SummaryofBylawsCommitteeInformationalCalls

March14and21,2015

Minorerrorswillbefixedwithasinglefloorresolutionatthebeginningofthebylawsdiscussionand
actiontoadopttheproposedrules:
1. Resolution104,Section1.1referstocandidatesbeingrequiredtoregisterwiththeSecretaryof
State.CandidateswillactuallyobtainballotaccessbypayingafilingfeetotheNRPassetbythe
ExecutiveCommittee.Therewasasuggestionthatcandidatesberequiredtoalsosubmit
petitionscontainingasetminimumnumberofsignaturesofsupporters,buttheredidntseem
tobesignificantsupportforthisidea.
2. Resolution104,Section2.2willbeclarifiedtostatethattheSecretaryofeachCountyCentral
CommitteewillbecertifyingandcommunicatingthetalliestothestatepartySecretary.
3. Resolution104,Section6.0willcorrectthetypoon9:00amstarttimetoread7:00pm.This
itemrelatestoaquestiontobediscussedbelowondifferentideasfordatesandtimesofthe
caucus.
4. Resolution105,Section2.2willchangethetermlegalvotingresidenttoqualifiedelectorto
conformthelanguagewithNRS.
Somecallattendeesindicatedthattheyhadsamplewordingtodealwiththeseissues,andtheywill
providethattothebylawscommitteeforconsideration.

Question#1,AmendmentsGenerally:Willanyamendmentstotherulesbepostedsomewherefor
reviewpriortothemeetingonthe28th?
AnswerTheyareaworkinprogress.Bytheirnature,theymustbeproposedasamotionfromthe
floor.Parliamentaryproceduresayswecantmakeanychangespriortothemeetingtotheresolutions
asproposedbecausethecalltomeetingandaccompanyingdocumentationhasalreadygoneout.
Thecommitteewillattempttogetthelatestproposalonthewebsiteacoupleofdayspriortothe
meeting,buttherewillbeadditionalchangessuggestedatanopenbylawsmeetingjustbefore
Saturday,andotherswillbeofferingsuggestedchangesevenasthemeetingisunderway.The
committeewilldoitsbesttomakesurethatasmuchinformationaspossibleisavailableinadvance.

Question#2,CommitteeProcessgenerally:Werethe2012rulesreviewedbeforedevelopingthese?
AnswerTheproposed2014rulesarebasedonthe2012rulesasastartingpoint,withchangesas
neededtoaddressitemsthatwereaprobleminthe2012rules.Thecommitteewillproduceashort
executivesummarycoveringbrieflythemajorchangesfrom2012.

Question#3,Resolution104,Section1.1:Howwilltheballotaccessfeesforcandidatesberepresented
intheupcomingmaterials?
AnswerDetails,suchasdeadlineforfiling,arebeingworkedoutandwillbeaddressedinthefloor
resolution.TheRNCiscurrentlycollectinginformationfromallstatesonballotaccessfees,andthe
ExecutiveCommitteewillusethisinformationtodetermineifthe$10,000ballotaccessfeechargedin
2012needstobeadjusted.

Question#4,Resolution104,Sections1.2and4.4:ItwaspointedoutthatthewordingAnyballotcast
formorethanonecandidateshallbedeclaredinvalidinR104,Section1.2isrepeatedinSection4.4
AnswerThismaynotbeaduplication,asSection1.2referstoballotscastinpersonataprecinct
meeting,andSection4.4referstoabsenteeballots.Evenifthecentralcommitteeultimatelydecided
thatitwasaduplication,thepreferenceistoleaveitasisuntilthenextrevisiontoavoidspendingtime
discussingchangesthatdontaffecttheintegrityoftherules.

