About the neverending Texas State Republican Convention, (see part I and part II) I
don’t know whether the report of the Platform Committee will ever happen. It
would normally happen on Friday and Saturday of a convention weekend—usually the
last major piece of business. But this year’s convention was anything but
normal.
The Eventual
Schedule
Thursday was a full day of delay because of technical
difficulties related to doing a planned in-person convention suddenly online.
All contingency plans that had been underway for months turned out to be
inadequate, especially when you add denial-of-service attacks into the mix.
Thursday evening an emergency meeting of the State Republican Executive
Committee—the SREC: two representatives from each of the 31 senatorial districts—made
the decision to postpone all business until Saturday morning and try to do all
that would have happened Thursday through Saturday instead on Saturday and
Sunday.
That might have worked, if everything had gone smoothly. But
online issues continued. Even people who had been able to participate in
earlier meetings were shut out of later meetings. Congressional District (CD) and
then Senatorial District (SD) caucus meetings went late into the night.
The Permanent Platform Committee would normally have met on
Thursday. Instead, most committee members drove home that day. And Friday we
were on hold. Then we had to be ready to go all day Saturday, adjusting each
time the schedule got pushed back. We eventually met at 9:00 AM, under a tight
timeline; we were supposed to present the final report at noon on Sunday.
The online meeting of the Platform Committee was livestreamed. Screenshot from here |
Online meetings are difficult to begin with. There was the
added difficulty that SD caucuses met late Saturday night—at which time they
elected permanent committee members. During mine, my computer froze and I was
unable to vote, although we made all temporary committee members permanent, so
I didn’t feel disenfranchised. That was a personal technical issue not caused
by the convention’s typical issues, most of which did not affect me.
Anyway, not all of the SD reports got to the committee chair
in time. So invitations for the Sunday morning Zoom meeting went out to the
temporary committee members—without the knowledge that some of them had been
replaced for the permanent committee. Three people showed up who shouldn’t have
been there, and three people didn’t immediately get the invitation when they
should have. When that was straightened out, we hadn’t gone much beyond roll
call. There was debate about a plank, with amendments proposed by a temporary
committee member who did not belong there—and she knew she did not belong but acted
as if she had authorization.
There was a need for a break for technical reasons—because the
livestream wasn’t yet working. During the break, that huge membership issue was
corrected, new members were welcomed, and business backed up to the debate of
that plank. The original plank was proposed again; the friendly amendment was
proposed again and accepted. And the amendment, by the unauthorized committee
member who was attempting to infuse LGBT sensibilities to the plank—insisting that
the Republican Party was leaving her out—was not proposed. I suspect it was her
push for LGBT issues throughout the process that got her replaced by her SD.
There were only a handful of planks and amendments that got
handled in permanent committee, and then testimony was taken. The committee had
been told there would be no time for testimony, but then complaints about that
being against the rules pressed for inviting testimony. I’m glad. I think
testimony is an essential element of the process, although it’s not nearly as
easy to accomplish online as in person. Time was supposed to be limited to 20
minutes. With getting started, plus additions to the time added, testimony took
up about 45 minutes.
Much of the meeting looked like this, with the document shared on the screen. Screenshot from here |
At that point we were already supposed to be getting ready
for the report in the general session. And at that point, my challenge is to
make the document ready for floor debate (strikes and edits removed, make the
document clean—and we still hadn’t had the opportunity for a full careful edit).
Anyway, the meeting handled maybe one more proposed
amendment before the meeting was called to close. There were issues people felt
strongly about and wanted to handle (an issue I’ll talk about below) that may end
up in a minority report—an alternate platform version—which is a fairly rare
thing usually handled during floor debate.
General session was postponed from noon until around 4:00
PM. Eventually all committees except Rules and Platform were able to give their
reports. And then an hour or more was spent on a proposal to postpone all
except the essential business of another SD caucus to some future day, to be
determined by some ad hoc committee chosen by the body. (I never saw the
choosing happen. While I was watching, the RPT people were handling an
onslaught of suggested names—nearly as many as there were delegates—which was yet
another denial-of-service attack. How and when that got resolved, I did not
see.)
Technical problems were disenfranchising too many in my SD,
so we did not gavel in that night; we met around 10:00 AM Monday, getting our
voting for State Party Chair and Vice Chair done hours after the vote was in
(from the SDs that met Sunday night, and all the way up until 5:00 AM, I heard)
and the winners declared. So our vote was irrelevant. But we did get to choose
our SREC members, which was important business.
