Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anti-Slating Amendment Proposals For National Delegate Elections
Anti-Slating Amendment Proposals For National Delegate Elections
March 1, 2017
Accordingly, the party plan committee met twice for the purpose of
developing these alternatives, presented below as Option 1 and Option 2,
both of which mandate substantive changes to the process by which
at-large delegates to the quadrennial national convention are selected. In
developing the recommendations, some committee members individually
looked at delegate selection processes in other states. The committee also
considered feedback given by SCC members (including 4 separate
amendment alternatives), and incorporated certain of that feedback into
these options. Both options preclude the screening and pre-selection of
delegates by a convention committee, the recommendation of which
serves as the basis for a delegate/alternate selection vote by the
convention. The committee made the strategic decision not to attempt to
settle every possible question that could come up, but leave room for the
call and convention committees to make certain decisions.
Respectfully submitted,
Eve Marie Barner Gleason, Chair
On behalf of the Party Plan Committee members:
Don Roby, At-Large Cynthia Dunbar, 6th District
Larry Kile, 1st District Susan Lascolette, 7th District
Pam Brown, 2nd District Anna Urman, 8th District
Jennifer Lee, 3rd District Michelle Jenkins, 9th District
Barbara Tabb, 4th District Ben Bush, 10th District
Bill, Harville, Jr., 5th District Steven Thomas, 11th District
Option 1
Proposal that Article VIII, Section L. of the party plan, which currently reads as
follows:
The Party Plan Committee members noted the following considerations for the State
Central Committee concerning this proposal.
Compared with Option 2, Option 1 allows less flexibility for the State Central
Committee, through the convention call, to establish procedures for the
election of delegates/alternates to the quadrennial convention.
Certification that the signature requirement is met creates an additional
logistical burden on staff and / or party volunteers.
The signature requirement requires that candidates for delegate/alternate
demonstrate some level of support beyond their own congressional district,
which is appropriate when running statewide. This process may reduce the
number of less-serious candidates for delegate or alternate delegate. A lower
signature requirement for unit committee members rewards those with a higher
degree of involvement in the party while still allowing those who are not
currently unit committee members to stand for election.
It could be difficult for unit committee members to obtain written verification
from an officer of their unit that they are a member in good standing.
The signature requirement is a fair way to encourage participation by serious
candidates for delegate/alternate.
Eliminates the presentation of a slate of candidates to the convention by an
official convention committee. Also precludes creation of a slate of candidates
for delegate/alternate by other interest groups.
Extensive logistical efforts may be involved with the balloting process and / or
multiple rounds of balloting in the event of a tie.
Shall not be entitled to be placed on the ballot in (3)(c) may allow for a person
to be on the ballot without meeting the signature requirement. This could be
useful in the unlikely event the statewide delegate/alternate positions are
underfiled.
Provided they have met the signature requirement, item (3)(c) allows for the
candidates for delegate/alternate to have speaking time at the convention and
to access the delegate lists to the convention, provided this is allowed under
the convention call/rules. Depending on the number of candidates, this could
present a logistical challenge, extend the duration of the convention, and/or
annoy the state convention delegates.
Numerous logistical questions would remain outstanding, requiring
clarification in the call, and/or by the convention committees, including:
Is there a filing fee for delegate/alternate?
Are there any other requirements for who can sign to get a
delegate/alternate candidate on the ballot? any registered voter
(including Democrats)? only unit committee members? only
participants in other party actions (such as district convention
delegates)?
Should there be a district-by-district signature requirement? For
example that a certain number or percent of signatures must come from
districts other than the potential candidates own?
Who determines whether the signature requirement has been met?
When and where would the complete list of candidates for
delegate/alternate be available?
In what order would the candidates for delegate/alternate be listed?
alphabetically? in the order received by the state party? by order of the
number of signatures collected?
How would a tie for alternate be handled? An additional round of
balloting? coin toss? drawing of straws? drawing from a hat?
Attempting to settle all of these things in the party plan would not allow for
learning from the experience of prior years.
New process is designed to increase objectivity and transparency in how
delegates/alternates are chosen.
Prescribing any detailed or specific process in the party plan thereby limits the
ability of the SCC to use a different process (such as a caucus) to choose
delegates. It also constrains the SCC and convention committees in their
ability to learn from past mistakes, make changes, and adapt to new conditions.
Option 2
Proposal that Article VIII, Section L. of the party plan, which currently reads as
follows: