tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23490549.post3672409313687928779..comments2023-10-21T20:04:18.267-04:00Comments on TwoConservatives: The problem with RPV's response to the "registration" questionCharleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04551264439871137611noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23490549.post-23671846530418993812007-05-29T15:31:00.000-04:002007-05-29T15:31:00.000-04:00I'm on a State Central Committee subcommittee that...I'm on a State Central Committee subcommittee that may end up reviewing the entire party plan. This will be another good area to clarify.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174271867893489759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23490549.post-57821211556951648562007-05-29T00:07:00.000-04:002007-05-29T00:07:00.000-04:00First, the qualifications item 2 (which is actuall...First, the qualifications item 2 (which is actually now item 5) is not new. Anke has noted it's been there as long as she can remember.<BR/><BR/>There's never been a question about voters who were able to register. If they could get that voter card by the convention, they were excepted.<BR/><BR/>The only reason this became an issue is because of the "application for registration" exception when you can't actually register.<BR/><BR/>SBE does suspend registration for "local elections", in this case our June 12th primary, and the rule exists precisely so delegates aren't treated differently simply because of SBE book closures.<BR/><BR/>You state the RPV position correctly, that delegates are "deemed" to be elected at the time it is clear there is no mass meeting. My argument on that point is that there use of the "elected as delegate" argument was NOT that being elected as delegate was important, but that the "election as delegate" was a formal act taken by delegates (who show up at the mass meeting and vote). If the delegates were going to vote at the mass meeting, they had to be qualified by that point.<BR/><BR/>The interesting thing is, accepting the RPV argument, the delegates are not "deemed" to be elected until someone examines all the delegate forms and determines there aren't enough for a mass meeting.<BR/><BR/>Suppose we were really close to having too many, and it took the credentials committee a week to figure out there weren't enough to need the meeting. On the day they voted how many were valid, THAT should be the "day they are deemed to be elected". In fact, that should be the day the credentials committee finally approves the list, NOT May 21, since on May 21 they had no idea.<BR/><BR/>But I do see part of their argument. You can't say they are "deemed" to be elected PRIOR to may 21, since it wasn't until may 21 that we knew no more delegates could be added.<BR/><BR/>The analogy I thought of to support them was the Clerk convention. When Lucy dropped out, the convention was cancelled and McQuigg was our delegate. But realise McQuigg could be a candidate without at this time meeting the requirements, so long as she met them on election day. We might require she meet requirements at the convention, but with no convention there's no other rule.<BR/><BR/>I go back to the DeLay ruling -- he was NOT qualified to vote or run in the election, but a judge ruled he was still a valid candidate, and could not be JUDGED to be unqualified until the DAY of the election.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04551264439871137611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23490549.post-79045305475890758632007-05-28T23:41:00.000-04:002007-05-28T23:41:00.000-04:00Good reasoning, Charles, but I think the RPV posit...Good reasoning, Charles, but I think the RPV position is the correct one. <BR/><BR/>But isn't this all a moot point? Didn't voter registration close 29 days before the June 12 primary, which means anyone who hadn't filed for registration by then can't be a "registered voter" in time for the convention?<BR/><BR/>I'm guessing part of the confusion is coming from the relatively new "qualifications" section in the State Party Plan that says, <BR/>"2. A person who has made application for registration and meets all other requirements of Section A, but whose name does not appear on the local registration books solely because of the books having been closed in connection with a local election, will nevertheless be deemed a legal and qualified voter."<BR/><BR/>I don't believe this section applies, although I can see where the confusion comes from. I don't think this primary election is what was meant by "local election," but I could be wrong. (I think it refers to municipal elections, such as the Dumfries town elections.) I also think it means a case where the person is registered, but just isn't showing up on the books because they were being prepared for the local election. (Again, I'm prepared to be wrong about that.)<BR/><BR/>The main point, of course, is whether delegates can be "elected" by a mass meeting if they aren't yet registered. So the date when they are "deemed to be elected" is critical.<BR/><BR/>The best corollary I see is when a primary is canceled because only one candidate files. Once the filing deadline passed, that candidate is considered to be nominated. We don't wait until the date of the primary to declare the candidate to be the nominee.<BR/><BR/>Using that logic, those who file for election as delegates at mass meetings are deemed to be elected once there is no over-filing. I think you're over-reaching with your example of discovering a problem with boundaries, but even that can be worked out consistently. <BR/><BR/>I don't think there's an equal protection problem, although I would leave that for others to say. Personally, I think people should be registered by the filing deadline anyway, but that's just my personal opinion.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is, people have to be registered in order to be elected as a delegate and if the filing deadline turns out to be that date, there's no way around it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174271867893489759noreply@blogger.com