A Deeper Dive on the New RNC Rules Subcommittee

It is perhaps premature to start talking about the implications of the newly created subcommittee that the RNC Standing Committee on Rules created last week to reexamine the party's rules regarding its presidential nomination process. There are, after all, no recommendations on the table yet; no formal proposal for reform large or small. All we have is a list of member names and one informal discussion to go on here. And the details of the latter are quite limited. At this point, that is not really all that surprising. There is still a year before the RNC will finalize the rules, so it is an ongoing process.

Still, there is a bit of tea-leaf reading that can be done in this case about what may emerge from this group's efforts and go before the full Rules Committee and possibly the full RNC. At its most basic level, there should be some line of inquiry about the 17 folks on the subcommittee. I mean, are we talking about a slew of establishment types, a bunch of Paulites or something in between? The make up of the group has some bearing on what rules changes -- if any -- it is likely to recommend.

Though it is perhaps a crude measure, FHQ is of the opinion that the roll call vote the Rules Committee had at its April spring meeting on Morton Blackwell's package of amendments is an initially good lens through which to examine the new subcommittee. Recall that the Virginia national committeeman's laundry list of changes to the rules that came out of the Tampa convention would have essentially reversed course and have reverted the rules to their 2012 nomination state. Further, that vote was a narrow victory (28-25) for the establishment, rejecting a return to the old rules. On some level, then, this vote is a pretty good proxy for a change back (grassroots)/stay the same (establishment) set of camps involved in any future subcommittee discussions.

First, let's have a look at the membership: The RNC member's state-level position is in parentheses. The vote on the the Blackwell amendment package -- where a Yes vote means changing the rules back -- as well as any other notes about the member's proximity to either the establishment or grassroots camp is also included where available.

• Bruce Ash (AZ national committeeman; Rules Committee chair) -- Yes on Blackwell.
• Shawn Steele (CA national committeeman) -- Yes on Blackwell.
• Randy Evans (GA national committeeman) -- No on Blackwell.
• Carol Mumford (RI national committeewoman) -- No on Blackwell; opposed some Tampa rules changes; supported Minority Report; endorsed Romney during the 2012 primaries.
• Henry Barbour (MS national committeeman) -- No on Blackwell; endorsed Romney during the 2012 primaries; co-author of the Growth and Opportunity Project Report.
• Bob Bennett (OH national committeeman) -- No on Blackwell; architect of 2008 Ohio Plan compromise to reform the Republican primary process; member of 2009-10 Temporary Delegate Selection Committee.
• Enid Mickelsen (UT national committeewoman) -- No on Blackwell.
• Solomon Yue (OR national committeeman) -- Yes on Blackwell; faced the ire of Paul backers in Oregon in 2012; worked to cut a deal with Paul faction on Rules Committee at RNC spring meeting in LA.
• Steve Duprey (NH national committeeman) -- No on Blackwell.
• Pat Rogers (NM national committeeman) -- No on Blackwell.
• Steve Munisteri (TX state party chair) -- Yes on Blackwell.
• Jeff Kent (WA national committeeman) -- No on Blackwell.
• Peter Feaman (FL national committeeman) -- Yes on Blackwell; was talk that Romney campaign removed from Republican National Convention Rules Committee; but was working with Romney/making the case for seating a full Florida delegation in Tampa.
• James Smack (NV national committeeman) -- Yes on Blackwell; has taken up the Ron Paul banner in the past; but has something of a pragmatic streak as well.
• Reince Priebus (RNC chair) -- n/a
• Louis Pope (MD national committeeman, RNC vice chair) -- No on Blackwell.
• Demetra Demonte (IL national committeewoman, RNC secretary) -- No on Blackwell.
• John Ryder (TN national committeeman, RNC general counsel) -- No on Blackwell.

That's ten No votes and seven Yes votes on the Blackwell package of amendments, plus any vote Chairman Priebus may have in the subcommittee process in the future. The reason that vote is a crude proxy is that there were a host of changes in there. Some of those Yes votes may have been for part of the changes specifically rather than the entire package. Once or if that is disaggregated and individual changes are dealt with in the subcommittee setting, some of those votes -- on either side -- could change.

Still, this is a rough proxy. We know, for instance, that the establishment position has the upper hand based on the numbers above. We have that as a baseline and know that the full group fits the "somewhere in between" distinction described earlier. That points toward some changes being made to the current set of rules, but not necessarily a fundamental rewriting of them or reversion to the 2012 model.

Recent Posts:
DNC's Turn at Presidential Nomination Rules This Week in Scottsdale

How Can a National Party Manage or Control Presidential Primary Debates?

June Conventions?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.