http://www.votertracker.com/gopconvention/

The rules adopted by our convention in Reno require that the Presidential Electors for Nevada be selected by the delegates to the National Convention. This is in conflict with state law which requires the electors to be chosen by the state convention. Here is the wording of the state convention rules:

4.1 Electing Presidential Electors and Alternates.

“Presidential Electors and Alternates representing the three Nevada U.S. Congressional Districts shall be selected by Nevada’s Delegates to the Republican National Convention.”

There is more than one mistake in the above. The first mistake is that the selection must be done by the convention to conform with state law. The other mistakes are that there are not three but five Presidential Electors. And they do not represent the congressional districts at all, but the districts are simply used to determine the total number. The number of Presidential electors for each state is equal to the total number of congressional districts plus two. Therefore Nevada gets a total of five presidential electors. Each state gets the number of Presidential electors equal to the number of senators and representatives. The Democrats have already chose their five electors, and have done it properly by their convention. Someone was asleep at the wheel when the above rule was written into the rules.

Here is the text of the Nevada law on the subject:

NRS 298.020 Selection of party’s nominees.

1. “Each major political party in this State, qualified by law to place upon the general election ballot candidates for the office of President and Vice President of the United States in the year when they are to be elected, shall, at the state convention of the major political party held in that year, choose from the qualified electors, who are legally registered members of that political party, the number of presidential electors required by law and no more, who must be nominated by the delegates at the state convention. Upon the nomination thereof, the chairman and the secretary of the convention shall certify the names and addresses of the nominees to the Secretary of State, who shall record the names in his office as the nominees of that political party for presidential elector.”
……………………………….. …………………………………. …………………………………. ………..

It has often been said that party rules trump state law. I am not sure that I agree with that, but that line of thinking is in the bylaws of the state party. However, I suspect that very few would argue that party rules trump or have priority over the Federal Constitution. And in fact that Constitution of the United States very specifically states that the state legislatures shall determine the method by which the Presidential Electors are determined. Here is the text:

Article. II.

Section 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
……………………………….. …………………………………. …………………………………. ………..

It seems to me quite clear that with the above language, it would not be legal for the party rules to have priority over state law in the matter of the selection of Presidential Electors. Therefore I conclude that when the convention reconvenes that we should amend the convention rules to allow the selection of Presidential Electors to be done by the method prescribed by the state law, which is selection by the state convention - and not selection by the delegates to the National Republican Convention.

–

I agree that the Democrats are watching what occurs in the GOP with glee but what is happening is a sort of thinning of the herd, a natural attrition, as real Republicans assert themselves within the party, and this is a healthy phenomenon. Ronald Reagan did state that, “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican”, but I believe that only applies to Republicans that behave like Republicans.

What we should be wary of, is the fact that people within the party, who call themselves Republicans for the sake of personal gain or prestige, are watching this free for all as well. These Machiavellian parasites in the party leadership would love to see us potentially misdirect our aggression upon the sacrificial lambs that they have offered up.

Extending an olive branch (or a lifeline if you prefer), as well as sanctuary, to the incumbents that choose to do the right thing and stand on the side of justice would seem the prudent thing to do. Offer a road to safe refuge within the party and then if it is refused, let the offender burn his own bridge.

What we probably could not agree to were some of the options put forth by the State GOP Executive Committee regarding the completion of the delegate selection. If we are to understand the general train of thought amongst the party elite, we are to believe that the possibility of attempting to reconvene the convention and not be able to establish a quorum, is so unappealing and might lead to a further disillusionment and loss of registered Republicans, that it should not even be attempted.

Thus the party leaders would argue that a mail-in ballot would be the only practical and acceptable means to elect delegates to the national convention.

Without degenerating into the various arguments that could possibly be given, for or against such a contrivance, one thought must be given to a particular of the aforesaid tactic. Mr. Zadrowski mentioned that a mail-in ballot could be considered to be fair if done correctly; he also went on to say that the option could be or had been raised of having an “independent” firm such as Arthur Andersen conduct the audit of such a scheme.