Question#5,Resolution104,Section2.1:Twoemailspriortothemeetingexpressedconcernoverthe
lackofacentralizedrecountoftheballots.
AnswerThemajorlessonlearnedfromthe2012caucuswasthattherecountcausedmoreproblems
thanitsolved.Ballotsecurityisntanissuewithaprecinctcount,becauseeachprecinctmaintains
uninterruptedcontroloftheballots,witnessedbytheparticipantsthemselves.Accuracyofreportingis
assuredbypostingallprecinctresultspublicly,andeachparticipantcanmakesurethattheirprecinct
wasrecordedcorrectly.Votefraudinthiscaserequiresamassiveconspiracyinvolvinghundredsor
thousandsofconspirators.
Regrettably,therearestillchargesofvotetamperingduringthe2012recounts,aswellasallegationsof
ballotboxtamperingwhileballotswerebeingmovedfromprecinctstocentralcountlocations.Making
theofficialvotetheonefromtheprecinctmeeting,willeliminatesuchincidentsandtheaccompanying
accusationsofwidespreadfraud.Itwillalsoinsurethatresultsarereportedinatimelymanner,rather
thanrepeatingtheembarrassingdelaysweexperiencedin2012whenresultswerentavailablefordays
afterthecaucus,adelaycausedsolelybythecentralrecount.
Despitetheproblemscausedbytherecount,nosignificanterrorswereuncoveredduringthecentral
recountsthatwouldhavechangedtheresults.Eveninthelargestcounties,alargeprecinctrarelyhas
muchover100attendees,makingprecinctlevelcountsverymanageable.Aquestionwasraisedabout
theabilityoftheSecretaryofacountypartytocertifyresultsthattheyhadnotwitnessed.ViceChair
DeGraffenreidexplainedfromhisperspectiveasthestatepartySecretaryin2012thatthecertification
isthatthecountswererecordedcorrectlyfromtheprecincts;notthattheSecretaryhaspersonallyseen
allofthecountsitisimpossibleforonepersontowitnessallthecounts.Countiesarefreeto
implementwhatevercontrolstheyfeelareneededtoinsuretheaccuracyofreporting;in2012,the

statepartyrequiredreportinginwritingtoeliminatemisunderstoodnumberseitherfax,electronic
onlineentry,oremail,whicheverthecountypartypreferred.

Question#6,Resolution104,Section2.2:Doestherequirementforeachcountytoreportresultsby
midnightthefollowingdayincludethepreferencepollleavingcountiestowaituptotwodaysforthe
results?
AnswerBecausetheresultsbeingreportedarethoseofthePresidentialPreferencePoll,thiswording
doesallowacountytechnicallyjustover24hoursintheeventthereissomeemergencyorfailureof
communicationtoreporttheirnumbers.However,thelanguagereadsimmediatelyfollowingthePoll,
butinnoeventlaterthan,meaningthatintheabsenceofsomeemergency,theresultsare
anticipatedtobereceivedthesameeveningasthePPP.Differentprecinctmeetingswillendatdifferent
times,ofcourse,butmostresultsshouldbeinbymidnightonthedayofthePPP.Campaigns,the
media,andallNevadaRepublicanswillbeanxioustoreceivetheresults,sotheexpectationisthatthe
countiesandthestatepartywillworktogetherdiligentlytoconsolidatetheprecinctvotesintofinal
totals.
Question#7,Resolution104,Section3:Concernwasraisedthatnotallowingcountiestobindtheir
delegatesatcountyconventionsallowedonegrouptotakeovertheprecinctmeetings,andthenthe
countyandstateconventionsandultimatelythenationaldelegation.
AnswerThelanguageinthissectionisexactlythesameas2012.Itsabasicpracticalissue,because
notallthepeoplewhoaredelegatestoacountyconventionwillbedelegatestothestateconvention.A
muchsmallerpercentageofstateconventiondelegateswillbecomenationaldelegates,soitbecomes
impracticaltostarttryingtodeterminewhothe30orsonationaldelegateswillultimatelybealltheway
backatacountyconvention.Theprimaryissueiswhichpresidentialcandidatewillreceivethevotesas
theyearnedtheminthePPPasopposedtowhotheindividualdelegatesarewhowillcarrythosevotes.
Itwasalsomentionedthatifadelegatewasboundtoacandidateatthecountyconvention,andtheir
candidatesubsequentlydropsoutoftherace,thatdelegatehaslosttheopportunitytoadvanceinthe
process.ResolutionR105andRNCrulesareclearthatnationaldelegateswillbeboundbasedonthe
resultsofthePPP,andthatevenifthedelegationchairmanmisrepresentsNevadasvote,itwillbe
recordedcorrectlyasmandatedbytheresultsofthePPP.

Question#8,Resolution104,Section4:Howdocountiesobtainalistofmilitarypersonnelandtheir
dependentsinordertocomplywiththissection?
AnswerThebylawscommitteerespondedthatthereisnocentralrepositoryofthisinformation.This
year,asinallyears,itistheresponsibilityofmilitarypersonnelandtheirvotingfamilymembersto
contacttheirlocalcountypartiesforanabsenteeballotforthecaucus.CarolynHowellofCarsonCity

indicatedthatsomecountiescouldgetmilitaryvoterinfobycontactingthelocalcountyclerk.Many
clerkshaveemailaddressesfordeployedmilitary.

