackets, and I bolded and underlined the critical "and/or" words.  It is not a close case.

RULE NO. 16
Enforcement of Rules
(a) If any state or state Republican Party
violates The Rules of the Republican Party relating to [1]
the timing of the election or selection process with the
result that any delegate from that state to the national
convention is bound by statute or rule to vote for a
presidential nominee selected or determined before the
first day of the month in which that state is authorized
by Rule No. 15(b) to vote for a presidential candidate [to wit, too early a primary]
and/or [2] elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates or
alternate delegates to the national convention [that word allocate here covers an illicit winner take all primary], [then the penalty for either the one or both violations is that] the
number of delegates to the national convention from
that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), and
the corresponding alternate delegates also shall be
reduced by the same percentage. ... .

[J. J.]

Those rules are not helpful if some additional penalty is decided upon for winner take all early states, as to who will be removed, and who added.

However, in the rule below there is one critical word in there, "and" which makes it clear to me that even if you violate the no winner take all primary if it is too early rule and hold the primary too early, the sole penalty even for the double violation is just losing half your delegates. There is no ambiguity. Therefore, I just don't see it happening.

My inserted text is in brackets, and I bolded and underlined the critical "and/or" words.  It is not a close case.

RULE NO. 16
Enforcement of Rules
(a) If any state or state Republican Party
violates The Rules of the Republican Party relating to [1]
the timing of the election or selection process with the
result that any delegate from that state to the national
convention is bound by statute or rule to vote for a
presidential nominee selected or determined before the
first day of the month in which that state is authorized
by Rule No. 15(b) to vote for a presidential candidate [to wit, too early a primary]
and/or [2] elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates or
alternate delegates to the national convention [that word allocate here covers an illicit winner take all primary], [then the penalty for either the one or both violations is that] the
number of delegates to the national convention from
that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), and
the corresponding alternate delegates also shall be
reduced by the same percentage. ... .

I would not agree, and would note that the rule is covered by Robert's p. 591, "The imposition of a definite penalty for a particular action prohibits the increase or diminution of the penalty (p. 592, ll. 1-2)."  Robert's would apply as this decision is not made within the convention and the committee is covered by RONR.

Even if we were to follow you logic here, the majority needed would be reduced to 1131.

[Torie]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

Are you now suggesting that a motion to make Florida proportional, and unseat some Mittens delegates, and insert some Newt and Rick delegates, would be ruled out of order because it constitutes an "additional penalty?" If so, and that is in fact the rule that would be applied by the Convention chair, or parliamentarian or whatever, that does appear to be an interior line of defense for team Mittens.

[J. J.]

In a reminder to us all that the whims of the superdelegates may be fickle, we have the first switch of the season:

Carlos Méndez (PR) has switched his support from Gingrich to Romney.  This gives Romney the unanimous support of the Puerto Rico delegation.

There were six additional GA delegates (I'm guessing statewide) given to Romney, possibly some to Gingrich as well.

[J. J.]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

No, the penalty is the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), not "75%."

[Erc]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

No, the penalty is the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), not "75%."

The Committee on Contests, the Republican National Committee, and the Committee on Credentials will I'm sure take all of these fine points into account, but nothing prevents the convention as a whole from simply rejecting their findings out of hand, so long as the contest was appealed all the way to the convention.

As for if sanctions are removed...I would be very surprised if the states do not have a full set of delegates lined up in case sanctions are removed (as they were in 2008).  I know for a fact certain states (NH, for instance, and I think MI) are going to submit a full slate of delegates and let the Contest Committee sort it out.

[J. J.]

The Committee on Contests, the Republican National Committee, and the Committee on Credentials will I'm sure take all of these fine points into account, but nothing prevents the convention as a whole from simply rejecting their findings out of hand, so long as the contest was appealed all the way to the convention.

The would still need a majority (without FL) to do it, which comes back to 1119.

[Torie]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

No, the penalty is the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), not "75%."

Who implied that it was 75%?

[Erc]

In a reminder to us all that the whims of the superdelegates may be fickle, we have the first switch of the season:

Carlos Méndez (PR) has switched his support from Gingrich to Romney.  This gives Romney the unanimous support of the Puerto Rico delegation.

There were six additional GA delegates (I'm guessing statewide) given to Romney, possibly some to Gingrich as well.

Don't quite know what you mean by that, but thanks for the heads up, as I did find something while I was poking around.

Apparently, the GA GOP says that the final delegate count out of Georgia was Gingrich 52 - Romney 21 - Santorum 3, not the 54-19-3 split that I had.

How could they have gotten this count?  The source I would first think of is the CD breakdowns; the breakdowns on the Georgia SoS website are still "Unofficial," although the election results as a whole have been certified.

Was Romney close to winning additional delegates at the expense of Gingrich in any CDs?  Looking at the results, it's a definite no---he's at least 6% off from it in every CD.

So basically, there are a few possiblities:

1) The reporting by CD was completely messed up and these "unofficial" numbers are completely unreliable.

2) We don't actually understand the GA GOP rules, but they seem pretty unambiguous...

3) The Georgia GOP messed up, and the Gingrich camp should challenge this.

Regardless, I have to trust the Georgia GOP over my own calculations, and will update the main post accordingly.

[Erc]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

No, the penalty is the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), not "75%."

Who implied that it was 75%?

There are a few reasonable ways to contest Florida delegates:

1) Remove all sanctions, delegates are allocated as they were by the original FL rules (WTA by CD and At-Large.  Gingrich picks up a few delegates, but Romney is the net winner).

2) Keep the 50% penalty, but seat a delegation that is more in line with the original FL rules (WTA by CD and At-Large.  Gingrich picks up a few delegates at the expense of Romney).

3) Penalize the state an additional 50%, but the state stays completely WTA (all delegates to Romney, this is the best case scenario for Gingrich).

Of these options, 3) is what J.J. is talking about and what has gotten some attention in the press.  For understandable reasons that have been discussed, this is unlikely to succeed, but it is a possibility.  2) is a more reasonable choice and may succeed.  1) is presumably actually the most likely outcome when all is said and done.

[J. J.]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

No, the penalty is the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), not "75%."

Who implied that it was 75%?

99 normally, 50 with a 50% cut, 25 with a 50% cut of that.  A total reduction of about 75%.

[J. J.]

There are a few reasonable ways to contest Florida delegates:

1) Remove all sanctions, delegates are allocated as they were by the original FL rules (WTA by CD and At-Large.  Gingrich picks up a few delegates, but Romney is the net winner).

I think it would be possible to remove the early sanction, and permit a proportional seating and this would be the cleanest way, but it won't help Gingrich very much, if at all.  I would raise the majority to 1,168.  In other words, if Mittens gets 25 of the newly seated delegates, he still has a majority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there is a political problem.  Newt has to say "I want one rule to apply, but not the other."  It is possible, but it could offend a lot of people.  Conversely, Mitt could move to remove the early penalty but keep the WTA rule without a penalty.  I think there would be outrage at either, if it effects the result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is, this violates the rule.  In fact, everything here contemplates the existing rules being amended or suspended. 

The National Committee could amend them prior to the convention, but the convention can, in adopting the rules, amend them.  The problem is that the certification of the delegates occurs prior to adopting the rules.  Approval could be laid on the table, by a majority vote.  The problem is, the delegates from FL will be seated at that point.

I don't see this as workable solution if Romney has 1144 delegates, with FL, who will the way he wants them too, or Santorum/Gingrich can persuade the National Committee to amend the temporary rules.

Gingrich/Santorum might have a better shot challenging at the state level.

[Erc]

2) Keep the 50% penalty, but seat a delegation that is more in line with the original FL rules (WTA by CD and At-Large.  Gingrich picks up a few delegates at the expense of Romney).

I think there is a political problem.  Newt has to say "I want one rule to apply, but not the other."  It is possible, but it could offend a lot of people.  Conversely, Mitt could move to remove the early penalty but keep the WTA rule without a penalty.  I think there would be outrage at either, if it effects the result.

This is all a bit academic, anyway, as we've glossed over one important point.  Florida is going to submit its full delegation to the RNC secretary regardless.  This delegation consists of 54 delegates by CD, 42 delegates At-Large, and 3 RNC members.  [Of those, it's around 89 Romney - 10 Gingrich, worst-case scenario for Romney].

As Florida is trying to seat more delegates than it is entitled to by the rules, a contest is automatically triggered.  What final delegation will actually be seated is then up to the Committee on Contests, the Republican National Committee, the Committee on Credentials, and, ultimately, the Republican National Convention itself.

The Florida rules say that 50 At-Large delegates will be seated if "the Republican National Convention refuses to seat the full allotment of Florida delegates," but it really doesn't seem that the Florida rules could possibly apply at that point.  The Republican National Committee (which decides which 50 of the 99 delegates will appear on the Temporary Roll of the Convention) could defer to the Florida rules, but I don't think they'd need to.

A subsidiary point: the binding of the Florida delegates to a particular candidate, after the final delegation has been decided, may be even more of a wrangle than usual...

Also complicating this is redistricting, which was not finished before the primary.  Gingrich won 3 of Florida's 25 congressional districts (2000 boundaries), it's unclear how many he won on the 2010 boundaries.

[J. J.]

The Florida rules say that 50 At-Large delegates will be seated if "the Republican National Convention refuses to seat the full allotment of Florida delegates," but it really doesn't seem that the Florida rules could possibly apply at that point.  The Republican National Committee (which decides which 50 of the 99 delegates will appear on the Temporary Roll of the Convention) could defer to the Florida rules, but I don't think they'd need to.

The RNC Rules defer back to the state:

RULE NO. 17
Vacancies in a State Delegation
(a) Where the rules adopted by a state
Republican Party provide a method for filling vacancies
in its national convention delegation, they shall be filled
pursuant to such method.
(b) Where the rules adopted by a state
Republican Party do not provide a method for filling
vacancies in its national convention delegation, and
where the state laws do provide such a method of
replacement, they shall be filled pursuant to such
method provided by state laws.
(c) Where neither the rules adopted by a state
Republican Party nor state laws provide a method for
filling vacancies in its national convention delegation,
the state Republican Party should make every effort to
elect those individuals filling the vacancies in the
delegation in the same manner as the delegates were
originally elected or selected, or by vote of the state
Republican Party executive committee or if the state
executive committee has not filled the vacancy by ten
(10) days prior to the convention, by vote of the state
delegation. This section shall not apply to the delegates
allocated to the state in Rule No. 13(a)(2) [RNC members].

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless there is something worked out, FL will either provide 50 delegates for Mittens, or the majority will be 1119.  I do not see any method for Newt to get them, unless he goes through the National Committee or the Florida State Committee.

[Erc]

RULE NO. 17
Vacancies in a State Delegation...

99 is greater than 50.  We're not dealing with vacancies in a delegation, we're dealing with Excess Delegates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republican National Committee decides which 50 of the 99 delegates is placed on the Temporary Roll, then the normal contest procedure ensues.

[J. J.]

RULE NO. 17
Vacancies in a State Delegation...

99 is greater than 50.  We're not dealing with vacancies in a delegation, we're dealing with Excess Delegates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republican National Committee decides which 50 of the 99 delegates is placed on the Temporary Roll, then the normal contest procedure ensues.

That rule only deals with more delegates elected than there are positions.  There, in that circumstance, would be less than the authorized number of delegates, not "more."  It is a vacancy and would be filled as such.

[Erc]

RULE NO. 17
Vacancies in a State Delegation...

99 is greater than 50.  We're not dealing with vacancies in a delegation, we're dealing with Excess Delegates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republican National Committee decides which 50 of the 99 delegates is placed on the Temporary Roll, then the normal contest procedure ensues.

That rule only deals with more delegates elected than there are positions.  There, in that circumstance, would be less than the authorized number of delegates, not "more."  It is a vacancy and would be filled as such.

According to the rules of the Republican Party (including the 50% penalty in rule 16), Florida is entitled to 50 delegates.  Florida, according to its own rules, will be sending a list to the RNC secretary with 99 delegates on it, more than they are entitled to.  This is an excess of delegates, and falls under Rule 18.

I am not discussing the scenario (which is what I think you're talking about) in which Florida sends a list of 50 delegates to the RNC, this is contested by someone from Florida, and in the ensuing contest, the sanctions are lifted and 99 delegates are seated.  The Florida GOP Rules clearly state that they will be sending the full 99 delegates to Tampa, unless the Republican National Convention refuses to seat them.

In any event, we will have a better picture of what Florida is planning to do after the delegates themselves are selected; delegates by CDs are selected at caucuses from February 7 - March 30, and the At-Large delegates are selected on April 28. Source.

[Erc]

Alaska has finished canvassing its votes from the Super Tuesday Presidential Preference Poll, and finalized its delegate count.

As was quite probable, Gingrich lost a delegate; Santorum was the beneficiary.

[J. J.]

According to the rules of the Republican Party (including the 50% penalty in rule 16), Florida is entitled to 50 delegates.  Florida, according to its own rules, will be sending a list to the RNC secretary with 99 delegates on it, more than they are entitled to.  This is an excess of delegates, and falls under Rule 18.

Okay, I see what you are referring to.  I'm not sure, however, that they will send more than 50 (49 to be precise).  It would probably be safer not to.

[Torie]

That 1040 number for a plurality just seems so appropriate for tax time doesn't it?  

The plurality game is a different game from the majority game, and I suspect everybody is playing the majority game, to wit, Mittens versus non-Mittens. But given the chatter about pluralities, I thought I would add the plurality game to the chart. It gave me a headache to come up with the formula for the plurality game. Don't ask how I did it.

[Erc]

Romney barely scrapes by the threshold, winning 7 delegates to Santorum's 13.

Gingrich loses his last honest shot at delegates until May 8.

[Colbert]

what is an unplegged delegate? A free delegate with no obligation to vote for "his" candidate?