GOP chairman: 2016 caucus vote makes state relevant in national election

By ROBERT AUGUSTINE
Nelson County Republican Party Chairman

ROBERT AUGUSTINE

Monday, Aug. 31, 2015, 9 a.m. — On Saturday, Aug. 22 the Republican State Central Committee (RSCC), a group made up of 350 statewide members, met to debate and vote on new rules for the Kentucky GOP. As Nelson County’s Republican Chairman, I am a voting member of that committee. I’d like to discuss the upcoming March 5, 2016, caucus and explain my related votes. In the near future, we’ll examine some of the other rule changes a little more in depth, specifically those regarding party reorganization, as well as to keep everyone updated in regards to the March caucus.

The prominent issue dealt with during last week’s four-hour meeting was whether or not to change the method in which Republicans choose their presidential candidate from a primary to a caucus. A key subtopic of that discussion dealt with funding.

Senator Rand Paul has pledged to pay for the caucus, however, some committee members were less than comfortable with a simple pledge. National Committeeman Mike Duncan put forth an amendment that stating that if $250,000 isn’t deposited in the Republican Party of Kentucky’s account by Sept. 18, the caucus would automatically be cancelled and we would revert back to a primary. I trust Senator Paul to keep his word, but I voted yes to this amendment from an accountability standpoint.

A two-thirds majority of the SRCC was required to give the go ahead on the amended March 5, 2016 caucus. A motion was made to subject the vote to secret ballot, which would be the only secret ballot of dozens of votes held during the meeting. I believe the motion was designed so that each member could vote his or her conscience without intimidation from party leaders. Although I understand that philosophy and believe there is often good reason for secret ballot, I feel like as members we were elected to represent and be accountable to a constituency. I voted no to the motion for a secret ballot, but the motion overwhelmingly passed.

The caucus vote was the final business of the day. By secret ballot, I voted yes. The caucus needed 98 votes for the required two-thirds to pass; it received 111.

NOT THE IOWA CAUCUS. On Sunday, the Kentucky Secretary of State issued a release stating that the caucus would “disenfranchise over 1.2 million Republican voters.” This is simply inaccurate. In fact, the caucus is expected to increase the number of voters who turn out to vote for their presidential preference.

Unlike caucuses in other states, a voter will have no reason to attend an all-day meeting to register his or her presidential preference. There is no public voting, no debate, and no atmosphere for intimidation. Kentucky Republicans will have six hours — 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. — on Saturday March 5, 2016, to cast a ballot.

If anything, voting will actually matter. Since 2000 Republican turnout in Kentucky’s May primary has been under 20 percent and as low as 12 percent. By moving the date forward from May to March, Kentucky Republicans will have a chance to play a role in selecting our presidential nominee. In addition, the vote is more heavily weighted because candidates who claim 5% or more of the vote will have delegates distributed to them proportionally rather than the “winner-take-all” method associated with a traditional primary.

MILITARY VOTERS. A Kentucky caucus simply would have never passed if there were not a method for overseas military absentee voting. Any active military member stationed abroad may vote absentee. The state party is going one step further in talking about developing a method in which overseas military personnel can vote electronically.

In addition, the rules call for absentee voting for any of the following scenarios: a voter will be absent from their county on the day of the caucus; a caucus location has not been established in a voter’s county; a voter is age 70 or older on the date of the caucus; a voter has a medical condition or disability, or has admission to or residence at a healthcare facility that creates an undue hardship to vote; or the voter is a student who does not reside in the county in which his or her voter registration record is filed.

ADDRESSING CRITICISM. Granted, there are some criticisms surrounding the lead-up to the caucus idea. One is that all of this is all about Rand Paul. I’ll admit that, If Senator Paul had not decided to run for President and Senate during the same year, and if state law would have allowed it, it is highly doubtful Kentucky would have become a caucus state. That said, had the Kentucky GOP not carefully crafted a good inclusive caucus plan, considered by the Republican National Committee to be the best in the nation, and a funding mechanism had not been put in place, the caucus would have likely failed on Saturday.

A separate criticism is that the caucus is politicized, centered around support for Rand Paul. But, the same methodology may also be offered to some of the criticisms. Did some members vote for the measure simply because of support for Rand Paul? Likely. Did some vote against simply because of their lack of support for the senator? Probably. But judging from the debate, most members of the SRCC looked at it from the point of what is best for the party, and the potential to make Kentucky relevant was by far the most attractive part of the proposal.

I think it’s important for people to stop and consider the fact that the U.S. Constitution sets the eligibility requirements for candidates for both President and Senate, and states cannot modify those requirements by placing other barriers to the ballot. In essence, Sen. Paul has asked for a caucus and agreed to pay for it because the Democratic controlled House of Representatives in Kentucky denied him the same right other Americans have been free to exercise in their home states when their names have appeared on ballots as candidates for both Senate and President of the United States.

It has also been said that Rand Paul is trying to “buy an election.” Senator Paul can fund the caucus, but he can’t buy the results. Furthermore, Paul’s commitment to ensure that the caucus is funded is not really that different than what happens routinely in politics. Elected officials and candidates routinely raise money for and transfer money to the party. What is a bit different is that this money is earmarked for a slightly different party activity than we are typically used too.

The costs have been estimated to run between $250,000 and $500,000. Because a caucus is new to Kentucky, it is nearly impossible to budget the actual costs. In the end, the central committee looked at it from the point of view that without the funding commitment from Senator Paul, a caucus would have been impossible and Kentucky Republicans would remain irrelevant in the Presidential nomination process. With the funding commitment from Senator Paul this year, the state party could more carefully project costs and make a determination of whether or not to continue the caucus process for future presidential elections.

-30-