108 votes

Nevada CAN still put Paul's name in nomination

Paul supporters everywhere, I'm not sure everyone understands plurality and how state delegations work at the convention.

Nevada CAN be one of the states that puts Paul's name in nomination. The binding rule from Nevada only says the delegates must vote for Romney on the first round, it says nothing about putting names in nomination. As a matter of fact, Romney will only use 5 states as well, it's a moot point, so every state is not needed once the 5 state threshold is met.

When a state delegation puts a candidate's name into nomination, the national GOP rules say they must have a plurality of delegates to do that. That simply means when the state delegation votes among themselves to put a candidates name in, they do not need a majority of that delegation to do so, only a plurality. No where does it say that state can only be a non bound state.

So if the Nevada delegation chooses to put Paul's name into nomination, the delegation secretary gives the nomination paperwork to the National Convention secretary.

The NV delegation can both vote for Romney (I would abstain) and put Paul's name in nomination.

UPDATE: Here is proof from LA Times

In this write up, they ask Palin, if they put her name in nomination at the GOP National Convention, would she accept?

Obviously she was not running, so that means you don't need to win any state, bound or unbound to have your name put into nomination.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/06/news/la-sarah-palin-...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That's what I believe as

That's what I believe as well.

The rules only say to have SUPPORT from a plurality of delegates from 5 states. Just because they're bound to Romney for voting doesn't mean they actually support him or are bound for the nomination process.

Rule 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 plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

So subsequently the Nevada GOP Chair can stand and say that Ron Paul has the support of the Nevada delegation to be nominated for President.

Same can be said for Virginia and maybe even Oklahoma and Oregon.

As I understand, placing a name in nomination and voting for the nominee are two completely different processes. To confirm I suggest we call the Nevada chairman (Michael McDonald, who I think is a Ron Paul supporter) and ask.

From What I Understand, Michael McDonald Is Impartial

to either of the candidates. This is the last I've heard but maybe this has changed. The reason he was endorsed by the Ron Paul campaign I understand, was because he didn't endorse support to any of the candidates, whereas his opponent clearly endorsed Mitt Romney at the time of his election. So whether Michael is a Ron Paul supporter or not may be questionable, I would say... Also, McDonald is listed as a defendant on the "lawsuit" initiated by Lawyers for Ron Paul asking for the remedy to require the state chairs to notify delegates that they are unbound according to federal election law which supersedes state party rules.

Despite these facts, I would assume that regardless of his personal position, if the majority of the Nevada delegation asks him to say that Ron Paul has the support of the Nevada delegation, then he would have a duty to do so whether he personally supports Dr. Paul or not.

I'm not sure exactly which of these applies to Michael other than the fact that he is the Nevada Chairman, but here's the laundry list of things that the "lawsuit" is alleging that apply to many of the defendants:

"Defendant, Republican National Committee (hereafter RNC) and its Chairman, Reince Priebus, conduct business in all states within the Ninth Circuit of the Federal Court.

Defendants include every State Republican Party and party Chairman within the Jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. All other Defendants are agents of Defendants within the Jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit all participating in the same Federal Election to take place in August 2012 pursuant to 11 CFR 100.2(e).

All other Defendants are State Republican Party Organizations participating in a Federal Election for the purpose of nominating a candidate for President of the United States and a candidate for Vice President of the United States.

A National Convention of a political party that convenes for the purpose of selecting nominees for Federal Office such as President and Vice President of the United States is subject to the Voting Rights Statutes commencing with 42 USC 1971 and US Supreme Court Decisions regarding delegates and their right to be unbound to vote their conscience free from any intimidation from any person or entity.

Plaintiffs come to Federal Court to seek the guidance of the Court regarding the Federal Question as to whether Plaintiffs are free to vote their conscience on the first and all ballots at the Federal Election known as the Republican National Convention or whether Plaintiffs are bound to vote for a particular candidate as instructed by Defendants' State Party Bylaws, or State Laws, or the preference of political operatives seeking affidavits of loyalty to a particular candidate under penalty of perjury.

Plaintiffs do not seek any reimbursement for Court Fees and

Plaintiffs do not seek any award of Attorney Fees.

Plaintiffs seek only the guidance of the court and Injunction Relief as set forth herein.

