Deseret News | Reader comments: Utah GOP clears backing for McCain

Reader comments
Utah GOP clears backing for McCain

Bob Aagard | 8:58 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008

Actually, the Republican Bylaws are pretty unambiguous:

B. Allocation and Binding of National Delegation. All National Convention delegates and
alternates shall be allocated to the candidate receiving the most votes of the statewide vote in the
Republican Presidential Primary. On the first ballot, the national delegation shall be bound to
vote for the candidate who has received the most votes in the Republican Presidential Primary,
but the delegation shall not be bound on any subsequent ballots.

Tiani Coleman | 10:15 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008

Sure, technically the state central committee has the authority to resolve an ambiguity. But note that this is what they came up with after they clearly saw the BIND they were in. They were in a bind because there was no ambiguity. The rule seemed to clearly state that Utah was bound to Mitt Romney since Romney garnered 90% of the presidential primary vote. (no "out" clause)
And when an original McCain supporter brought a resolution before the state convention, asking the state delegates to "change it," so that Utah's nat'l delegates would be bound to "nominee" McCain, it was quite clear the delegates didn't approve, and THAT was why it was "tabled" instead of addressed at convention.
Then insiders admittedly waited until after an August challenge deadline to try further action.
Some party insiders know how to pass anything through their Central Committee. Keep looking 'til you see an ambiguity, involve an attorney, & don't release the proposal 'til the day before the meeting.
Utah's delegation could have simply stated, "Though Romney released our delegates, our rules bind us to him on the first ballot."
Now we have "forced" unity, even if Huckabee is our VP nominee.

Thomas W. Clay | 11:13 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008

The clarification is simple. It states that our delegates are bound to the person who got the highest number of votes and is still a candidate.

That means if Mitt Romney is a candidate at the convention, then our delegates are bound to him. If he isn't, then the delegates would be bound to John McCain, who came in 2nd.

Comments continue below

Don Guymon | 11:51 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008

There was no ambiguity in the document.

In 1999 language which would have cleared up the ambiguity was defeated by the state central committee.

Vote4Mitt | 12:35 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008

Mitt won the State and the Delegates should vote for him. It's sad that there is such a dislike for McCain here in Utah that we have to "force" the delegates to vote for him. Utah spoke. The Republican party needs to listen.
GO MITT!!

Not So Common Sense | 12:49 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008

More evidence the Utah Republican party puts the party above the people.

The Republican party in this state has gone unchecked for far too long. They believe they can act without fear of reprisal. And they are correct as long as the citizens of this state continue to vote the party line, instead of the merits of the candidate.

Roobah | 2:04 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008

I was at the meeting and I concur with national delegate and attorney, Larry Meyers, who spoke against the change when he characterized the State GOP General Counsel's "analysis" validating the proposed standing rule as "a tortured interpretation."

(Sad to hear that Larry will after all be voting for McCain at the National Convention -- PLEASE don't do it Larry, follow the existing rules, THEN work to amend the language so this situation is FIXED!)

Too bad this standing rule CLAIR-ification only takes into account a tortured interpretation that fits what GOP leaders desire for THIS election cycle. We should be a party of RULES and stop breaking rules in favor of current-cycle outcome elections.

This standing rule could in fact mean that in 2012, if Mitt Romney is again a presidential candidate, then likely our voters will again vote for him and delegates will be bound to him. If he drops out again, then the delegates would be bound to Mike Huckabee, who came in 2nd.

Tell me how this well-thought out "standing rule" will take into account FUTURE election scenarios that will please Utah GOP voters with some kind of predictability?

Drew Chamberlain | 4:48 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008

Shame on GOP Leadership....AGAIN!

Lowell Nelson | 11:38 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008

Utah's presidential primary in February employed a single-choice ballot. Voters could choose only ONE of nine candidates. Its outcome ONLY determined the winner. It said nothing (and could NOT say anything) about other finishers in the election. It did NOT allow voters to express a second preference.

The second-place finisher in an election employing a single-choice ballot is NOT necessarily the voters' second choice. WHO would those 265,000 voters have chosen if Romney had not been on the ballot? Would they have voted for McCain, Paul, or Huckabee?

Dunno.

If the election had employed an IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) ballot, whereon voters could rank the candidates in order of preference, then asking our national delegates to support the second preference (if the first preference is not placed in nomination at the national convention) would be rational and logical.

Unbinding the delegation from Romney (just to save some supposed embarrassment at the convention) is LAME. Binding the delegation to McCain (to curry his favor) repudiates the will of GOP voters (who were NOT able to express a second preference in the election).

I urge Utah's delegation to honor its word to Utah's voters: vote from Romney on the first ballot.

Pizza Pizza GOP | 11:55 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008

Rob Bishop, Joe Cannon, Enid Greene, and Stan Lockhart are my heroes.

