After 18 years as a CRP delegate and Executive Committee member, two terms as CRP Vice Chairman Central, a term as CRP Treasurer and the past 4 years on the CRP Rules Committee, I’ll have to admit, many CRP convention agendas don’t inspire me to attend. In fact, if there is nothing interesting going on, in many cases I no longer attend conventions. But because the Party was considering, through the Rules Committee, a way to endorse candidates and select nominees in a post Prop 14 era, I thought I would make the trek to Sacramento to weigh in and be a part of the process this past weekend.
My mission: make sure any plan passing the Rules Committee included no special protection for incumbent legislators.
I left Fresno Friday morning as a strong supporter of the Nehring plan. Here is the language I liked:
(K) DISTRICTS WITH A REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT SEEKING RE-ELECTION TO SAME OFFICE. In Districts where and incumbent legislator or Congressman has filed for re-election to the same office, the Board of Directors may elect that candidate the nominee unless during the term for which they were the incumbent he or she (a) voted for a tax increase as scored by the Legislative Analyst, (b) voted to put a tax increase on the ballot as scored by the Legislative Analyst, (c) voted against an official position of the Caucus, (d) endorsed or supported a non – Republican candidate for an elected office.
Perfect. I’m all in. I told Chairman Nehring and everyone else that I would not vote for any plan that protected incumbents, and this plan delivered. There were some other problems with it, but I believed those could be fixed.
Friday night, in a vote of the Rules Committee, the language I have highlighted above in red was stricken. I voted no, along with Mike Spence and Tom Hudson. I didn’t see any other no votes. In my mind at that time, Nehring’s plan was dead on arrival, and I told all the conservative principals exactly that.
The language that replaced that provision is as follows in version 1.05 of the Nehring plan:
(A) DISTRICTS WITH A REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT SEEKING RE-ELECTION TO THE SAME OFFICE. Nine months prior to the close off filing, any incumbent legislator, statewide elected official, member of Congress, United States Senator, or member of the State Board of Equalization seeking re-election to the same office my request an early nomination. Any such request shall be conveyed to the Board of Directors. If no director objects within 30 days of receipt thereof, then such incumbent will be deemed the nominee. In the event of an objection, the Board of Directors shall vote on such nomination and may elect such incumbent as the nominee by majority vote. The Board of Directors may withdraw a nomination by a two thirds votes.
Voila! Incumbent protection. I knew that the State Party Board, even in a case where a GOP legislator voted to raise taxes, would never not endorse an incumbent. They would be pressured by legislative leaders, the shadowy donor community, and party moderates to endorse every GOP incumbent, and they would certainly comply. As a matter of fact, the State Party sat back and watched Arnold Schwarzenegger and a handful of Republicans raise taxes and pass horrific budgets for seven straight years and said nothing about it. History is a great predictor of the future.
So I went with the Spence plan, which for 2012 I don’t like, because it essentially allows this election to take place under Prop14 rules. In 2014 and 2016 we have a better chance of having a rationale system involving GOP voters endorsing and selecting our nominees. The Spence substitute amendment passed 10-8. Had I voted no, it would have been 9-9 and I am not sure what Rules Chair Mike Osborn would have done.
The CRP needs to begin the process of asserting more independence from the GOP members of the State and Federal legislature. The only way it can do that is to draw a line in the sand on incumbent protection, and start to raise its own money, rather than relying on a handful of "donors" that seem to want more control of the party than they should. Absent that, the CRP will continue to be merely a subsidiary of those whose interests can at times be very antithetical to the essential tenants of the Party. Spence’s plan had the only solution to address that issue.