THE FEDERAL LAW
The Federal Laws are as follows: 11 CFR IOO.2(e): Defining a national convention as a "Federal Election" for the purpose of electing a candidate for federal office. Which states:
"( e) Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party."
and 42 USC 1971 -Sec. 1971. Voting rights. Which states:

"No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise,
shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate,
threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of
interfering with the right of such person to vote or to vote as he
may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not
to vote for, any candidate for the office of President."

Notwithstanding the clarity of the above Federal Laws the Republican National Committee and its Chairman, Reince Priebus, have been violating Rule 11 of the Rules of the Republican Party which in effect states that the RNC may not aid any Candidate until the Candidate is the nominee of the Party. Notwithstanding, the RNC and its Chairman, Defendant Reince Priebus, have, for at least the past six months, combined with a particular Candidate with all of the aid the RNC can possibly, but improperly give in violation of Rule 11 to obstruct, intimidate, and harass Delegates from voting their conscience. These Defendants have intentionally violated Federal Laws and Supreme Court Decisions by seeking to bind Delegates to the Candidate of Defendants' choice and these Defendants have refused to follow Federal Law. [Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy ofthe Republican Party Rules.]

RNC Rule 38, the Unit Rule, provides that Delegates may not be bound to a particular Candidate separate and distinct from the US Statutes and Supreme Court Decisions.

The Republican National Committee (hereafter RNC) and its Chairman have been aiding the Governor Romney Campaign for at least six months up to and including the present time notwithstanding that no candidate has won the nomination. Governor Romney does not have 1144 Delegates, the minimum number of Delegates required to win the nomination and, no candidate can be assured that they are the nominee until the Delegates vote because the Delegates have a statutory and Constitutional Right to vote their conscience.

Plaintiffs allege that in almost every state in the United States Defendants engaged in a scheme to intimidate and harass Delegates who were supporting a Candidate that Defendants did not approve of. This harassment included the use of violence, intimidating demands that Delegates sign affidavits under penalty of perjury with the threat of criminal prosecution for perjury as well as financial penalties and fines if the Delegate fails to vote as instructed by Defendants rather than vote the Delegate's conscience as mandated by the US Statutes and US Supreme Court Decisions cited.

Defendants have further harassed and intimidated Plaintiffs with untimely Rule changes designed to deny a quorum or to manipulate Delegates supporting a particular Candidate to be deprived of a fair election as a Delegate.

Defendants have used threats of violence including dressing security type people in dark clothing searching out supporters of a Candidate Defendants do not approve of to harass and intimidate said Delegates from voting their conscience.

Defendants have unlawfully used State Bylaws and in some cases State Laws to harass and intimidate Delegates from voting their conscience.

Defendants have refused to Certify Delegates who were properly elected to support a certain Candidate that Defendants did not approve of.

Defendants have certified unlawful slates of Delegates that were not elected in accordance with the US Statues and US Supreme Court Decisions cited, nor in accordance with the proper Bylaws of Defendants' .

Defendants have altered the voting ballot results to fraudulently reflect an outcome that is inconsistent with the actual voting ballot results for the purpose of certifying a fraudulently selected slate of Delegates to support the Candidate of Defendants choice rather than the Delegates properly elected."

-LibertyG ... 2 Corinthians 2:16-17 "To some we are a scent of death leading to death, but to others, a scent of life leading to life. And who is competent for this? For we are not like the many who make a trade(for profit) but as those with sincerity...

Exactly right

That's exactly what it means

My thoughts on the rule as well.

First they say we need a majority of the popular vote in five states, which they eventually conceded. Then they say we need a majority of the delegates, and they again conceded. Now they say we need to have a plurality of delegates who will actually be able to vote for him according to questionable state laws. This too, they shall concede.

Ron Paul 2016

They said...

The reason "they said" was because the rules used to read that a majority was needed, but the rules were changed. Many in the party were unaware of the change, but it was changed nonetheless. In many cases, it may have to do little with bias and anti-Paul sentiment and more with the problem that they don't know their own rules. Not even knowing their own rules, much less having regard to follow them, is just as much a problem with the "good ol' boy club," as knowing and following the Constitution is for its own candidates.