In all likelihood, this is the same Arthur Andersen that was responsible for the accounting audits of Waste Management when it’s executives were named in a major SEC lawsuit for accounting shenanigans that let the company hide about $1.7 billion in expenses from 1992 to 1997 while two top executives took $28.4 million in compensation.

It was also Arthur Andersen that rubber stamped the corporate audits of Enron and Global Crossing prior to both companies filing Chapter 11, swindling their investors, and sacking their pension funds.

Understand that this practice of offering a clean bill of health to any company that was willing to pay for it is not limited to Arthur Andersen alone, this tended to be standard operating procedure for all the Big Five accounting firms in America, though Arthur Andersen was the first accounting firm ever to be convicted of fraud.

Naturally, one can only assume that these accounting firms, Arthur Andersen included, were simply making certain that their clients got what they paid for.

Which evokes the questions: who would pay for the audit of the proposed mail-in and how can they be assured that they are getting what they have paid for?

Which elicits the summary question: what specifically is being paid for?

Remarks of the First Parliamentarian: “As a courtesy, I’ll answer your question briefly. Understand that I have no knowledge of your bylaws and/or other rules. IF YOU USE the current edition of ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER NEWLY REVISED as your parliamentary authority, you will find on page 2 of the 10th Edition:

“Efforts to conduct the deliberative process by postal or electronic mail or facsimile (fax) transmission–which are not recommended–must be expressly authorized by the bylaws and should be supported by special rules of order and standing rules as appropriate, since so many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law may arise and since many procedures common to parliamentary law are not applicable (see pp 482-83.)”
……………………..

Remarks of the Second Parliamentarian:

I found the Nevada Republican Party’s website, which posts
your chairman’s letter. This gave me a little more insight.
Sounds like an adjourned meeting was created at the call of
the chairman. It also appears that the adjourned meeting
must take place in Washoe County. I don’t see how they
could even attempt to vote by mail . what do you do for a
runoff election? Also, it appears that the candidates
should have an opportunity to speak for themselves.

….if a quorum cannot be reached at the meeting, then
the only things that could be done are:

RONR p. 336 - 337

PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. In the absence of a
quorum, any business transacted (except for the procedural
actions noted in the next paragraph) is null and void. But
if a quorum fails to appear at a regular or properly called
meeting, the inability to transact business does not detract
from the fact that the society’s rules requiring the meeting
to be held were complied with and the meeting was
convened-even though it had to adjourn immediately.

The only action that can legally be taken in the absence of
a quorum is to fix the time to which to adjourn (22),
adjourn (21), recess (20), or take measures to obtain a
quorum. [page 337] The first three of these motions are
governed by the Standard Descriptive Characteristics given
for them in the numbered sections indicated. A motion that
absent members be contacted during a recess would represent
a measure in the last category. Motions to obtain a quorum
are treated as privileged motions that take precedence over
a motion to Recess (20). Such motions are out of order when
another has the floor; must be seconded; are not debatable;
are amendable (any amendment being undebatable in accordance
with the general rule); require a majority vote; and can be
reconsidered. Motions to obtain a quorum are similar to a
Call of the House, which can be ordered in assemblies having
the power to compel attendance (see below).

The prohibition against transacting business in the absence
of a quorum cannot be waived even by unanimous consent, and
a notice (pp. 116-18) cannot be validly given. If there is
important business that should not be delayed, the meeting
should fix the time for an adjourned meeting and then
adjourn. Where an important opportunity would be lost unless
acted upon immediately, the members present can, at their
own risk, act in the emergency with the hope that their
action will be ratified by a later meeting at which a quorum
is present.
………………………………………………

Remarks of the Third Parliamentarian:

“As far as Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 10th edition, is concerned, voting by mail is simply not permitted unless allowed by the governing bylaws.”

–

>>>>If you desire to win the hearts and minds of Republicans then I suggest do not try to wage a guerrila war in state conventions across the country. You guys are just pissing people off and creating an image that you are a bunch of loonies.<<<<<<<