Party Plan Committee Report

March 1, 2017

At the December 2016 meeting, the State Central Committee tasked

the Party Plan Committee with a motion that reads as follows:
"To refer (the Bourne amendment) to the Party Plan Committee with instructions to
develop alternatives that include input from other people and to present options to the
SCC for ways we can address this at the March meeting."

Accordingly, the party plan committee met twice for the purpose of
developing these alternatives, presented below as Option 1 and Option 2,
both of which mandate substantive changes to the process by which
at-large delegates to the quadrennial national convention are selected. In
developing the recommendations, some committee members individually
looked at delegate selection processes in other states. The committee also
considered feedback given by SCC members (including 4 separate
amendment alternatives), and incorporated certain of that feedback into
these options. Both options preclude the screening and pre-selection of
delegates by a convention committee, the recommendation of which
serves as the basis for a delegate/alternate selection vote by the
convention. The committee made the strategic decision not to attempt to
settle every possible question that could come up, but leave room for the
call and convention committees to make certain decisions.

The committee voted unanimously to make no recommendation to State

Central regarding adoption of these options. Instead, committee members
noted considerations which may be important to the State Central
Committee.

Respectfully submitted,
Eve Marie Barner Gleason, Chair
On behalf of the Party Plan Committee members:
Don Roby, At-Large Cynthia Dunbar, 6th District
Larry Kile, 1st District Susan Lascolette, 7th District
Pam Brown, 2nd District Anna Urman, 8th District
Jennifer Lee, 3rd District Michelle Jenkins, 9th District
Barbara Tabb, 4th District Ben Bush, 10th District
Bill, Harville, Jr., 5th District Steven Thomas, 11th District
Option 1
Proposal that Article VIII, Section L. of the party plan, which currently reads as
follows:

SECTION L. National Convention Delegates

Procedures concerning Conventions at which delegates and alternates to

National Conventions are elected shall comply with the applicable Rules of the
National Republican Party.

be changed to read as follows:

SECTION L. National Convention Delegates

1. Procedures concerning Conventions at which delegates and alternates to

National Conventions are elected shall comply with the applicable Rules of
the National Republican Party.

2. In order to qualify as a candidate to run for Delegate and/or Alternate to a

National Convention the candidate must meet the following qualifications:

a. be a member in good standing of their local Republican committee

as verified in writing by an officer of that committee and obtain a
minimum of 100 signatures of Virginia registered voters from at
least four different congressional districts, in a manner prescribed by
the call for a quadrennial convention, or

b. be qualified to participate in party actions under Article I of this plan

and obtain a minimum of 150 signatures of Virginia registered
voters from at least four different congressional districts, in a
manner prescribed by the call for a quadrennial convention.

c. The candidate shall not be entitled to be placed on the ballot at the

state convention, shall not be entitled to receive a list of state
convention delegates, and shall not have speaking time at the
convention in support of their candidacy unless the minimum
threshold of signatures is obtained as indicated above.

3. All individuals who qualify as candidates to run for Delegate and/or

Alternate to a National Convention shall be listed on one ballot, whether in
electronic or paper form, with no recommendation or screening of
candidates other than ensuring their proper qualifications. Candidates shall
be ranked in descending order of their vote totals, and the top number of
candidates matching the number of delegate positions shall be declared the
 winners of those delegate positions. The next ranking candidates of the
same number shall be declared the winners of the alternate delegate
positions. In the event there is a tie for the last position for delegate, there
shall be a runoff between those candidates who have tied with the top
number of candidates matching the number of delegate positions remaining
declared the winners of those delegate positions. In the event there is a tie
for the last position of alternate delegate, the tie-breaking method shall be
determined by the call for a quadrennial convention.

