Delegate Vote Challenge in the 18th District Rebutted

by lewwaters

It comes as no surprise that the legal challenge launched, seeking the voiding of the delegates chosen in the 2012 Clark County GOP convention for the 18th Legislative District, amid allegations of irregularities and fraud was not well received by same, most notably the Ron Paul supporters who came out in the majority on delegates and face the danger of not being seated in the State GOP Convention to be held in Tacoma.

As I showed in the previous post, Delegate Vote Challenged, 18th District Could Lose All GOP Delegates, supporters of candidate Mitt Romney were not pleased with the convention outcome and have cried foul to the WSRP, launching the effort to void the delegates selected in the 18th Legislative District.

In a continuance of the exceptional organizational skills seen in Paul’s supporters, that was used to discover the weaknesses in the system and legally exploit them to their advantage, Washington state co-chair for the Ron Paul campaign and Clark County Delegation Chair, Katja Delavar has fired back, along with her husband, former Washougal City Council Member Michael Delavar both drafting their own rebuttals to the challenge and to be sent to the WSRP, here and here.

In an email sent out to delegates, Ms. Delavar states, “I am offering the following for anyone who wishes to ‘sign on’ to our drafted rebuttals. If you agree with the content of the responses, let us know, and we can add your name to the signature page. You are still free to create your own response. You are in no way obligated to respond to these challenges either,” offering delegates the opportunity to join in and show their opposition to the challenge.

Others have drafted statements calling on the WSRP Credentials Committee to not uphold the challenge as well.

Michael Cummins who served as the presiding chair for the Clark County portion of the 15th Legislative District at the convention calls upon the credentials committee to not uphold the challenge citing,

“[the] main point of contention, with regards to the 18th Legislative District seating, is the credentialing issue. Our experience in the 15th was very similar to that in the 18th in that our second credentials committee report was patently incorrect. In our case, in the 15th, we were fortunate enough to have ‘credentialed’ our own delegation since there were only 21 possible delegate seats total. It was easy enough for us to do the job of the credentials committee, and we did. Therefore, when Ms. Ferris reported a patently incorrect number, the delegates of the 15th were able to understand that the error lay with Ms. Ferris’ report, not with the count of people in the room. Ms. Ferris herself apparently lacked confidence in her committee report, since she did not state that we should initiate the process of possibly seating alternates even though there were alternates available to be seated.”

He continued,

“Given my experience in the 15th LD caucus, I am confident that the single error that led to so much confusion over establishing the credentials reports was the tallying of the duly elected and seated delegates. That error is easily understood in light of the chaos that surrounded the credentials committee in Clark County and the convention registration process. Furthermore, I am unaware of any substantiated allegations of people acting as delegates who were not duly elected.”

Another, Daniel Patrick Rupp who I believe to be the delegate videotaped with multiple ballots in his hand, submitted his statement explaining that he was helping his 72 year old disabled Korean War Veteran father and had punched the wrong number on both his and his father’s ballot. He further states that the multiple ballots were of two that had been voided due to being wrongfully punched and that when shown to those close by him who witnessed him with 4 ballots, they calmed down. But, others further away couldn’t see the voided markings and videotaped him with multiple ballots in his hand.

An unsigned copy of an email I received, purporting to be from a Santorum supporter called “Denying Romney delegates at the WA state Republican state convention the right thing to do” listing several reasons to justify denial of Romney supporters as delegates.

Among the reasons listed were “The establishment must go” and “Republicans not for Romney the easy majority.”

They also listed 4 reasons they considered as justifying the actions were not unfair to Romney supporters,

1. Overcoming Romney’s name recognition from prior candidacy and years in public view.
2. Romney’s large financial resources from personal wealth, well oiled donation machine, and establishment influence to generate donations (by the way – driving a highly negative campaign — full of inaccuracies about opponents).
3. Republican establishment and old media press support—constantly backing up the ‘inevitability’ message.
4. Romney having no competition in some states based on opportunistic rules that confounded the less strong candidates (e.g Virginia).

Although I am not a fan of Ron Paul, believing him to be completely wrong on many issues and having had many run-ins with the more militant supporters he attracts, I cannot fault his supporters in the 18th for rebutting the challenge.

As annoying as it might have been, they did do their homework on seeking out the weaknesses in the system to use to their advantage, doing so in what appears to be a legal fashion.

The main bone of contention remains the very basis of the challenge, the large discrepancy in credentialed delegates versus the number of ballots cast, some 70 more ballots cast than credentialed delegates.

By all appearances, the Clark County GOP was completely unprepared for the convention and was very late letting the rules be known as well as incomplete credentials list.

