Convention Day 2: A Tale of Two Meetings
Yesterday was a clinic in parliamentary procedures
Yesterday morning I had the privilege of sitting on the Resolutions Committee. We were tasked with discussing, debating, and voting on the thirty-two resolutions that had been submitted to the Idaho GOP State Convention this year. Of those, one was a duplicate, two more were consolidated, two were rejected, and twelve were approved for recommendation to the General Session. We did not have time for the rest, as we were only scheduled for one committee session this year.
The resolutions we recommended for approval will be shared with the General Session later today, as well as any that reached a threshold of 25% of committee votes. For example, the final resolution of the day was regarding the lawsuit filed against the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee by State Chairman Tom Luna, and it ended in a 31-31 tie. According to the rules of the committee, a tie vote equals a rejection, however the resolution sponsor Mark Fuller has the right to present a minority report to the General Session.
It was a pleasure to sit in Mr. Clark’s committee. He is an experienced parliamentarian and he turned the meeting into an educational experience. At each step he carefully explained what he was doing, why he was doing it, and how Robert’s Rules of Order applied to each situation.
The first General Session yesterday afternoon was less orderly. Chairman Tom Luna opened the 2022 Idaho GOP Convention in the Fine Arts Auditorium of the College of Southern Idaho. Roll call showed 750 delegates from across the state. It took more than an hour to finish roll call and hear instructions for the rest of the session.
The main order of business yesterday afternoon was to evaluate a single proposal forwarded from the Rules Committee. Branden Durst submitted a proposed rule that would extend the time necessary for voters to affiliate with the Republican Party before being allowed to vote in Republican primaries. Many here at the Convention are concerned about crossover voting, Democrats who switch parties in the spring, vote for the most left-wing candidate in the GOP primary, and then switch back. Activist David Reilly explained how he had affiliated as a Democrat to run a write-in campaign for governor, then switched back in time to be a delegate to the Convention. “This shouldn’t be allowed!” he said.
While the Rules Committee had stripped language that would explicitly allow central committees to recommend candidates in a Republican Primary, a delegate moved to add that to the proposal as an amendment. After several minutes of debate, the Convention held a vote on the amendment. Those in favor, please stand. Those opposed, please stand. After confirming their counts, the amendment passed 336-324.
Not so fast!
Ada County 2nd Vice Chair Travis Clyde went to the microphone with a point of order, explaining that Convention rules demanded votes be counted individually by county or district and then reported to the secretary. Chairman Luna consulted with his parliamentarian and ordered a re-vote.
I later spoke to others also well versed in parliamentary procedure who believed that Mr. Luna had the right to accept the original vote and change the procedure going forward. You can see the problem: in between the original vote and the second vote, numerous delegates had left the auditorium, whether to use the restrooms or to get some fresh air. Others who had missed the first vote for the same reason were now present. Keeping control of 750 people is no easy task.
An hour later, the second vote was complete, and the amendment was confirmed 357-309.
Now, at nearly 5pm, with dinner on everyone’s minds, debate on the full rule began. Branden Durst came to the microphone to defend the rule, and other delegates spoke in opposition. The strongest support came from Bonneville and Kootenai Counties, who have been the biggest proponents of the right of committees to make primary recommendations. The most outspoken opponents were members of the establishment - the elder statesmen of the party, the advocates for unity and moderation, the ones who call us extremists.
The Bonneville delegates, angry over the lawsuit that Chairman Luna filed against their leaders, stood united for the rule.
I could see that the split over the rule was less about the particulars than it was about making a statement. Should the Republican Party prioritize ideology or unity? Should central committees have the right to vet and recommend primary candidates? What is the definition of a Republican? Is it anyone who checks the ‘R’ box on their voter registration form? Or is it someone who believes in, and lives out, the philosophy of our platform?
The final vote was 403-265 in favor of the rule change. Nothing is official yet - the rule will now be sent to the Idaho GOP State Central Committee for more work. But the statement was made. A similar idea failed at the 2020 Convention, so this outcome demonstrated the direction our party is going. Will it be a harbinger of today’s leadership vote? Stay tuned!
One of the biggest complaints and why we end up with RINO's is that the Republican party does not vette the candidates. We should not support candidates just because they have an "R"...by their name. The general public does not have the time to do the research and voting record analysis necessary to determine if a candidate truly represents the conservative values Idaho is supposed to be known for. It is up to the central committees to do that work and provide candidate analysis and distribute that information and recommendations to their voters.
Thanks for the shout-out to Resolutions Committee Chair, Trent Clark. I have twice served on that committee and always admired how he "held school" on the process as it unfolded. I learned a lot!
On the BIG issue I think one point is too often missed, as it is here. But first, the purpose of the Primary is for the R voters to tell us who they want, not the other way around like the CCP does. But to the issue itself I believe it will badly damage donations. I give my paltry but precious dollars to the Party for use in defeating Democrats. As soon as they are used to defeat fellow Republicans I will keep my money in my wallet. And if I give to my candidate's campaign directly and it is used to fight the Party elite's chosen candidate, then I am campaigning against my own Party. This proposal is VERY shortsighted and will have damaging consequences.