Question#9,Resolution104,Section4,andcaucusexpensesgenerally:Whowillpayfortheabsentee
ballotsusedbythecountypartiesasspecifiedinthissection?Thecostforthecaucusshouldbethe
burdenofthestateparty,notindividualcounties.Hewouldalsoliketoseeallthemoniesdeposited
fromcandidates,fromnationalorothersources,tobeproportionatelydistributedwiththecounties
sinceweretheonesthatdoalltheworkandweretheonesthathavetoputthesethingson.Unlike
thecountiesonlygotaportionofwhatwasmadebythesaleofthecontactinformationandthatwasit.
Andthoseofuswhowouldnotreleasethecontactinformation,hadworkedforsixmonthstoputthis
on.Wefootedallthecostsexceptafewitemssowedliketoseethecostsdistributedmoretothe
countiesaswellasourstateparty.
AdditionalcommentTheexpensesofthecaucusshouldbepaidbythestateparty,notindividual
counties.Allthefundsraisedfromcandidatesshouldbeproportionatelydistributedtothecounties
sincethecountiesdoallthework.In2012,noneoftheballotaccessfeesweresharedwiththecounties.
Thestatepartymadedonationstocountiesfromthestatepartysfundsifthecountiesprovidedcontact
informationtobeusedin2016,butcountiesthatrefusedtosharethisinformationcoveredalltheirown
costsexceptafewitems
AnswerInhiscapacityasInterimBudgetChair,RobTyreeindicatedthatthebudgetthatwas
presentedtotheExecutiveCommitteeonMarch11th,andtothecountychairsonMarch18th,was
specificallydesignedtoaddressthisissue.
Theproposedbudget,whichwillrequireapprovaloftheNRCCatthemeetingonthe28th,reflectsa
$50,000expenseitem,substantiallyallofwhichisintendedtoberevenuesharedwiththecountiesto
helpoffsetmost,ifnotall,oftheircostsrelatedtothecaucus/presidentialpreferencepoll.
NRS293.135requireseachcountypartytoholdprecinctmeetingsineveryevennumberedyear,
regardlessofwhetherNevadaisaprimaryorcaucusstate,andregardlessofwhetherourpresidential
preferenceprocessiscontrolledbythepartiesorbythestateofNevada.Innonpresidentialyears,the
countycentralcommitteesbearthecostofrunningtheirownprecinctmeetings.Sincewehavethe
additionofcaucusandpreferencepollinthisgeneralelectionyear,thestatepartyisendeavoring,via
ballotaccessfees,tocollectenoughrevenuetodistributeamongstthecountycentralcommitteesto
helpthemoffsetmost,ifnotall,oftheircosts.Somecountieswillhavehighercostssowerestill
workingonanequitablewaytodivideupthoseresources.ThestateExecutiveBoardrecognizesthat
thisisateameffort,andhasrecommendedabudgetthatwilldistributerevenuetothecounties.If
anyonehasbudgetspecificquestionsyoucanemailmeatrob.tyree@nevadagop.org
JimDeGraffenreidaddedthathewasfirstelectedtothestateExecutiveBoardinOctoberof2011,prior
tothe2012caucus.Thenewofficerselectedinheritedaconsultingcontractthatdivertedallofthe
ballotaccessfeestopaytheoutofstateconsultants.Wealsofoundthatthosewhohadoperatedthe

2008caucushadnotkepttrackofthe2008attendeeinformation,sothissourceofrevenuewas
unavailablefor2012.Theexistingcontractandplansalreadyinplacemadeitdifficulttomanagethe
caucusappropriately.For2016,weverecognizedthesepastmistakes,andtheresnoreasonthatthe
ballotaccessfeesin2016cannotbeusedtoactuallycovertheexpensesofthecaucus,ratherthan
payingoutofstateconsultantswhoprovidednobenefittothepartyinreturn.

Question#10,Resolution104,Section5:Isthewordinginthissectionrequiringphotoidentificationthe
sameas2012,andisitlegaltorequirephotoidentification?
AnswerTheBylawsCommitteeresponsewasthatitisalmostexactlythesameas2012sSection6
withslightrewording.Itislegalbecausethecaucusisaninternalpartyprocedure,notastateoperated
election.ItalsosupportsourpartyplatformtohavephotoIDrequirementstovote.CarolynHowell
fromCarsonCityadvisedthattheyhadnodifficultycomplyingwiththe2012rules,andtheystrongly
supportkeepingthisprovisionfor2014.
Therewasafurtherquestionabouthowcountiescouldverifythatavoterwaseligibletoparticipatein
theprecinctmeetings/PPP.Varioussuggestionshadbeenmadeofhowtogetlistsofeligiblevotersinto
thehandsofthecounties,whatcutoffdatetouse,andwhatprocedurestofollowtoallowthosewho
haveregisteredinthepartyafterthecutoffdatetoparticipateonaprovisionalbasis.(NRS293.137
states,Themeetingmustbeconductedopenlyandpubliclyandinsuchamannerthatitisfreely
accessibletoanyregisteredvoterofthepartycallingthemeetingwhoresidesintheprecinctandis
desirousofattendingthemeeting,untilthemeetingisadjourned.)
JimDeGraffenreidremindedthegroupthattheserulesandlawsforprecinctmeetingshavebeenin
placeformanyyears,andthatcountiescurrentlyobtainvoterregistrationlists,eitherontheirownor
withtheassistanceofthestateparty.Eachcountyalsoalreadyhasproceduresinplaceforhandlinglate
registrantsandprovisionalvoters.ThevoterIDrequirementdoesntinvalidateorrequireanychangesto
theselongstandingproceduresitsimplymeansthattheprecinctmeetingstaffwillconfirmvisually
thatthepersoncheckinginiswhotheysaytheyare.