The challenge seems to be firmly planted on that point, but it is now in the hands of the WSRP Credentials Committee as to whether or not there is reason to invalidate the slate of 18th Legislative District delegates to the State Convention.

As this post was being written, word arrived that Ron Paul is suspending his campaign for votes in states where primaries have not yet been held. In a letter to supporters, he claims, “We will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have,” but vowing to continue to seek delegates saying it is a way to “make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August.”

While it is doubtful to have any outcome on the decision of the credentials committee in regards to this challenge, it does “essentially confirm Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential nomination.”

If Paul is denied a speaking position at the convention and does as he did in 2008, recommending non-support of the GOP and instead encouraging his supporters to back third party candidates that included bombastic Cynthia McKinney, he will do no service to anyone other than Barack Obama, who his supporters claim must be defeated.

I’m not that impressed with Mitt Romney either, but seeing he is the likely nominee will hold my nose and vote for him, actually more of a vote against Barack Obama.

Whether we like him or not, we need to swallow our pride and unite behind the GOP candidate in order to oust Barack Obama.

It is also time for the Clark County GOP to get their act together and prevent another fiasco as was seen in the convention that brought this challenge & rebuttal out.

Our goal is to defeat Obama, not continue beating each other over the head and further dividing our votes.

15 Comments to “Delegate Vote Challenge in the 18th District Rebutted”

  1. I just find it terribly interesting that everyone is fine with Romney people screwing up the vote and then challenging Paul and Santorum delegates. Conflict of interest? Hello? If this challenge succeeds, it will be bulletin-board material for years to come. The Party will always find a way to make their will manifest. The Party must be changed. The names of the people who messed this up: Margie Ferris, Mike Gaston, Mary Graham, Brent Boger, Brandon Vick. Instead, they are going after the delegates who had nothing to do with it, and who were voted in by fair majorities. Do you have even one example of a delegate who wasn’t supposed to be there? C’mon, it shouldn’t be that hard to find if there were 70 of them.

    Time to clean house.

    Like

  2. Regardless of where the screw up initiated, Robert, the fact remains that there were 71 more ballots cast than credential delegates reported.

    If the situation were reversed, you would be screaming bloody murder too.

    Like

  3. I take exception to your characterization of the “exceptional organizational skills” of the Ron Paul campaign to “exploit weaknesses in the system.”

    The record will clearly show that the first attempt to organize a delegate slate (the “unity” slate) was made by the Romney campaign on the Wednesday before the convention, where they gathered delegates from their campaign, the Santorum campaign and the Gingrich campaign together for a special meeting in an effort to shut out the Ron Paul delegates and prevent any of them from going to the State convention. Allegations have been made on both sides that the other side was trying to subvert the will of the people and disenfranchise the voters. I find this hypocritical coming from both sides, as each side was attempting the very same thing using the very same tactics.

    The record will also show that the national Santorum campaign was opposed to the unity slate, and the local Santorum committee chair was fired and replaced for his support of it. The Ron Paul/Santorum campaign did not organize their slate (the “open” slate) until the night before – actually the morning of the campaign. I, as a Gingrich delegate, was courted by both slates and was involved in developing the Open slate at about 1:30am the morning of the convention. Given the lack of time available to develop this slate, it’s amazing that it did as well as it did. The sponsors of the Open slate may have been a lot of things, but exceptionally organized wasn’t one of them!

    Like

  4. Actually, I found the fact that the Paul people were able to counter the Unity Slate within 48 hours rather impressive. For people who apparently had no previous thought of making a deal to shut out an opponent, they were surprisingly quick on their feet when it happened to them.

    By the way, I think the mis-named Unity Slate, although it was sold by lying and slandering Paul supporters, was totally fair game otherwise. It took some serious guile to come up with it, but it was totally within the rules to try to make a deal, and that sort of thing happens all the time in three-party systems as in Great Britain.

    And don’t get me started on the hypocrisy of Gingrich people, who used Open Slate folks like a prophylactic to get elected without ever endorsing or voting for their slate. If I were you, I probably wouldn’t mention hypocrisy, bud.

    Like

  5. In addition to Sean’s comments, I’d point out that he Romney campaign’s so-called Unity slate included a statement in the first paragraph to the effect that voting for the proposed delegates would assure a pro-rata representation of “all four candidates.” This statement was patently dishonest, and once delegates began to realize that, it cast a very unfavorable light on the Romney slate, which I imagine had at least some effect on the outcome.

    The Santorum / Paul slate, on the other hand, made no such mis-representations.

