Comment: I've done that research

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Utah (see in situ)

I've done that research

And the delegate in question in Utah was bound to ROMNEY.

ALL delegates in Utah were bound to Romney.

Then Romney dropped out and released his delegates, and all of them were unbound. The state committee tried to force all of the delegates to vote for McCain, and a couple objected. That's what prompted the letter. And the words you have in quotes actually weren't even in the response letter from the RNC.

Utah delegates weren't trying to break binding to McCain. The Utah delegates were fighting to be allowed to vote for the person they were originally bound to.

A comparable scenario would be the delegates in Kansas, 33 of which are bound to Santorum. If Santorum releases his delegates they will all become unbound. The state cannot FORCE them to vote for Romney, though they're allowed to if they want. They're allowed to vote for anyone they want once they're released. Utah was trying to take an extra step and re-bind the delegates, and the RNC told them they can't enforce that. One should not take that to mean that delegates can't be bound in the first place, especially since the actual letter says quite clearly that states can bind delegates and enforce that binding.