Question#11,Resolution104,Section6:Whywasthecaucusdatemovedtoaweeknight,andhowwas
thespecificdateofthefourthTuesdayinFebruaryselected?
AnswerJimDeGraffenreidgavethehistoryofthisdecisionfor2016.In2012,fourearlycarveout
states(Iowa,NewHampshire,SouthCarolina,Nevada)wereallowedbyRNCrulestoschedule
presidentialpreferenceeventsbeforetheMarch1deadlinethatappliedtoallotherstates.Larger
states,likeFloridaandothers,decidedtheyweregoingtomoveaheadofthecarveoutstatesinan
attempttohavemoreofavoiceintheprocess,eventhoughbydoingsotheywouldlosehalfoftheir
delegatestotheNationalConvention.Thatledtoconfusionandconstantchangingofdatesbythefour

earlystatesinordertoprotecttheirstatus.Theconfusionwasembarrassingforboththestatesinvolved
andRepublicansingeneral.
Determinedtoavoidarepeatof2012,theRNCdecidedtosetafirmscheduleearlyfor2016,andatthe
endoflastsummer,theChairmanoftheRNCRulesCommittee,BruceAshfromArizona,reachedoutto
theearlystatesthruaseriesofconferencecallswheretheearlydatesweredetermined.Thegoalwas
tofitallfourstateswithinthemonthofFebruary,withenoughtimeinbetweeneachcontesttoallow
thecandidatestotravelfromstatetostateandcampaign.
Bytradition,Iowaholdsthefirstcaucusinthenation,andNewHampshireholdsthefirstprimary.Iowa
selectedacaucusdateofFebruary2ndforRepublicans(Feb1stforDemocrats)andNewHampshire
selectedFebruary9thfortheirprimary.SouthCarolinapreferredFebruary20thfortheirprimary,and
Nevadapickedthe23rd.Saturdaythe27thwasnotgoodforanybodybecauseeightstates,including
TexasandVirginia,plannedtoholdtheircontestsonSuperTuesday,March1,andnobodywantedto
bewithinfourdaysofeightcompetingprimaryelections.AlternativedatesavailabletoNevadawere
Saturdaythe13thorTuesdaythe16th.ThesedaysfallonorimmediatelyafterthelongPresidentsDay
weekend,whichalsoincludesValentinesDay,soitwasfeltthatturnoutcouldbedepressedifweused
thosedates.Whenallfactorsaretakenintoaccount,the23rdmadethemostsenseintermsofgetting
candidatestoNevada,beingabletohosteventsandgettheminfrontofvoters.

Question#12,Resolution104,Section6:Therearetwoadditionalconcernswiththedayandtime:
1. Ruralcountiestypicallyuseschoolsforthecaucus,primarilybecausetherearenootherfacilities
inourcountiesthatarelargeenoughtofacilitateourneeds.Tuesdaynightmeanspotential
conflictwitheventssuchasbasketballplayoffs.
2. ThesecondconcernwasthatTuesdayeveningfrom7to9wouldhavemuchlowerturnoutthan
aSaturdayevent.
AnswerAsuggestionfordealingwithsportsconflictsistoutilizeelementaryandmiddleschoolsrather
thanhighschoolsbecausetheytypicallydonthaveathleticschedulingproblemsintheevening,and
tendtobeclosertoneighborhoodsaswell.Firestationsandothergovernmentbuildingsarealsooften
goodlocations.
NRS293.134specifiesthatthesespacesmustbemadeavailabletocentralcommitteeswithoutcharge
forprecinctmeetings:Uponapplicationbyastateorcountycentralcommittee,ifaroomorspaceis
availableinabuildingthatisopentothegeneralpublicandoccupiedbythegovernmentofthisStateor
apoliticalsubdivisionofthisStateoranagencythereof,thepublicofficeroremployeeincontrolofthe
roomorspaceshallgranttheuseoftheroomorspacetothestateorcountycentralcommitteewithout
chargeinapresidentialelectionyearforanypurpose,includingconductingprecinctmeetings.