Procedurally

They will have to put it in writing and each delegate from that state wishing to place that candidate's name on the ballot will sign their name to it. This is procedurally how they demonstrate support. It will probably be done the week leading up to the convention, and certified by committee. They will know before the actual convention begins whose names are on the ballot.

The Felony Issue

So apparently Romney COULBD be facing a felony charge for false statements to SEC about his company. Obama is doing all the dirty work for us, and doing it fast! What kind of party would nominate a potential felon? All RP needs to do is stay in the race, no campaign suspending or anything like that. Keep your heads up people, although it seems bleak fruitless towards the end, it is not over until its over!

@ChonRM

The SEC has no power

ahh BUT

the Obama Justice Dept does!

Absolutely

just misinformation in regards to that 5 state plurality rule.

We have enough states

Confusion.

It's so hard to get the rock bottom final truth on whether we have 5+ states or less.. everyone has a different answer.

Doug Wead seemed to indicate that Nebraska was needed as the 5th State for Ron Paul this weekend. Posters on the DailyPaul are saying we have 5, 6, some say 7 States.

I guess one aspect causing confusion is the Plurality VS Majority distinction.. I was hoping to read the post explaining that in detail, but I think he/she may have forgotten. The binding at state level is another confusing issue.

Perhaps joeinmoe could break down the process that each State's delegation will go through when they're nominating a candidate for the ballot? That could shed further light on how other states may play out..

Even Doug Wead said

In one of his video or facebook talks said we do not need a majority of delegates just pluarity Personally I don;'t understand it quite yet but I distinctly remember Him saying this. Maybe someone can find it and repost it.

not a one state is required to nominate a single person 4 POTUS

Nominating a candidate is like nominating someone for 40 under 40 Award or Citizen of the Year, you can nominate if you want to, but no state is required to, but the rule states that if 5 states do, with a plurality of delegates, that person shall be put in nomination.

Wead is wrong

you don't even need to have run for President or be a candidate to have your name put in nomination.

Anybody can be put in nomination, you just have to get a plurality of 5 states at the convention to do that. Nevada has that ability without breaking a single vow to vote for Romney when the first vote occurs.

again here is proof

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/06/news/la-sarah-palin-...

wait

Are they saying we don't have the 5 states? Didn't we win Louisiana?

No people are saying Colorado can't be a sure thing

but even in Colorado, Santorum delegates can still put Paul into nomination with the other Paul delegates, and then vote for Santorum when the first vote happens.

boom

slam dunk ... RP will be nominated too ....
now, we wait and watch the vile slime that is the GOP work their deceit and dishonesty.

NV will lead.

They have the most delegates and are very energized. They are definitely doing their part. So in the meantime let us keep up being creative for the rEVOlution.

The downside to this is that

The downside to this is that if we put Dr Paul's name in nomination and we get less than 300 votes, we have played our hand and revealed how weak we are, which would hurt us on other issues being voted on.

My state for example would have 0-2 people voting for Paul--AND we elected 6 delegates who support Ron Paul!

upside

Paul gets to speak

Good point! I'm so happy

Good point! I'm so happy when I see that GWB -> Mitt Romney billboard the Clark County GOP put up. You guys are are awesome and also hilarious.

Assuming that L4RP's lawsuit is successful...

If Lawyers for Ron Paul achieve success--completely unbound delegates--there's a chance that party loyalists will vote against Mitt Romney when they're reminded just how despicable he is. Romney has nearly zero support among libertarian Republicans and the Tea Party and even among many social conservatives (some of whom think Mormonism is a cult, others who need to be reminded that Romney flip-flops--especially on pro-life). Neocons aren't the only ones making up party ranks or party delegates. If they are and they wrestle control back, we have made a political force sufficient to sway many future elections.

Either way, an assured speaking slot means that the GOP cannot ignore us. They can rag on us the entire way to November but they're the ones walking a tightrope--hoping we'll support Romney and ready to blame us when he loses--to which we can easily respond with 5 years of party history.

