How an Obscure Rule Could Limit the GOP Convention to a Choice of Trump or Cruz

New York Magazine ^ | March 31, 2016 | Ed Kilgore

[2ndDivisionVet]

Back in the day, when national party conventions were largely autonomous events rather than infomercials for a nominee chosen in primaries and caucuses, you'd have many names, including multiple "favorite son" candidates who were not really running for president, placed in nomination, with extensive time spent on nominating speeches and even "spontaneous" floor demonstrations. As conventions became more tightly controlled and their managers worried about things like ensuring that the balloting and acceptance speeches occurred before East Coast television viewers were asleep, nonserious candidacies were sacrificed to efficiency. Among Republicans, the tradition developed that no one's name could be placed in nomination without support from at least three delegations; that cut off the pure favorite-son candidacies. Beyond that, the status of conventions as ratifying rather than nominating events exerted its own pressure on "losers" who typically succumbed to the pressure to unite behind the nominee and grin for the cameras.

That was before the Ron Paul Revolution appeared on the scene. In 2012, the Paulites shrewdly focused on winning fights for delegates that occurred after primaries and caucuses in hopes of making their eccentric candidate and his eccentric causes a big nuisance at Mitt Romney's convention. And so the Romney campaign and its many allies reacted — some would say overreacted — by using its muscle on the convention Rules Committee (meeting just prior to Tampa to draft procedures for the conclave) to change the presence-in-three-delegations threshold for having one's name placed in nomination to this one:

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 (8) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

This Rule 40(b), moreover, was interpreted to mean that no candidate who did not meet the threshold could have votes for the nomination recorded in her/his name.

Rule 40(b) succeeded in keeping the Paulites under wraps in Tampa, but as is generally the case, it remained in effect as a "temporary" rule for the next convention, subject to possible revision by a new Rules Committee meeting just prior to the 2016 gathering, and by the convention itself, which controls its own rules. In fact, its drafters may have intended to keep the rule in place to head off some annoying convention challenge to President Romney's renomination.

Back in the real world, Rule 40(b) may have been in the back of some minds early in the 2016 cycle as a way to keep the convention from being rhetorically kidnapped by noisy supporters of Rand Paul, or of the novelty "birther" candidate Donald Trump.

Now, obviously, the shoe is on the other foot, and there is a growing possibility that the two strongest candidates for the GOP nomination, Trump and Ted Cruz, could join their considerable forces to insist on maintenance of Rule 40(b) or something much like it to prevent their common Republican Establishment enemies from exploiting a multi-ballot convention to place someone else at the top of the ticket.

Trump is currently the only candidate who is beyond the eight-state-majority threshold for competing for the nomination under the strict terms of Rule 40(b). But Team Cruz is confident enough that its candidate will also satisfy the rule that he's the one out there arguing that Rule 40(b) means votes for John Kasich are an entire waste because they won't be counted in Cleveland. And with both Trump and Cruz repeatedly claiming that the nomination of a dark horse who hasn't competed during the primaries would be an insult to the GOP rank and file, maintaining Rule 40(b) is the obvious strategy to close off that possibility. A good indicator of the new situation is the evolving position of Virginia party activist and veteran Rules Committee member Morton Blackwell, a loud dissenter against Rule 40(b) before and after the 2012 convention, who now, as a Cruz supporter, is arguing that changing the rule "would be widely and correctly viewed as [an] outrageous power grab.”

But can the Republican Establishment stack the Rules Committee with party insiders determined to overturn Rule 40(b) and keep the party's options wide open going into Cleveland? Not really. That committee is composed of two members elected by each state delegation. No likely combination of Kasich and Rubio delegates and "false-flag" delegates bound to Trump or Cruz but free to vote against their interests on procedural issues is likely to make up a majority of the Rules Committee, or of the convention. Indeed, most of the anecdotal evidence about "delegate-stealing" in the murky process of naming actual bodies to fill pledged seats at the convention shows Team Cruz, not some anti-Trump/anti-Cruz cabal, gaining ground. If Trump and Cruz stick together on this one point no matter how many insults they are exchanging as rivals, they almost certainly can shut the door on any truly "open" convention and force Republicans who intensely dislike both of them to choose their poison.

That would leave Kasich with his fistful of general-election polls and the proliferating list of fantasy "unity" candidates on the outside in Cleveland, playing to the cameras but having no real influence over the proceedings. And you can make the case that this is precisely what the Republican "base" wants and has brought to fruition through the nominating process. It would, of course, be highly ironic if the Republican Establishment's Rule 40(b) became the instrument for two candidates generally hated by said Establishment to impose a duopoly on the party. But there's no President Romney around to put a stop to it.

[circlecity]

The convention should come down to Trump or Cruz at this point. Or else the entire primary system is a meaningless sham.

[Vigilanteman]

Summary: The GOPe does not wished to be hoisted on their own Petard.

[Harpotoo]

I’m OK with that. Either is better than the Burn:-)

[1Old Pro]

Yep, imagine a Trump/Cruz ticket.

[Resolute Conservative]

or the Herpes...

[A CA Guy]

Because of the Cruz games like the GOPe and being married to Goldman Sachs almost literally, I can now never trust Ted again and PRAY Trump gets the delegates outright.