Thecommitteewilllookintopotentialoptions,aswellastheprosandcons,ofanextendedvoting
periodinadvanceofthecaucusmeetings.Thebylawscommitteewillmakearecommendationand
presentoptions.Ofcourse,anyNRCCmemberisfreetomakeamotiontoamendfromthefloor.

Question#13,Resolution104,Section7:WhathappensifAB302inthe2015Legislaturepasses,
returningthePresidentialPreferencePolltobeingincludedinthestaterunprimary?
AnswerThissectionprovidesforthateventuality,sothatifthelegislationispassed,itwillnotrequire
anychangetoourrules.
Therewascommentarythatsomecountiespreferredtoholdaprimaryinsteadofacaucus.CarsonCity
inparticularheldaprimaryinsteadofacaucusin2012,andhadagreaterturnoutthanothercountiesin
thestateasaresult.CarolynHowellfromCarsonCityindicatedthatshebelievesamajorityof
Republicansareunhappywiththecaucusprocess,andthatifwedontgivethemmoreopportunityto
vote,theywillneverwanttobeactiveparticipantsintheparty.
JimDeGraffenreidindicatedthattherewasnoissueifallcountiesagreedthatweshouldholdaprimary
insteadofacaucus;theonlyproblemoccurswheneachcountyisdoingsomethingdifferent.Nostatein
thenation,whethercaucusorprimary,allowsforcompletelydifferentprocessesindifferentcounties.
Ifastateholdsaprimary,itsatthesamestartandendtimestatewide.
Thesameappliestocaucuses.Iowaholds1700+caucus/precinctmeetingsonaTuesdaynight,andthey
allstartatthesametime.Ifacountydoestheirballotingatanearliertimethananother,thereare
ballotsecurityrisksasvotersruntheriskofknowingearlyresultsbeforepollingisclosedintheircounty.
Ifsomecountiesholdlongervotingperiodsthanothers,thenthevoterswithmoretimetovotewill
haveadisproportionalvoiceintheprocess,whilesomevoterswithashortervotingwindowmaybe
disenfranchised.Thereareproblemswithreportingresultsandwiththemediaifcountiesaredoing
differentthingsNevadaneedstoreportitschoicesasaunifiedvoice.
Therearenoissueswiththepartyholdingaprimaryinsteadofacaucusifthatswhat17countiesagree
todo,butitisessentialthatallcountiesagreetotheprocess,anditmustworkforeverycountyfrom
ClarktoEsmeralda.Thecriticalpointisthatthepartyneedstoruntheprimary,ratherthangivingit
backtothestatetooperate.Asproposed,thestatesprimaryviolatesRNCrules,andwouldrequirethat
Nevadagiveuphalfofourdelegatestothenationalconvention.
EvenifthatdateismovedtoacompliantdateinFebruary,becausetheentireprimarywouldbeheld
thenforallfederal,stateandlocaloffices,allcandidatesandcampaignswillbedoingthebulkoftheir
campaigningintheholidayseason,whenwedallliketobeconcentratingonfamilyandnotpolitics.
Finally,havingthestateruntheprimaryeliminatesanyabilitytoraisefundsfortheoperationofstate
andcountypartiesrelativetothePresidentialPreferencePoll.
RobTyreeaddedthatastheInterimBudgetChair,hesforcedintothepositionofpinchingeverypenny
andfindingrevenuesourcestofundstatepartyexpensesandalsohaveaneffectivepoliticaloperation

headinginto2016.Oneofthesubstantialsourcesofrevenue,especiallyinpresidentialelectionyears,is
voterdata.ParticipantdatafromthePPPisvaluablebecausetheseindividualsaremorelikelytovote,
todonate,andtheyareaveryeffectivevolunteerpoolbecausetheyremoreapttotakeanactiverole
inpolitics.Ifwereturntheresponsibilitytothestatetooperateapubliclyfundedprimarysystem,we
dontownthatvoterdata,andwelosetherevenueopportunity.
Robpointedouttheballotsecurityadvantageofholdingthevoteintheprecinctmeetings,where
participantsareencouragedtotakeacellphonepictureofthetallysheetandthencomparethatwith
theresultsthatarereportedonthewebsite.Itstheultimateformofballotsecurity.
Ifthestatepartyoperatesaprimaryfrom7am7pm,wellgetmoredataandmoreparticipation,
althoughitwillincreasecoststooperatealongervotingwindow.
JordanRossindicatedthatiftheprecinctmeetingandaprimaryareheldwithoutthecaucus,welose
theabilityforpeoplespeakonbehalfofcandidates.Thosepeoplearentabletospeaktoallthepeople
castingvotes,whichistheadvantageofthecaucussystem.
Jordanalsoexpressedconcernoverlosingthegainsthepartyhasmadeinvolunteersandmembership
sincethecaucuswasinstitutedin2008.Priortothattime,ClarkCountytypicallyhadnthadmorethan
300400whoattendedCountyConventions,andthoseindividualsbecamethecountycentral
committee.Butin2008,therewere3,600attendeesatthecountyconvention,andClarkCountyended
upwithacentralcommitteeof800900.Thecaucusincreasedpartyparticipation,andincreasedthe
diversityoftheparty,bothideologicallyanddemographically.
Finally,RobTyreepointedoutthatinClarkandWashoe,maybetoalesserdegreeinruralcounties,the
countyconventionisoftenthelargestsourceofrevenueduringapresidentialyear.Thepotential
revenueforthecountiesissignificant,andcountypartieshaveavestedfinancialinterestinincreasing
participationattheprecinctmeetingsandcountyconventions.
Someattendeesweresurprisedtolearnthatcountyconventionscouldbeasourceofrevenue.Clark
Countyindicatedthattheyhadearned$20,000fromtheir2014convention,anditwassuggestedthat
countiesreachouttootherstoseehowthismoneyisraised.JimDeGraffenreidwillworkwithPeggy
Graytodevelopasurveyforallthecountychairstocompleteatthemeeting,andthisinformationwill
besharedamongallthecountychairs.

Question#14,Resolution105,generally:Isitlegalforthepartytorequireadelegatetobebound,or
aretheyfreetovoteastheywish?
AnswerThebylawscommitteerespondedthatthisquestiontookupmoretimeonthebylaws
committeethananyother,andwillsurelybediscussedthoroughlyontheflooraswell.Therearea
varietyofdivergentopinionsonthecommittee.We'vereceivedalotofcallsandevenhada
conversationwithaNationalCommitteemanfromNorthDakotawho'sbeeninvolvedinthisissuefora
numberofyears.Thereareacoupleofissuestoconsider:

1. TherulesoftheRepublicanNationalCommitteehaveprovisionsthatareconflictingand
confusing.Forexample,thecommitteewaslookingforguidanceonwhetherornoteachstate's
delegationhadtherighttoelecttheirownchairornot,andaftergreatdifficultyfoundthatrule
buriedinanunrelatedsection.
2. Althoughthespecificissueregardingbindingappearstohaveconflicts,fromalltheevidence
gatheredaswellasbothparliamentaryandlegaladvice,thecommitteeconcludedthateven
thoughtherearesomequestions,thereisarequirementforbindingonthefirstvote.Thereisa
bodyofthoughtthatsaysthefirstsectionofRNCrulesareessentiallyforpreparationofthe
convention,andbecauseaparticularclausequotesthesecondhalfasbeingtherulesonthe
floor,thatthebindingrequirementisnotvalidoncetheconventionopens.Thecommittee
rejectedthisargumentasbeingatorturedinterpretationduetothefactthatiftheintentof
RNCruleswastonotallowbinding,thenthebindingrulescontainedinRNCRule16wouldnot
appearatall.
Thereissignificantdisputeoverwhethernationalruleswereadoptedlegally.Regardlessofwhetherthat
istrueornot,theruleshavebeenadopted,andmustbecompliedwithuntilsuchtimeastheyare
changedeitherthroughlegalactionorgrassrootsactivism.Basedonallofthefactsandacomplete
assessmentofthesituation,itsclearthatbindingisrequiredonthefirstvote.

Question#15,Resolution105,Section5:Whathappensifapresidentialcandidatedropsout?
AnswerUndertheproposedrulesinthissection,dealingwiththebindingandreleaseofNational
DelegatesandAlternates,delegateswillnotbereallocatedtotheremainingcandidatesintheraceona
proportionalbasis.Thisisasignificantchangefrompastpractice,andfromthe2012rules.After
extensivedebate,thecommitteeagreedthatreallocationdoesntnecessarilyaccomplishwhatthe
votersinthecaucuseswanted,anditalsoassignsdelegatestocandidateswhodidntearnthem.There
wasalsoaconcernthatreallocationfavorswellfundedcandidateswhomayhavetheabilitytogain
additionaldelegatesbyforcingunderfundedcandidatesoutoftherace.
Thefinalcommitteerecommendationistoreleasedelegateswhosecandidatedropsout.Thismirrors
therealworldsituationwhereavoterhastodecidewhotosupportwhentheircandidateleavesthe
raceandtheyneedtosupportsomeonestillintherace,anditleadstotraditionalconventionactivity
wheredelegatesandcandidatesworktoconvinceunbounddelegatestosupporttheircause.Amajority
consensusofthecommitteefeltthatifacandidateearned,say,40%ofthecaucusvote,thenthat
candidateshouldreceive40%ofthedelegationvoteonthefirstballot.Thecommitteewasunanimous
ininsistingthatthewillofthecaucusvoterbeexpressed,althoughtherewasadifferenceofopinionon
thebestwaytodothat.
RobTyreeprovidedadditionalbackgroundontheprocessusedbythecommitteetodevelopthisrule.
TherewasextensivedebateandalotofresearchintoRNCrules,stipulationsandprovisions,including
muchdiscussionofRNCRule38,theUnitRule.Thisisarulewhichisoftencitedaspreventingthe
bindingofdelegatesasdescribedinRNCRule16

