The Delegate Fight: 2016

[Erc]

Would Trump and Cruz be able to tap into Kasich's delegates on the first ballot if he doesn't qualify to be on it?

Potentially!  Honestly, Kasich is about as likely as Rubio to make it onto the first ballot.  Rules vary from state to state, of course.

If Kasich were not placed into nomination on the first ballot, he would keep all but 12 of his delegates on the first ballot (the 4 in New Hampshire and the 8 in Vermont).  Presumably the remaining 133 would be forced to abstain, though this is a weird corner of the rules that may need to be clarified at the convention itself.

[Likely Voter]

article on how Rubio is trying to keep delegates pledged to him, to keep them from being available to Trump
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rubio-makes-unprecedented-bid-keep-delegates-contested-convention-n547646

[dax00]

article on how Rubio is trying to keep delegates pledged to him, to keep them from being available to Trump
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rubio-makes-unprecedented-bid-keep-delegates-contested-convention-n547646

That just made Trump's fight for 1237 a whole 3 delegates harder :/

[Erc]

article on how Rubio is trying to keep delegates pledged to him, to keep them from being available to Trump
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rubio-makes-unprecedented-bid-keep-delegates-contested-convention-n547646

Yep!  Discussed this somewhat on the last page.  Real uncertainty here is Oklahoma--is Rubio "no longer a candidate" if he doesn't make it onto the first ballot?  I would think so, and his spokesman apparently agrees, saying literally that he is "no longer a candidate," while simultaneously trying to keep his Oklahoma delegates......

[Erc]

The VI shambles continue, but it seems like the full weight of the VI GOP (not just John Canegata) is against the Yobs.

One lone member of the Certification Committee, James Oliver, has sent a letter to the RNC certifying the original slate (including the Yobs).

John Canegata has responded with a long letter (that's worth reading, as it provides a lot of insight to all the VI GOP's troubles this cycle).  His basic point was that the certification was deemed complete on the night of the caucus itself (where James Oliver was not even present) and that the 6 elected delegates were notified of their election, but did not respond within 5 days.

More details can be found in the St. Croix Source.

Rules-wise, there seem to be two basic points here.

1) Were the delegates "notified in writing of their selection"?  Canegata says he did, but despite an otherwise very-well-documented chain of events, does not provide any copies of this notification.

2) Was the certification of delegates on caucus night by the Certification Committee legitimate?  The language in the rules is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One would think there would be pending disputes that would affect the results (i.e. the ongoing court challenge to the Yobs' residency).  However, the Dispute Subcommittee says it had no business to conduct at all, and apparently finished its business on the night of the caucus.  There's justification for this; i.e. the residency dispute is a matter for the courts, not the Dispute Subcommittee.

The only evidence for this, is a document dated March 23rd (after Canegata's coup) and not signed by some members until today.

However, it should be noted that the Dispute Subcommittee has to accept submitted disputes in the two days after the caucus, as well!  Valerie Stiles (who's suing the Yobs over the residency) in fact did so on March 12.  I fail to see how the Certification Committee could legitimately certify the results before the close of the filing period for disputes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All and all, this still stinks.  Canegata is trying to create the appropriate paper trail well after the fact, when his entire case rests on that non-existent paper trail.  The timing of all of this makes it very clear that, despite his claims of neutrality, Canegata hates the Yobs personally (see page 9 of his letter) and cooked up this Rule 11 business after the fact, only after the court challenge to their residency failed.

This entire business is clearly going to the Credentials Committee.  I'm keeping the delegation Uncommitted until July as a result of the uncertainty.

[Erc]

FHQ has talked to the RNC about their interpretation of one element of Rule 40: the question of whether people can qualify for Rule 40 and be placed into nomination on later ballots.

According to the RNC's interpretation, they can.  Note that of course this may change if the rules change, or if the convention itself rules otherwise.

In particular, this means that after the first ballot, when delegates start becoming unbound, Kasich (or Romney, or Ryan, or...) could qualify under Rule 40 and have their name placed into nomination under the current rules.

Also in that conversation: those bound to candidates not placed into nomination must still vote for that candidate, though their votes will not be tallied by Paul Ryan.  Note that a candidate must still reach 1237 delegates in order to be nominated, even with such "spoiled ballots."

[Bacon King]

Erc how likely is this to lead to a Contests/Credentials dispute

http://time.com/4278295/donald-trump-loyalty-pledge-south-carolina-delegates/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erc]

Other news on the Rule 40 front:

It sounds as if Ted Cruz does not favor a change in Rule 40, though he stops short of saying he'd instruct his delegates to fight such a rule change.  Seeing as Donald Trump has even less interest in changing Rule 40, it sounds as if, as I predicted earlier this month, we need to take Rule 40 seriously.

[Erc]

Erc how likely is this to lead to a Contests/Credentials dispute

http://time.com/4278295/donald-trump-loyalty-pledge-south-carolina-delegates/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't find any provision for this in SC GOP rules or in state law, so I feel it's unlikely to be enforceable.

However, this is a different sort of question than the usual Virgin Islands-style credentials contest.  Unless there are disputes at the SC District and State conventions that lead to different slates of delegates being submitted to the RNC, it's the binding, not the identity, of the SC delegates that would be in question.  That's not really a matter for the Contests/Credentials committee, as far as I can tell.

As the rules currently stand, the question of binding is entirely up to the Secretary of the Convention, Paul Ryan.  "The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule." 

