Editor’s Note: Randy Evans was the primary shepherd of the Rules Change Package through the Republican National Committee’s Rules Committee at the 2014 Winter Meeting in Washington. Below is the complete text of an email he sent to fellow members of the RNC. The accompanying photo shows the gavel used in the Rules Committee meeting, which was also used in the 1988 Republican National Convention.
Subject: Proposed Rules Changes and Related Emails
My Fellow RNC Committee Members:
It will be good to see you in Washington, D.C., even with the snow – and there is lots of it, so be prepared.
Recently, there have been some comments about the proposed rules changes. The purpose of this letter is to let you know why these rules changes are so important and the right thing for us to do.
The goal of the subcommittee was, and is, to get the rules changes right and to have them be broadly supported by the members so we can all head in the same direction together. I believe that has been done and urge everyone to carefully study the proposed changes and then support them as we move steadily closer toward a winning effort in 2016.
Morton Blackwell (Committeeman – Va) and Curly Haugland (Committeeman – ND) raise important issues in their emails that should be carefully considered. Thankfully, that has been done and their concerns have been fully addressed in the actual language of the rules. So, while I do agree that we need to think through any rules changes carefully, I know that their concerns were carefully considered and then addressed effectively.
Let me give you the background on how we got where we are, addressed all of the various concerns and then developed good sensible solutions. It starts, unfortunately, with one inescapable fact that we must all face: we have lost two consecutive Presidential elections – in some part due to the rules that govern our nomination process. Indeed, there has been a steady growing consensus among our Members, supporters, and fellow Republicans that we need to look carefully at our rules for selecting a nominee so that we don’t put our Party and candidates at a dangerous disadvantage before we even get started on the General Election campaign.
Of course, anyone on the RNC can propose changes to the rules – including those who served on the subcommittee of the Rules Committee. So, contrary to any suggestion otherwise, the subcommittee was not vested with any power greater than any other Member or group of Members with good ideas about how to improve our rules.
Instead, it was designed to get most of the homework done before we convened and our Committee considered the rules. As we all know, rules changes of any kind are a serious endeavor and extra work by conscientious people must be done in between member meetings in order to forward the best possible recommendations for you to consider.
With that in mind, a broad cross section of Members consisting of folks from every group within our Committee, including Members from larger states and smaller states, long time Members and newcomers, and differing philosophies came together as a subcommittee of the Rules Committee to thoroughly vet any proposals before presentation to the full Rules Committee and the RNC.
As everyone knows, changing our rules is tricky business because every change has the potential for triggering another or creating unintended consequences. To avoid the potential chaos that could result from haphazard changes, the subcommittee reconciled the various proposals so that they accomplished their purpose in a consistent and legal way.
But, make no mistake, no one on the subcommittee has or had any greater authority than anyone else to think about and propose changes to help us win in 2016. Like every other RNC Member, the subcommittee members can only recommend, not bind anyone. And that is what we have done – recommend.
Why Change The Rules?
This question is almost like asking Mrs. Lincoln “how was the play?” We have lost and there is a strong consensus that some part of the problem is our nomination process.
By delaying our convention, Democrats can beat our nominee’s brains out from late June until August.
By stringing the process out, our candidates inflict irreparable injury on each other, making it extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, to win in November. The media has created a term – “presumptive nominee” – which really means the media knows who has won but they can attack our candidate and divide the party until the nomination is official. And, by delaying the final nomination until August, we deny for weeks our nominee much needed resources to compete because of the way the federal election laws work.
There are no good reasons to continue to do stupid things. And so, as we move to make our rules better and enforce smart changes to help us win, we need strict, harsh penalties to assure compliance.
What Do The Rules Changes Do?
Basically, the changes recommended by the group of our Members who studied these problems are very narrowly crafted to do four things: (1) move the Convention up from August until late June/mid July; (2) move the start date for states other than the four carve out states back to February 1, 2016; (3) move the end date up from the end of June until the middle of May, 2016; and (4) maintain a slow-down period in the middle so that there are no runaway nominations with candidates that have not been thoroughly vetted.
What Do The Rules Changes Not Do?
The changes do not impact Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada (known as the carve-out states).
The changes do not eliminate the slowdown period in March (known as the proportionality period when states must allocate delegates proportionately).
The changes do not put states controlled by Democrats at risk through no fault of their own.
Instead, the carve out states remain in the same order; the proportionality continues in March; and states put at risk by Democrat controlled state governments can be protected by a waiver.
What Is The Overall Impact of the Changes?
The most significant impact is compression – meaning that the time from the beginning until the end of the nomination process is shorter in duration, with a corresponding shorter proportionality period. It is still a long time: approximately 75-105 days. But, that is significantly less than the six months when our candidates use up all their resources inflicting irreparable damage on each other only to find that they are left defenseless from late June until the August convention.
What Happens Next?
The full Rules Committee will consider the recommendations of the group of Members that worked with lawyers, rule wizards, and others to make sure that the proposed changes do exactly what is intended and nothing more.
If there are improvements through amendments or changes, they can – and should – be offered and considered then.
Once the Rules Committee passes them, then the full RNC will consider them. In order to pass the full RNC, 75% of the Members must vote for them.
The fact is these rules are actually not particularly controversial once understood. There may be other rules changes down the road on which there is not such a strong consensus of folks who have studied them and vetted them. But, these are not.
To illustrate the point, notwithstanding the diversity of opinion, background, and make-up of the subcommittee, the proposed changes were passed unanimously. There was agreement on the subcommittee that we must be unified behind these changes so any potential conflicts were ferreted out from the beginning. To get all of us to agree unanimously on anything should tell you all you need to know!
Not surprisingly, Democrats are fearful of these proposals and have started to explore ways to undercut them since they will give our eventual nominee the advantage. We have considered this risk and prepared for it.
Having served as Senior Advisor to the Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, I was not involved in the various machinations described in some of the communications by other members about the prior rules changes. As everyone knows, Newt insists on vigorous debate and complete transparency and I have expected nothing less in this process.
For everyone who looks at these specific rules changes and studies them, they will seem like “no-brainers” with the harder decisions to come later. But, for anyone who has a question, just call any Member of the subcommittee or the legal counsel.
In this case, the merits are so strong that the more information someone has, the more obvious the decision is. I would be remiss if I did not thank everyone who has worked on them so hard with meetings, consultations, legal opinions, and discussions to make sure all potential candidates in 2016 benefit.
Sincerely,
J. Randolph Evans
National Committeeman
Georgia