[VitacoreVision]

Flashback:

2012 - Republican Convention Rules Changes: How the Establishment Stole the GOP
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12660-republican-convention-rules-changes-how-the-establishment-stole-the-gop

2012 - RNC Disenfranchises Paul Delegates; Rigs Rules to Nominate Romney
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12645-rnc-disenfranchises-delegates-rigs-rules-to-nominate-romney

[Leaning Right]

imagine a Trump/Cruz ticket

That could have been, and perhaps should have been. But both sides poisoned that well. One could debate for hours which side was more at fault. But that fact is neither side behaved like responsible adults.

[nickcarraway]

The media keeps promoting this idea of the brokered conventions, but the chances are very slim.

[Mr. K]

Silly...! They’ll just change the rules

[thorvaldr]

“The convention should come down to Trump or Cruz at this point. Or else the entire primary system is a meaningless sham.”

Yes

[unlearner]

Hopefully Trump and Cruz camps can agree on at least this much.

Trump and Cruz and their supporters will have to team up to beat whoever the Dem nominee is.

[taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that the convention should be conducted in the following manner:

All delegates are bound to their candidate going into the convention. All candidates who received at least 1 delegate are eligible to receive their delegates votes. The first round then establishes the order of candidates based on the number of delegates. If one candidate receives a majority - that is the nominee.

If after the first round there is no nominee, the candidate(s) with the fewest votes is removed from the list of eligible candidates. The delegates that were assigned to that candidate are then unbound and can vote for any other candidate. However, they remain bound to that candidate in subsequent rounds of voting until their new candidate is removed and they are again unbound. A delegate may also abstain but once abstained, they may not vote for another candidate in any subsequent round.

So on the 2nd round, the delegate count is the same with the exception of the delegates who supported the lowest tier of candidate. They then get to change their support. At first, this will only be a handful of delegates. But each subsequent round of voting will reduce the pool of eligible candidates and will concentrate the delegates behind a single candidate.

The 3rd, 4th and subsequent rounds would be also conducted in like manner until there is one candidate with enough votes for the nomination. In the rare occasion when there is a large dislike for the field of candidates, one would expect the “abstain” block of delegates to get to the point where it has the majority of votes. At that time, all delegates are unbound and can vote as they please.

[EQAndyBuzz]

One thing can end the establishment and the rats attacks. A simple handshake between Trump and Cruz. A handshake and a whisper caught on camera and it is over for the GOPe.

But noooooooo.... Easier to criticize Trump and Cruz for reasons the RNC made up, was Goebbled to no end by the MSM and passed around as truth.

[Pollster1]

No. Read the rules. Are there no journalists left who fact check what they hear in a men's room at the bus station?

https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf (page number 39-40 on the pages; pdf file pages 43-44)

“RULE NO. 40 (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 (8) 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 (8) 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.”

That stopped Ron Paul because he didn't have majorities in enough states and couldn't get those majorities. This year is totally different. After the first ballot, when some state delegates are no longer bound, anyone . . . Anyone . . . ANYONE . . . who can get a majority of delegates from each of eight states to sign the form can be nominated for any subsequent round of voting. Not only that, but Trump has to submit the form for the first round and each subsequent round of voting too, to prove he hasn't lost that support. There is no need for a rules change to nominate anyone the delegates want, whether establishment or patriotic.

Jeb, Christie, Rubio, Kasich, Palin, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Robert E. Lee - they're all eligible if they can get over 50% support from eight different states, starting on the second ballot. On the first ballot, only Trump and Cruz will be eligible, and Cruz only if he has a majority of delegates from enough states (including Rubio delegates if they are permitted to switch, which is a question still to be decided now that Rubio is trying to change his mind).

[Lopeover]

Looks like the oh,so smart guy is making an argument for Kasich!

[Pollster1]

The actual rules are far more complicated, as I’m sure you would guess.

https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf

Delegates are bound for as long as their state rules say they are bound. If your state says one round only, you can vote as you wish starting in the second round. That buys a lot of early, and possibly decisive, attention in the event of a contested convention, which buys favors. If your state says you are bound for eight rounds, then you are bound for that long too, which buys a little extra attention in the primaries and may make your state the deciding vote if it takes a lot of rounds to get a nominee, and that buys favors too.

Note (Rule 16): votes cast in violation of state law or state party rules are counted as if they voted for the candidate they are bound to, and the delegate is “deemed to have resigned”. Bound delegates truly are bound to vote as mandated by their state rules.

[DugwayDuke]

Heard an interesting interview with Karl Rove on Fox News. Rove said that the requirement for a majority in eight states only applies to “formal nominations”. “Formal nominations” are those where there are nominating speeches given from the podium. Rove said this rule was enacted to keep Ron Paul off the stage but does not prohibit delegates from voting for other candidates not placed in “formal nomination”.

Rove further said that this rule was enacted to minimize the number of nominating speeches since there were strict limits on TV coverage.

This makes sense when one considers that delegates are bound, to varying degrees, in certain ways by their state laws and rules of their state parties. A rule which prevented them from fulfilling their state obligations would not be appropriate.

Just reporting what the man said.

[chit*chat]

Since the RNC represent the views of their constituents let the constituents guide them in rewriting the rules. Should NOT be up to them and their puppet master.