    Like

  6. Sean, I resigned from the GOP in 2010 and do not live in the 18th. I don’t have a dog in this hunt.

    I’ve known Michael and Katja for a few years now and even though I disagree with them on Ron Paul, admire their ability to organize.

    Like

  7. Robert, I publicly endorsed the Open Slate in my introductory speech, ask anyone who was seated in the 49th, I know they could all hear me. The Open slate organizers didn’t have time to fill the slots allocated for Gingrich with actual names and there was a massive lack of communication regarding who was actually on the slate.

    Furthermore, the Open Slate organizers sought repeatedly to extract a commitment to publicly endorse the Open slate in a move that showed a complete lack of trust for the Gingrich delegates. Their stated objective was to give proportional representation to the various campaigns – except the Romney camp. For them to do that without acknowledging the minority of the Gingrich delegates would have demonstrated the hypocrisy of their stated goal. In short, they needed us more than we needed them, so we felt kind of cheesed that our arms were being twisted for concessions before they would let us come on board with their slate. The national Gingrich campaign specifically ordered their local chairman not to support or endorse the Open slate, so the support you got was completely grass-roots, and to my knowledge the Gingrich supporters that I was in communication with all voted the Open slate for at least the first two rounds of voting.

    In the end, the Gingrich delegation that was selected to go to State was roughly proportional to the Gingrich representation in the straw poll. Without the tactics I and others used to get that result, there probably would have been no Gingrich representation selected. Call it what you will, the system worked. This sort of thing is exactly why we have a republic instead of democracy; so that the little guys don’t get steamrollered by the majority. The Romney people felt that they could ride their majority wave without consideration for the other campaigns, and chose not to negotiate a more just settlement, and they paid the price for their hubris.

    Like

  8. Those who “take exception” may, of course, feel free to do so. But in the end, Romney’s people were out-thought. out-organized and out-executed… altogether typical of the establishment GOP.

    That Romney’s people MAY have been the ones to first do this PUBLICLY, the efforts of the Paulistinian’s to merely block Romney and result in a brokered convention on some delusional effort to actually think that whack job had a chance, is both well known and had already been established days before our convention here.

    Romney’s people were simply overwhelmed. And in the end, the result was purely systemic and in no way anything close to a true reflection of what the Republicans of this state wanted or had indicated in the caucuses.

    This wasn’t about democracy or representation. This was about gaming the system to take over a state that no more supports Paul than it can levitate.

    The Paulbots examined our system, found the weaknesses, explouited them brilliantly and thanks to the typical ineptitude of the Romney effort in this state, may have achieved their goal… although the likelihood of losing all the delegates from the 18th won’t help.

    And if they can’t take over the convention on day one, it’s likely those delegates will not be seated.

    Like

  9. Sean, it sounds like you endorsed the slate long enough to get elected by a faithful body of people who had to kick out one of their own to make room for you, and then once elected, you reverted back to endorsing the establishment slate. I believe there was at least one Paul person who was one vote short of getting elected in the 49th, and instead that spot went to a Romney supporter. So did you vote the Unity slate after getting elected by the Paul people? Those are pretty underhanded tactics, my friend. Your argument about proportional delegates is nonsense. There is no obligation to include a less relevant candidate, the inclusion was a matter of good faith, which it sounds like you broke. I will let you answer, but if that is true, your name is probably mud henceforth, and I would advise you to really enjoy the state convention, because it could be awhile before you get there again. Nobody likes a traitor.

    Like

  10. Good call to leave the monkey as the header on this one Lew…

    Silly Paulistians….

    Like

  11. What I got from the convention, and from the comments on this series of articles Lew, is that the Clark County Republican Party should have had the Ron Paul supporters run the whole shooting match. Then it might have been organized, by the rules, and true to intent.

    A word of advice Lew. It doesn’t serve you to consistently make claims of neutrality, distance, or “not having a dog in this hunt, involved in the challenge or not, when you clearly, vociferously, and prolifically advocating for a specific and particular outcome. It only serves to quash your credibility.

    This is also true of your insistence that wrongdoing can be evidenced by the “Paulbots” being organized, strategically minded, knowledgeable of the rules, and best of all carrying “the books”, and referencing them during proceedings! (Shudder!). These are not evidence of manipulation or wrongdoing, they’re QUALIFICATIONS! They should be documented, studied, and used as educational material for how it should be done in the future.

    As a journalist, your articles are as informative, pointed, and objective an anything the mainstream media could ever cook up. You could just use a little practice not citing information that even minimal examination will highlight the shortcomings of your article. I would have left out the video link, as it immediately raises questions like what was the result of the head count?