The Party Plan Committee members noted the following considerations for the State
Central Committee concerning this proposal.
Compared with Option 2, Option 1 allows less flexibility for the State Central
Committee, through the convention call, to establish procedures for the
election of delegates/alternates to the quadrennial convention.
Certification that the signature requirement is met creates an additional
logistical burden on staff and / or party volunteers.
The signature requirement requires that candidates for delegate/alternate
demonstrate some level of support beyond their own congressional district,
which is appropriate when running statewide. This process may reduce the
number of less-serious candidates for delegate or alternate delegate. A lower
signature requirement for unit committee members rewards those with a higher
degree of involvement in the party while still allowing those who are not
currently unit committee members to stand for election.
It could be difficult for unit committee members to obtain written verification
from an officer of their unit that they are a member in good standing.
The signature requirement is a fair way to encourage participation by serious
candidates for delegate/alternate.
Eliminates the presentation of a slate of candidates to the convention by an
official convention committee. Also precludes creation of a slate of candidates
for delegate/alternate by other interest groups.
Extensive logistical efforts may be involved with the balloting process and / or
multiple rounds of balloting in the event of a tie.
Shall not be entitled to be placed on the ballot in (3)(c) may allow for a person
to be on the ballot without meeting the signature requirement. This could be
useful in the unlikely event the statewide delegate/alternate positions are
underfiled.
Provided they have met the signature requirement, item (3)(c) allows for the
candidates for delegate/alternate to have speaking time at the convention and
to access the delegate lists to the convention, provided this is allowed under
the convention call/rules. Depending on the number of candidates, this could
present a logistical challenge, extend the duration of the convention, and/or
annoy the state convention delegates.
Numerous logistical questions would remain outstanding, requiring
clarification in the call, and/or by the convention committees, including:
 Is there a filing fee for delegate/alternate?
Are there any other requirements for who can sign to get a
delegate/alternate candidate on the ballot? any registered voter
(including Democrats)? only unit committee members? only
participants in other party actions (such as district convention
delegates)?
Should there be a district-by-district signature requirement? For
example that a certain number or percent of signatures must come from
districts other than the potential candidates own?
Who determines whether the signature requirement has been met?
When and where would the complete list of candidates for
delegate/alternate be available?
In what order would the candidates for delegate/alternate be listed?
alphabetically? in the order received by the state party? by order of the
number of signatures collected?
How would a tie for alternate be handled? An additional round of
balloting? coin toss? drawing of straws? drawing from a hat?
Attempting to settle all of these things in the party plan would not allow for
learning from the experience of prior years.
New process is designed to increase objectivity and transparency in how
delegates/alternates are chosen.
Prescribing any detailed or specific process in the party plan thereby limits the
ability of the SCC to use a different process (such as a caucus) to choose
delegates. It also constrains the SCC and convention committees in their
ability to learn from past mistakes, make changes, and adapt to new conditions.
Option 2
Proposal that Article VIII, Section L. of the party plan, which currently reads as
follows:

SECTION L. National Convention Delegates

Procedures concerning Conventions at which delegates and alternates to

National Conventions are elected shall comply with the applicable Rules of
the National Republican Party.

be changed to read as follows:

SECTION L. National Convention Delegates

1. Procedures concerning Conventions at which delegates and alternates

to National Conventions are elected shall comply with the applicable
Rules of the National Republican Party. In event of a conflict with any
portion of this plan, applicable Rules of the National Republican Party
shall govern.

2. A convention call shall be adopted by the State Central Committee. All

procedures not set by this plan shall be governed by the adopted
Quadrennial convention call. All individuals who file in accordance
with the call shall qualify as candidates for delegate and alternate to a
National Convention and shall not be excluded from consideration by
the convention by means of any additional screening or evaluation. The
list of candidates who have qualified for the ballot shall be published
no later than seven (7) days before the convention in the manner
prescribed in the convention call. Candidates shall be listed
alphabetically on one ballot, whether in electronic or paper form.

3. Upon tabulation of all votes cast at the Convention, delegate candidates

shall be ranked in descending order of their vote totals, and the top
number of candidates matching the number of delegates to be elected
shall be declared elected. The next ranking delegate candidates of the
same number shall be declared elected as alternate delegates. Ties shall
be broken in the manner prescribed in the convention call.

4. Candidates for delegate or alternate delegate to the National

Convention shall not be considered candidates for the purpose of
access to RPV or District Committee data.
The Party Plan Committee members noted the following considerations for the State
Central Committee concerning this proposal.
Compared with Option 1, Option 2 allows more flexibility for the State Central
Committee, through the convention call, to establish procedures for the
election of delegates/alternates to the quadrennial convention.
Establishes the supremacy of the Republican National Convention rules in the
event of a conflict between these and the RPV Plan of Organization.
Eliminates the presentation of a slate of candidates to the convention by an
official convention committee. Also precludes creation of a slate of candidates
for delegate/alternate by other interest groups.
Numerous logistical questions would remain outstanding, requiring
clarification in the call, and/or by the convention committees, including:
Is there a filing fee for delegate/alternate?
Where would the complete list of candidates for delegate/alternate be
available?
How would ties be settled?
Prohibits access to data, thus reducing the likelihood that delegates to the state
convention would be inundated with unwanted emails/phone calls. The state
party can still publish (on its website, for example) the list of candidates for
delegate/alternate, any brief information they might provide about themselves,
and a way for state convention delegates to contact them. Such information
would likely be collected through a filing form.
Prescribing any detailed or specific process in the party plan thereby limits the
ability of the SCC to use a different process (such as a caucus) to choose
delegates. It also constrains the SCC and convention committees in their
ability to learn from past mistakes, make changes, and adapt to new conditions.