One Thing I Guarantee

The social conservatives will not support Ron Paul - ever! If Romney were to die, Rick Santorum would surge to lead the social conservatives and his distaste for Ron Paul is well documented as is Ron Paul's dislike for Santorum. Ron Paul polled very poorly across the country in rural, social conservative areas - the place where Santorum wins - Ron Paul's support came from urban areas especially around universities. I lived in West Texas and the people of West Texas did not like Ron Paul - his support in Texas comes more from the big cities of the eastern part of the state - especially around universities. There aren't many cowboys for Ron Paul out there.

Yes there are social conservatives who are upset that Romney is a Mormon but Ron Paul has serious policy differences with the church folk and Rick Santorum will make sure that they focus their opposition against Ron Paul.

your full of crap

i am a social conservative, since Reagan, Backed Buchanan and I can tell you many of my fellow social conservatives backed Paul.

Santorum is nothing more than a talk radio pimp, people who actually had a brain would never vote for that fraud.

Here is a nut to crunch, in nearly every state Romney lost a huge percentage of the vote to what McCain did in '08, and he nearly lost every state vs his own totals in 08 as well. He is toast

Romney will get crushed by Obama

Paul on the other hand, besides Palin, is the only candidate to outperform Obama among independents.

PS Cowboys get there entire mush filled brains from talk radio info like Hannity and Levin, who are just establishment fakers used to maniplulate.

This observation is superficially true

regarding the general neocon social conservatives who listen to talk radio.
This is not a revelation to us.
But, it's not "ever". They can come around if they become informed.

The challenge is to find ways to overcome the neocon propaganda which is pervasive on TV and radio. This is not an easy task, but it is necessary.

Ron Paul is actually very socially conservative. MUCH more socially conservative than Santorum or Gingrich, and certainly more than Romney.
Santorum is actually socially liberal, and is on record endorsing pro-abortion candidates like Arlen Specter. He just likes to demagogue the social issues.
Ron Paul is the REAL pro-life candidate, the REAL defender of marriage, and the REAL conservative.

The fact is that if these "social conservatives" can be brought to back Romney, they can much more easily be brought to back Ron Paul.

The stickler is the WARS for Israel.
We have the answer for this, but it requires educating a very duped public, and as I previously said, that is a real challenge.

You think that this is easy?

For conservative Christians, support for Israel is a litmus-test issue - I am a conservative Christian who has heard conservative Christians opine that America will perish if we ever abandon Israel - I don't happen to share this view but this is a stand up / sit down issue of good and evil for social conservatives - good luck on changing this attitude - you would have more chance of convincing the Zionist Organization of America.

Not easy, but necessary

I live in the Bible Belt, and know all about it.
The key is to show them proof fr the Bible, which I have done, and converted some.
The indisputable truth is that modern day jews are NOT in any way related to the "Israelites" of the Bible, are not Semites, and are imposters. There is no valid counter-argument to this fact.
That's the key to showing them that they have been lied-to, and some of them will see daylight.

Really???

So all the original Jews have died out and the modern day Jewish people are all fakes - I have never heard that from bible scholars who I know - I know people, one in particular is a good friend of mine in Texas - who read the bible in Hebrew to better understand the meaning - not once have I heard stated what you just stated above - NOT ONE TIME - it sounds like you have some hate in your heart - is this movement just the revival of the John Birch Society?

Huh, that's funny

Since Ron Paul won El Paso from what I understand.

-Jacky
TX

Do facts ever matter

Ron Paul got 10% of the El Paso county vote - he got 8% from Lubbock, the county where I lived and quite frankly I am shocked he polled that high in Lubbock - he must have gotten votes from Texas Tech students who came from outside the area. Ron Paul supporters start every discussion with distorted or incomplete facts or otherwise out and out falsehoods. If you went back in time over this blog Ron Paul must have won 1500 delegates, not the 300 that he alludes to or the 263 that the pro-RP web site www.thereal2012delegatecount.com has been able to identify - oh yes but there are hundreds and hundreds of stealth RP delegates who are lurking around waiting for the chance to openly support the candidate that they are unwilling to do publicly.

What will be the story on September 1 - what fraud will you claim - I voted for Ron Paul and now after reading and participating on this blog - I am ashamed of my vote - ASHAMED! I am attracted to Ron Paul's policies and values but boy do I have trouble with his supporters - it is as ugly a political movement as I have seen and I am very involved politically.