Comments on: A Report from the Credentials Committee in Tampa http://www.rlc.org/a-report-from-the-credentials-committee-in-tampa/ The Conscience of the Republican Party Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:19:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael Stopp http://www.rlc.org/a-report-from-the-credentials-committee-in-tampa/comment-page-1/#comment-37225 Michael Stopp Fri, 14 Sep 2012 03:42:43 +0000 http://www.rlc.org/?p=7451#comment-37225 I was the non-attorney counsel for the Oklahoma case. And yes we were extremely hampered by not having a trained attorney represent us. We had made the decision early on, on the advice of counsel, that we were going to stick to the issue of the rules violation. Going forward with any appeals, this kept us from bringing up the other issues that happened at the convention that showed a pattern wrong-doing. I will be the first to admit that I was the wrong person to be sitting in that chair and speaking on our behalf. But at the time representatives had to be chosen and given permission to speak, myself and one other person were the only people who knew for sure we could make the trip. And so by default, I was our representative. We attempted to introduce the credentials issues from our state convention as a way of proving that the rules violation influenced the choosing of national delegates. But we could not directly attack the credentials issue without over stepping that bounds. We didn't actually realize how corrupt the voting and credentials issues were until after we submitted our initial request to the Committee on Contests. The Contest Committee essentially admitted that the state GOP violated its own rules, but required that we prove that not taking the vote properly influenced the vote. I thought it was a pretty simple case: they did not follow the rules. And as such how can we know what the outcome of a properly conducted election would have been? There is no way of knowing the out come of an election without actually holding the election. The idea that 75% of the convention concurred with the decision of the chair is a highly subjective call. The most damning evidence against that is that the voice vote was in question. Surely a chair would be able to determine if 75% of a convention had voiced a vote compared to 25%. One would think that the vote would sound overwhelming. To say that the voice vote was too close to call and then claim that a subjective 75% majority existed is ridiculous. I shoulder a great level of responsibility for our failure at the appeal. To me it was a simple case of not following the rules. I saw, and still see, no reason to go beyond that basic point. I failed in not showing how important the question of legitimacy of the election truly was. If you have not conducted a legitimate election then you have conducted no election at all. I welcome any critique of this argument. I was the non-attorney counsel for the Oklahoma case. And yes we were extremely hampered by not having a trained attorney represent us. We had made the decision early on, on the advice of counsel, that we were going to stick to the issue of the rules violation. Going forward with any appeals, this kept us from bringing up the other issues that happened at the convention that showed a pattern wrong-doing.

I will be the first to admit that I was the wrong person to be sitting in that chair and speaking on our behalf. But at the time representatives had to be chosen and given permission to speak, myself and one other person were the only people who knew for sure we could make the trip. And so by default, I was our representative.

We attempted to introduce the credentials issues from our state convention as a way of proving that the rules violation influenced the choosing of national delegates. But we could not directly attack the credentials issue without over stepping that bounds. We didn’t actually realize how corrupt the voting and credentials issues were until after we submitted our initial request to the Committee on Contests.

The Contest Committee essentially admitted that the state GOP violated its own rules, but required that we prove that not taking the vote properly influenced the vote. I thought it was a pretty simple case: they did not follow the rules. And as such how can we know what the outcome of a properly conducted election would have been? There is no way of knowing the out come of an election without actually holding the election. The idea that 75% of the convention concurred with the decision of the chair is a highly subjective call. The most damning evidence against that is that the voice vote was in question. Surely a chair would be able to determine if 75% of a convention had voiced a vote compared to 25%. One would think that the vote would sound overwhelming. To say that the voice vote was too close to call and then claim that a subjective 75% majority existed is ridiculous.

I shoulder a great level of responsibility for our failure at the appeal. To me it was a simple case of not following the rules. I saw, and still see, no reason to go beyond that basic point. I failed in not showing how important the question of legitimacy of the election truly was. If you have not conducted a legitimate election then you have conducted no election at all.

I welcome any critique of this argument.

]]>