Asanearlycaucusstate,Nevadahastheopportunitytochoosefrommorecandidatesthanlater
caucusesandprimariesbecauseinevitablysomecandidateswillleavetherace.Asaresult,wehavethe
opportunitytobemoreideologicallydrivenwithourvote,astherearemorecandidateswithsubtle
differencesavailabletochoosefrom.Comparedtostateslaterintheprocess,wehavetheabilityto
supportacandidatewhomorecompletelyrepresentsourparticularphilosophy,policyviews,etc.Asan
earlystate,wehaveagreaterinfluenceondecidingtheeventualpresumptivenominee.
Thedownsidetohavingthisinfluenceisthatsomeonemightvoteforacandidateinthepreferencepoll,
andthenextweekthatcandidatedropsout.Thatvoterisforcedintoapositionwherethey're
reevaluatingtheiroptionstoseewhoamongtheremainingcandidatesmostcloselymatchestheirviews
nowthattheirfirstchoiceisoffthetable.Forcing,reapportioning,orrebindingdelegatestoacandidate
whomaybeapolaroppositeofwhothevoteroriginallysupportedbasedonpreferencepoll
percentagesoftheremainingcandidatesdoesn'tseemfair.Ifthedroppedcandidatehadnotbeenon
theballotatall,theresnowaytoknowhowthatwouldhaveaffectedtheremainingcandidates.
Unfortunately,it'snotpossibletoholdasecondpreferencepollrightbeforethenationalconvention,so
thecommitteerecommendedthecompromiseinSection5.Theconceptisthatifacandidatemakesit
allthewaythroughtheprocessandisstillanactivecandidateatthetimeofthenationalconvention,
thedelegatestheyearnedinourpreferencepollshouldabsolutelybeboundtothem.Theyearnedthat
support.Weoweittothemtosendthosedelegatesinsupportofthem,andweoweittotheNevada
voterswhocameoutandgavethemtheirsupportinreturnfortheireffortinourstate.
However,thecandidateswhodidn'tmakeitthroughtheentireprocessareadifferentsituation.
Historically,we'veseenafewthingshappen.Someofthemwilldropout,suspendtheircampaignand
oftenmakeanannouncementreleasingtheirdelegatesorlettingtheirdelegatesknowtheyrefreeto
dowhattheywant.Ontheotherhand,wehadatleastoneincidentin2012whereacampaignwas
suspendedbutinsistedtilltheendthattheywantedtheirdelegatestobeboundtothem,eventhough
theircampaignwassuspended.Thiswasaproblemwediscoveredinthe2012rules,andwhichthe
recommendedrulesaredesignedtorectify.
Whenwesetaboutcreatingthiscompromiseweweighedthreethings:
1. Respectingthewillofthecaucusvoters.
2. Respectingthecampaignsandcandidateswhocomehereandspendtime,moneyandresources
campaigninghere.
3. Respectingtheprocessinthatwedontwanttocompletelyreleasedelegatesorallowthemto
dowhatevertheywant,becausewehavetomakesurethatthefirsttwopointsareaddressed.
Resolution105isthebestcompromisethatthecommitteecoulddevise.Itallowsforcandidatesto
requesttheirdelegatesandcontinuetobeboundwhethertheyreanactivecandidateornot.Itallows
fordelegatesofcandidateswhodontmakethatrequesttobereleasedtodoastheyseefit,whichis
howwepayrespecttothecaucusvoters.Thesedelegateswillgothroughthesameprocessthecaucus
voterswouldhave,assessingwhichcandidateistheirnextoption.

Thecommitteespentatonoftimetalkingandthinkingaboutanddebatingthisissue.Nooneonthe
committeegoteverythingtheyoriginallywanted,butwhatweendedupwithwasareallygood
compromisethataccountsforasmanycontingenciesaspossible.Ultimately,wewereallabletoagree
andpasstheserulesunanimouslyoutofcommittee,totheExecutiveCommitteeandontothe
membershipoftheNRCCforratification.

Question#16,Resolution105,DelegateBindinggenerally:Regardingelectingdelegatesatthestate
convention,howdoweensurethatdelegatesaretruesupportersofthecandidatethattheyareelected
tosupport?
Additionalcommentary:In2012,peopleselfnominatedonthedayoftheconventiontobecome
delegatesandweknewnothingaboutthem.Itsimportanttoknowwhichcandidatespotentialnational
delegatessupportsothatweknowtheyllrespectthewishesofcaucusvoters.
AnswerTherecommendedrulesaddressthisissueinanumberofways.Section2.1eliminatesthe
abilitytoselfnominatefromthefloor,andrequiresinsteadthatallpotentialnationaldelegatesmust
submitaselfnominationformnolaterthan10dayspriortothestateconvention.Thestateparty
SecretaryisrequiredinSection2.4tonotifyeachdelegateofwhohasbeennominatednolessthan5
dayspriortotheconvention.
Duringthistime,stateconventiondelegatescanreadstatementsfromthoseseekingtobenational
delegates.MynameisIwanttorepresentcandidateJohnDoe.Hereiswhy.HereswhatIthink.
Heresmyopinionsonpoliticalideology.Delegatescanspeakwithnomineespersonally,andcontact
thosethatyouknowinanomineescountyofresidenceforinformationandrecommendations.Youcan
talktothempersonally.Aswithelectinganybody,votershavearesponsibilitytolearnasmuchas
possibleaboutthosetheywillbeelecting,andtheadvancenominationisdesignedtomakethat
possible.
JimDeGraffenreidaddedthattherulescouldbeclarifiedtorequiresometypeofbioorstatementby
thoserunningtobenationaldelegate.Anyseriouscandidatewilldothisanyway,butwecanbuilditinto
therules.Weallknowsomeonethatrunsforofficesayingonethingandthendoesanother,andsadly
thatisafactoflifeinpolitics.However,since2012,ruleshavebeenputinplaceattheRNC,andechoed
inSections2.6andSection6oftheproposedrules,thatprovideseverepenaltiesforfaithlessdelegates.
Thesepenaltysectionsinrealitydealwiththeproblemasmuchasitcanbe.Theabilitytodisrespect
thecaucusresultshasbeenreducedsignificantly.
Finally,RNCRule16(a)(2)specifiesthatifabounddelegatedoesnotvoteinaccordancewiththeir
binding,theirvoteshallbedisregarded.Evenintheunlikelyeventthatthestricter2016rulesallowa
faithlessdelegatetosurvivetheprocess,Nevadasvotewillbecastasdirectedbythecaucus,nomatter
what.

JordanRossclarifiedthattheweaklinkisinfactthedelegationchair.Thisissomethingthatregrettably
IwasntawareofwhenIdraftedtherulesfor2012.UnderRNCRules37and40,thevotesforthe
delegationarecastontheirbehalfsolelybythedelegationchair.In2012,ourdelegationchair
disregardedtherulesandcastvotesthatbrokebindings.Section6.4providesverystiffpenaltiesforany
futureconventionchairwhowoulddothesame,essentiallyendingtheirabilitytoeverparticipateat
thestateornationallevelrepresentingNevadaagain.
RobTyreeaddedthatthecurrentproceduresprecludesomeonewhoisboundfromevenhavingan
opportunitytobreaktheirbinding.UnderSection6.2,thedelegationchairmanwilltallyvotesfor
delegateswhoareboundatthetimeofthefirstvoteatthenationalconventionwithoutpollingthat
delegate.Theonlydelegateswhoactuallygetpolledtoplaceavoteonthefirstvoteareanywhoare
unbound,andtheonlywaythathappensisiftheircandidatehasdroppedoutandreleasedtheir
delegates.Wehaveessentiallyprecludedabounddelegatefrombreakingtheirbinding.AsJim
mentioned,ifbysomechancetheyfoundawaytocircumnavigateourrulesandbreakbinding,they
wouldbeineligiblebytheRNCrulesandthatvotewouldntcountanyway.Theonlypersonwhocan
haveanimpactisthedelegatechairwhoreportsthevotes,andwehavebasicallybuiltintoourrulesas
closetoapoliticaldeathpenaltyaswecould.

Question17,BylawsChangeArticle15:ConcernwasexpressedoverthereferencetoClarkCounty
CourtCase#A269546,whichisacurrentfeatureofboththestatepartyandtheClarkCountybylaws,as
nobodyseemstobeabletolocatedocumentationonwhatthesubjectofthiscasewas.
JimDeGraffenreidindicatedthatthislanguagewasunnecessary,sincewewerespecifyingthatviolation
ofanyelectionlawwasgroundstoconsidertermination,sohewouldbemovingfromthefloorthatthe
languageonthisspecificcourtcasebestrickenfromthefinalresolution.

Reminder:ContactJordanwithanyquestionsorconcernsregardingrulesandbylawsat
Jordan.ross@nevadagop.org