A Statement Regarding the CRP Executive Committee Meeting Notice

Background

• In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed The Prime Time Primary Act moving the statewide primary to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March for presidential and non-presidential election years in an attempt to increase California’s influence in the presidential nominating process. Three years later in 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation moving non-presidential year primaries back to June.
• In California, the Republican presidential primary is a “closed” primary, only registered Republicans may vote in the election. Currently, delegates to the Republican National Convention are allocated according to a plurality winner-take-all by congressional district method whereby the candidate receiving the most votes in a congressional district is awarded the three delegates for that district. Additionally, ten at-large delegates are awarded to the candidate receiving the most votes statewide.
• The Rules of the Republican Party, adopted by the 2020 Republican National Convention, govern the Republican presidential nominating process. Three of these rules are relevant to this debate.
  • Rule 16(c)(2): A presidential primary, caucus, or convention held prior to March 15 shall allocate delegates to the national convention on a proportional basis.
  • Rule 16(f)(1): By October 1 of the year before the national convention is held, each Republican state committee must adopt and file rules governing the allocation of delegates with the Republican National Committee.
  • Rule 17(a): A state or state Republican Party violating Rule 16(c)(2) shall have the number of its delegates to the national convention reduced by fifty percent (50%).

Recent Development

On Friday, June 30, at 6:21 PM, CRP Chair Jessica Patterson sent an email calling a meeting of the CRP Executive Committee on Saturday, July 29 in Irvine to consider a bylaw amendment to change the rules for our March 5, 2024, Presidential Primary Election. Click here to read the email and here to read the bylaw amendment. Neither the meeting notice nor the bylaw amendment included an explanation of why the Executive Committee must meet in thirty days to consider this specific bylaw amendment.

Five days later, in a joint email to CRP delegates, Patterson, RNC National Committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon, and RNC National Committeeman Shawn Steel presented the basis for calling a CRP Executive Committee Meeting to adopt the bylaw amendment. The email states that the CRP’s bylaws are not in compliance with the Republican National Committee’s Rules (RNC Rule 16) for 2024, so a bylaw amendment was created that complied with the rules. If the CRP does not change to a proportional model for allocating delegates by October 1, we are in jeopardy of losing 50 percent of our delegates. Click here to read their email.

My Thoughts

First, a meeting of the CRP Executive Committee is unnecessary. October 1 is the deadline to adopt and file rules governing the allocation of convention delegates with the secretary of the Republican National Committee. Coincidentally, the CRP Fall 2023 Convention is scheduled for September 29 to October 1. Any bylaw amendment addressing this subject should be considered at the next state party convention, concluding on October 1. Also, by considering bylaw amendments to change our presidential primary rules at the upcoming convention, we have additional time to study our options and debate the merits of different proposals.

Second, a meeting of the CRP Executive Committee is wasteful. This unnecessary meeting squanders valuable time and money, critical resources that are in limited supply for California Republicans. These resources could be better utilized for building the party: recruiting, training, precinct operations, voter registration, etc.

Third, amendments to the CRP Bylaws should be voted on by ALL CRP delegates, not just a select few. The largest, most representative body in the California Republican Party is the State Central Committee with its 1,471 delegates. The much smaller, less representative Executive Committee has approximately 100 members, comprising less than 7% of the delegates. The State Central Committee, as the larger and more representative body, should have sole authority to adopt bylaw amendments. The power to adopt amendments should not be in the hands of just 100 CRP delegates.

Fourth, why now? Our state party leaders should have addressed this issue at one of the four state party conventions held since the 2020 Republican National Convention. Why did state party leaders not submit a bylaw amendment to bring our presidential primary rules into compliance with RNC Rule 16(c)(2) at our convention last March? Why the delay in addressing this issue? Why now and not at the next convention?

Please join me in calling on CRP Chair Jessica Patterson to cancel the CRP Executive Committee Meeting on Saturday, July 29 in Irvine so that any bylaw amendment to change the rules for the March 5, 2024, Presidential Primary Election will be debated and voted on by ALL CRP delegates at the upcoming state party convention.

Sincerely,

Carl Brickey

President, California Republican Assembly