    As a Santorum supporter, (none of them gott me exited this time), I’ll have to choke down a Romney vote in November, but honestly these articles, and your comments have raised my support for Ron Paul considerably! Despite your arguments that it’s now time to unite behind Romney, I respectfully disagree.

    Nothing in the last 50 years has done more to bring a beam of conservative enlightenment to “independent”, liberal, and college age progressive liberal enclaves, than the Ron Paul Campaign. Most of the criticisms of Ron Paul supporters, are criticisms of LIBERAL ACTIVIST Paulites, acting as they usually do. Did you see all the Ron Paul signs during all the “Occupy” BS? There are literally millions of people out there that would otherwise never even been exposed, much less think about conservative ideologies. They’ve been brainwashed since public education “birth, if not by their parents, to not even consider listening, lest they be labeled ignorant, backwards, racist, sexist, homophobic, 18th century, morons.

    Paul and his minions have broken past the walls of fear and brainwashing, precisely at a time when dissatisfaction among liberals with the Democratic party is at an all time high. This is comparable to 1968 when a sitting Dem President chose not to run due to the unpopularity of the Democratic Party, just a few years after his party had reached unprecedented levels of public approval on the coattails of Kennedy and his assassination.

    I think an ideal strategy would be to incorporate salient parts of the Paul platform, in Paul language, (there’s plenty to work with), States rights / anti-federal oppression, small government, lower taxes, constitutionalism, all of which have mass appeal to the tea party and traditional conservatives, and either get him to back Romney, or run Paul as a third party candidate all the way to 6 weeks before the election, with Paul declaring support for Romney at that time. Whether such a deal could be brokered….

    This would result in Democratic support for Paul, (expending available resources), as they tried to split the Republican vote, while keeping the Paul support alive in their own radical party fringes, making it more difficult to demonize Romney’s platform. Hopefully the stability of Paul’s positions would help Republicans like me, (and there are many), having difficulty believing anything Romney includes in his platform, since any conservative position or promise would be a 180 degree flip/flop from his very recent and well known record, not to mention the public appearances and rhetoric used.

    If there weren’t so many gullible shallow Republicans who vote as if it were a popularity contest, and if there weren’t so much opposition to Obama, I’d say we have the same problem we had last time when we lost to Obama. A candidate that absolutely won’t energize the republican base, nor clearly uphold their ideals. Our only hope is that Obama can energize the Republican base enough to pull it off.

    Like

  12. Truth, if you think Ron Paul is God’s is gift, I feel sorry for you.

    I am openly opposed to Ron Paul, have been for years. Funny how your email is “libsrnazi” and you fail to see what he is pulling and ya’ll are supporting is very similar to how Hitler gained a foothold in the early 1930’s Germany. You might have to put down the bong and study some history to see that, though.

    What goes on in the 18th is what goes on there, I don’t live in the 18th. If you cannot see how that leaves me with no dog in that hunt, again, your problem.

    What you all fail to grasp in your pipe dream delegate grab attempts, delegates are not the national voters. In 3 tries, Ron Paul has not energized enough voters or support, regardless of vociferous you Paulbots are, to win a single primary. Not one in 3 campaigns.

    His message has been heard loud and clear in all 3 campaigns and solidly rejected by a majority of voters.

    Forcing him onto the ticket will guarantee Obama gets a second term, just as Ross Perot’s 2 runs did for Clinton.

    If Ron Paul has been unable to win even one small state primary in 3 campaigns, how do you expect him to win a majority of the national vote?

    Ron Paul has gotten how many original bills passed in his 30 years in office? Zero!

    If congress doesn’t agree with him throughout 30 years, what can he accomplish as president? Nothing, unless he decides to be a dictator and bypass congress, which would blow his claims of constitutionality right out the window.

    As I have said many times now, the only thing worse than beating a dead horse, is placing bets on one to win the race.

    I am offended that you wish to label me a “journalist.” I am no such thing, never studied journalism, never wrote anything for a living.

    I make no journalist claims and in fact, I am retired mechanic, blue collar as can be.

    Like

  13. “Truth” if you’re going to lecture anyone about credibility, let ’em drop and do it in your own name.

    Buh-bye. Back to the basement you go.

    Paulistinians……

    Like

  14. Nice Lew,

    You blocked me for standing up against the corruption in the party regardless of office or candidate.

    And you never said how you felt about Buckley changing the GOP beginning in ’62.

    You’ve got my email…

    Jack

    Like

  15. Deal with it.

    I have neither the time nor inclination any longer to deal with mind numbed Paulbots.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: