A bunch of pledged delegates are now suing saying that it's illegal for the party to make them pledge for a candidate. The fact that they found 163 in the 9th circuit alone can't be good for the Romney camp.
"The first 123 delegates, all from the 9th Circuit, sued the RNC, its Chairman Rince Priebus, and every state party chairman in the 9th Circuit in Federal Court on Monday, demanding the right to vote for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the Republican National Convention, including the first.
The delegates claim the party violated federal law by forcing them to sign loyalty affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, though he is not yet the official nominee.
Some people are saying that Palin could jump in:
" "If the judge rules in our favor, I won't be surprised if three or four new candidates, say Sarah Palin, jump in and say they want to be considered," Gilbert said.
Legally, the case may hinge on whether the judge accepts the plaintiffs' claim that the nominating convention is a "federal" election. Courts have traditionally given the two major political parties considerable leeway in managing their own affairs, for instance, in whether state parties may hold open or closed primaries."http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/15/47495.htm
What I don't understand is, if the nominating convention is a federal election, what about the equal protection clause? Surely the caucus/tiered convention system doesn't hold up scrutiny as not discriminating against those who can't attend every single convention meeting, because of physical, or logistical issues, or those states that have fewer delegates simply because they gave their electoral votes to Obama in 2008, or those states that were penalized for violating the schedule. I mean, if this system meets the requirements for a federal election, what is to prevent a state from holding its general election through a tiered convention system?