Of course, these rules could be changed by a vote at the convention as a whole, but right now Paul Ryan seems to have all the power in this scenario.

[Bacon King]

I don't know where else to post this

the GOP is preparing for an open convention with this educational site: https://gop.com/convention-facts/?mid=68749&rid=13491920&convention_type=how

[Erc]

In the event that Trump is ruled ineligible in SC, his delegates would go to Cruz instead (assuming Rubio is not placed into nomination).  Of course, it's not incredibly clear Cruz is eligible, either, in which case the delegates would be unbound.

[Bacon King]

In the event that Trump is ruled ineligible in SC, his delegates would go to Cruz instead (assuming Rubio is not placed into nomination).  Of course, it's not incredibly clear Cruz is eligible, either, in which case the delegates would be unbound.

in the event they do become unbound, they would still be allowed to cast votes for Trump and Cruz if they wanted to right?

[Erc]

In the event that Trump is ruled ineligible in SC, his delegates would go to Cruz instead (assuming Rubio is not placed into nomination).  Of course, it's not incredibly clear Cruz is eligible, either, in which case the delegates would be unbound.

in the event they do become unbound, they would still be allowed to cast votes for Trump and Cruz if they wanted to right?

Yes.

[Erc]

Louisiana confirms Rubio has lost his delegates there, and it is too late for him to get them back.

[Ebsy]

In the event that Trump is ruled ineligible in SC, his delegates would go to Cruz instead (assuming Rubio is not placed into nomination).  Of course, it's not incredibly clear Cruz is eligible, either, in which case the delegates would be unbound.

As I said earlier, the easiest way for Republicans to deny Trump a majority is through somehow taking out South Carolina.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Louisiana confirms Rubio has lost his delegates there, and it is too late for him to get them back.

Why doesn't every state keep delegates bound to a candidate, even after dropping out.  Re-allocating them can help someone to get to 1237 who doesn't deserve it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Louisiana confirms Rubio has lost his delegates there, and it is too late for him to get them back.

Why doesn't every state keep delegates bound to a candidate, even after dropping out.  Re-allocating them can help someone to get to 1237 who doesn't deserve it.

Consequences of voting so early, I suppose.

[Bacon King]

Louisiana confirms Rubio has lost his delegates there, and it is too late for him to get them back.

Why doesn't every state keep delegates bound to a candidate, even after dropping out.  Re-allocating them can help someone to get to 1237 who doesn't deserve it.

Rubio's Louisiana delegates weren't re-allocated, they are free to vote for whoever they want

[Bacon King]

The first four appointees to the Rules Committee all want to slash Rule 40

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/republican-convention-rules-trump-cruz-221355

[Likely Voter]

Karl Rove spoke about Rule 40

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/karl-rove-state-play-re-contested-convention/

So according to Rove the rule is more about a nominating speeches, not votes. This actually makes more sense. Otherwise delegates from other candidates are in some kind of Twilight Zone where they can't vote for the person they are bound to but they cant vote for anyone else either.   

[yankeesfan]

In my opinion, Rove's interpretation of Rule 40 is completely wrong.  Presented below is Rule 40 in its entirety. Clause (b) is completely separate from clause (c).  They're not related at all.  Clause (b), the pertinent clause, doesn't have anything to do with speeches.  Indeed, that's why the establishment wants to change the Rule.  What does everyone else think?

* * *

RULE NO. 40
Nominations
(a) In making the nominations for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States and voting thereon, the roll of the states shall be called separately in each case; provided, however, that if there is only one candidate for nomination for Vice President of the United States who has demonstrated the support required by paragraph (b) of this rule, a motion to nominate for such office by acclamation shall be in order and no calling of the roll with respect to such office shall be required.

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.

(c) The total time of the nominating speech and seconding speeches for any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States shall not exceed fifteen (15) minutes.

(d) When at the close of a roll call any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States has received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention, the chairman of the convention shall announce the votes for each candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this rule. Before the convention adjourns sine die, the chairman of the convention shall declare the candidate nominated by the Republican Party for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States.

(e) If no candidate shall have received such majority, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of the states be called again and shall repeat the calling of the roll until a candidate shall have received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention.

[Erc]

Rove's sort of onto something, but not really.  The key here, apparently, is (d).  FHQ talked with the RNC about this, and their current interpretation is:

Under Rule 40 the state delegation chair calls out the votes, but the convention secretary does not tally for non-qualifiers.

So if you are bound to Carly Fiorina, you vote for Carly Fiorina, the chair of the Iowa delegation announces your vote for Carly Fiorina, but it is not tallied by the Secretary.  This is in accord with Rule 40(d), which says that the convention chairman only announces the votes cast for candidates who qualified under Rule 40(b).

Thus, I think, Rubio (& Kasich) will keep their delegates on the first ballot, except in the few states where failing to be placed into nomination with Rule 40(b) releases them.

[Ebsy]

So, if the votes are not tallied, do they still impact the number of delegates needed for a majority?

[yankeesfan]

So, if the votes are not tallied, do they still impact the number of delegates needed for a majority?

Erc's link seems to confirm that the number will remain 1237

[Erc]

So, if the votes are not tallied, do they still impact the number of delegates needed for a majority?

Regardless of abstentions, no-shows, votes for Carly Fiorina, you still need "a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention," i.e. 1237 delegates, in order to win the nomination.