The Inconvenience of the Rule of Law

RPT Chairman Tina Benkiser insists that she and the RPT follow the law and the rules of the RPT. Unfortunately, the facts indicate otherwise. The Chairman, an attorney, advised county chairmen that minutes of conventions were not public record and that they were not required to make copies of them available after the primary, in direct conflict with RPT Rule 22b. In fact, she went to court to defend the county chairman of Nueces County who had refused to release copies of precinct convention minutes. According to the ruling of the Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals, the RPT argued that the copy of records of the convention were not public record and asked the court to deny the request for those records and assess damages for frivolous pleadings against the delegate who had sought to require the Republican Party of Nueces County to follow the law. The court ruled against the RPT and the county chairman.

Those precinct convention minutes reveal over that 150 delegates apparently participated as delegates in the county convention but had not elected as delegates at precinct conventions. The county chairman violated the RPT rules and Texas Election Code (TEC) and was defended by the RPT in his effort to hide the evidence.

Benkiser has refused to change the order of business for the Republican State Convention to that which was historically used until 10 years ago. In spite of repeated efforts on the floor of the convention and in the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC), the chairman insists that the current practice - that of not seating delegates and not electing officers of the convention until after the election of permanent convention committees in SD caucuses on Thursday evening and the election of SREC members and the nomination of Chair and Vice Chair in SD caucuses on Friday morning - is somehow in compliance with the RPT rules and the TEC, which require no convention business to be done till the convention is "organized." In fact, the chairman continues to fight efforts in the court on this issue.

This morning Ms. Cathie Adams, candidate for National Committeewoman, said this practice was begun "... to allow time for more delegates to arrive in hopes of increasing grassroots participation." She says the delegates may have rejected efforts to change "because the delegates want to hear from the person who is responsible for day-to-day RPT business, including the organization of the convention before electing a Permanent Chairman," or "so that those who must take time away from their jobs can be assured that they will not miss important votes on the second and third days of the convention." Ms. Adams is wrong. The delegates have rejected efforts to change the procedure because party leaders have told them the party is in compliance with the RPT rules and TEC. To reach that conclusion they have to argue that we are not "conducting convention business" by electing convention committees, SREC members and nominating Chair and Vice Chair candidates.

Ms. Adams says, "The main argument from those who want to return to the pre-1998 interpretation is that organization should be completed under a Permanent Chairman, rather than the RPT Chairman who is responsible for the convention organization." She is wrong again. The reason we seek this procedure is the RPT rules and the TEC require it and we are a party of the rule of law.

Ms. Adams suggests that, "The main argument from those who want to retain the tradition of electing a Permanent Chairman on the second day of business is that it allows the newcomers to the Party to meet the RPT Chairman who presides over the meetings and organization until the Permanent Chairman is elected. It also gives opportunity to newcomers to become familiar with the political process and with those running for intra-party offices before casting their votes on the second and third days of the convention." In other words, it is more convenient.

Perhaps it is inconvenient to start the convention on Thursday by hearing credentials challenges, seating delegates and electing officers of the convention. Is it any more inconvenient than holding our precinct conventions and county/senatorial conventions the same way? I suppose the County Chairman of Nueces County considered it inconvenient to follow the RPT rules and the TEC, so he refused to do so.

It is not however, just a matter of following the rules. RPT Rule 27d says that "... delegations that are being challenged may not be seated until their challenge is resolved." This means that the two delegations from Nueces County will be denied their right to vote for convention committees, SREC and nomination of Chair and Vice Chair if the recent practice of not seating delegates until Friday afternoon is continued. It may be inconvenient, but we should follow the rules and the law.