I was there | 1:29 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008

I was in attendance at this meeting. It was sad to see how those who wanted this "standing rule" to pass acted immaturely towards those who opposed it when speaking.

Utah should vote for Romney since our State voted for him. Republican leadership does what ever they want. Why? Because "I can".

Tiani's wrong | 9:04 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Tiani wrote, "so that Utah's nat'l delegates would be bound to "nominee" McCain, it was quite clear the delegates didn't approve, and THAT was why it was "tabled" instead of addressed at convention."

Actually, Tiani, the convention delegates were asked to consider a BYLAW CHANGE. That was tabled. Last Saturday, the SCC considered a STANDING RULE. You cannot say that the convention delegates did not approve of the STANDING RULE because it was not presented to them.

Furthermore, it is the SCC -- not the 3500 convention delegates, who constitute the governing body of the party.

What happened on Saturday was totally approrpriate and only makes sense.

United States of Amnesia | 10:31 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008

It is plausible to say that this move was only a bylaw technicality. UNLESS you consider all the other shady "technicalities" that the GOP leaders have quietly and conveniently "fixed" over the years.

Thank heaven we have leaders who do all the thinking for us. It's way too hard. Nothing to see here. Just some minor party housekeeping. You wouldn't understand it anyway.

Ashamed | 1:32 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Once again, the Republican Party leadership of Utah have demonstrated their true nature. Power corrupts, pure and simple.

I salute Lowell Nelson, Nancy Lord, Don Guymon, Larry Meyers and a few others that work tirelessly and endure public ridicule in trying to ensure that the GOP acts responsibly and actually represents the will of the people, rather than a select group of party insiders.

Tiani's right | 2:02 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

I am a Republican State and County delegate and I called as many state central committee members that I could to urge them to vote against this 11th-hour secretive rule interpretation.

Every delegate in attendance realized that an amendment to bind Utah's delegates to McCain was soundly defeated by the will of the delegates. The Utah Republican slogan should be changed from "Republ i can" to "Yes Stan Can" as he has unilaterally enforced his own agenda while feigning legitimate process.

What Stan Lockhart has done is contrary to the will of the people and his decision to enforce through a "standing rule" the binding of delegates to McCain smacks of abuse of executive power and is eerily similar to presidential "signing statements".

For all of the reasons cited above this was the wrong move. What was done here is flat out wrong and no voting majority at the state central committee can change that. I applaud Nancy Lord and Larry Meyers for doing the right thing.

David Edward Garber | 2:49 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Funny, these same GOP leaders saw no ambiguity in this rule last month when they tried (unsuccessfully) to persuade state delegates to suspend it. I think that most reasonable people would agree that this rule's original intent was quite plain--and that this new "living, breathing" interpretation of it is pretty tortured and unjustified. I'm curious to see what these GOP leaders' next fun trick will be--redefining what the meaning of 'IS' is? I'm looking forward to the state organizing convention in 2009. A little GOP house cleaning would be nice to see.

Tom Salt | 4:12 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Where is the GOP headed? McCain is the presumed Presidential candidate, and Giuliani is the keynote speaker at the RNC. For the last few decades the GOP has been slowly becoming just as socialist and big government-minded as the Democratic Party. Now they are just open about it. Unfortunately, some of Utah's GOP leadership seem to feel a need to be team players.

GOP State Delegate | 8:47 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Where is the GOP headed? Well, several of the elected national GOP headed left years ago. But who would ever think Utah's GOP stoop so low? Utah's Republican platform seems to be ignored when there are those in leadership positions that believe it's better to WIN than uphold principle.

Tiani Coleman | 10:38 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Sometimes, "Tiani's wrong," it's better to be wrong.
Your clarification that it was a Bylaw Amendment that was tabled [indefinitely], not the resolution (or a standing rule) proves my point even more.
In May, after Romney had suspended his campaign and "released his delegates," both the executive committee and bylaws committee thought it NECESSARY for the state delegates to pass the following Bylaw amendment:
"On the first ballot, the National Delegation shall be bound to vote for the candidate who has received the most votes in the Republican Presidential Primary UNLESS THE CANDIDATE HAS CEASED TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR ANY REASON OR RELEASES THE DELEGATES . . ." [change in caps]
As noted earlier, the delegates clearly DIDN'T APPROVE of this change, and it was clear that without this change, THE RULE UNAMBIGUOUSLY BOUND US TO ROMNEY (no ambiguity in the word "candidate").
Since the Bylaw Change was tabled indefinitely, the Resolution attempting to bind our delegates to McCain wasn't even considered, it in essence being "out of order," unless our delegates were first unbound from Romney.
Yet, last minute, the state CC managed to both release from Romney and re-bind to McCain by re-defining "is."

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.