That left Platform and Rules on hold. Yesterday we got word
that the ad hoc committee has recommended that these two reports will be
approved “pending 60% line-by-line voting by the delegates.” This will be done
by a “Survey Monkey-style” survey to delegates and alternates, allowing three
days for completion. This will include the proposed language of the Minority
Report.
There will be no floor debate. No ability to amend. No ability
to add any planks or language. I don’t know if this can be done without a legal
challenge, but it might be the best reasonable compromise, since there’s no
guarantee that a newly scheduled online meeting won’t meet with the same
denial-of-service attacks and resulting credentialing issues that caused the
original delay. Any way you look at it, people have been disenfranchised
.
Now, on to the content discussion.
Pandemic
Response
The pandemic is on everyone’s minds. There are several new
planks related to lockdowns and pandemic response. It was my impression,
reading through the resolutions that came in, that just about every subcommittee
got proposed ideas related to pandemic response. But two new planks came out of
Constitutional Issues and three came out of Health and Human Services. I think
you can tell Texas Republicans really don’t like our inalienable rights to be
alienated. Platform planks of course do not have the power of law; they are
intended to direct our elected officials in what we want the law to say.
Constitutional Issues
Lockdowns Never
Again: The Republican
Party of Texas calls upon our elected officials to never again implement mass
lockdowns on the people, our businesses, and churches in the name of
communicable disease response; nor should Texas officials ever again presume
they know better how to treat or prioritize the medical treatment of Texans and
to make command and control edicts that dictate to healthcare providers how to
do their job. We oppose funding or implementation of any form of contact
tracing.
Limit Executive
Power: In the event the
State Executive Branch activates the emergency powers for a disaster, the
Legislature will automatically be convened two weeks later for a session to
take up whatever matters deemed necessary for the Legislature.
Health and Human Services
Contact Tracing: We strongly oppose contact tracing,
tracking, or surveillance, and we also strongly oppose any action similar to
the federal TRACE Act. Contract tracing, tracking, or surveillance or not core
functions of public health. No government entity, nor private entity, nor
combination thereof, nor the Texas National Guard, shall ever be employed to
violate the natural rights of Texans.
Pandemic Release: The Republican Party Texas opposes
the release of convicted felons from prison due to a risk of infection within
the prison system during a pandemic.
Pandemic Business Fines: The RPT supports prohibiting
fines or imprisonment of business owners for operating their business during
pandemics and call for the legislature to pass these protections into law.
Convention
of the States
The Minority Report, which I haven’t seen, I believe will
relate to the Convention of States plank. This has been a plank for some
time. But the Texas Legislature accomplished its call for an Article 5
Convention of States two sessions ago (if I’m right, it was in 2017). Our
platform is long, and one thing that can be done is remove planks that are no
longer needed, because the legislature wrote it into law. That’s on a
case-by-case basis, because sometimes the law only accomplishes in part, and
sometimes the party wants to keep proclaiming the idea, even though it is law
in Texas. For example, I think we’ll always say that we want Texas free from any
state income tax, even though that is the law—just in case some future
legislative body isn’t aware of our absolute declaration against it. But sometimes
we can delete a plank. For example, in 2018 we had a plank called Abby’s Law,
referring to a woman who testified at convention about the need for swift
processing of sexual assault evidence (rape kits). The law was passed in 2019,
so this year’s platform doesn’t include it.
About the Article V plank: in 2018, even though the legislation
had been passed, it was recent, and the platform committee didn’t
want to delete the idea that the Republican Party supported it. So the wording
was changed from calling for it to reaffirming our support for it:
Article V Convention of
States: We reaffirm our
support for our Texas State Legislators’ call for a limited Article V
Convention of States for the specific purpose of reducing the power of the
federal government, including fiscal responsibility, balanced budget, and term
limits. Any proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the
states.
This time around an odd thing happened. It was expected that
there would be a decision about whether to still keep this reaffirming language
or not, since it wasn’t necessary to say this many years after it was accomplished.
Either in or out, Texas is one of the states calling for a convention of the
states.
But in subcommittee it got turned around entirely. Some temporary
committee members were against the Convention of States and were attempting to
convince everyone of its danger, to call for the Texas legislature to undo—rescind—their
call for it. While I know people of goodwill on both sides of this issue, I
would not say that the rescind side actually represents the will of a strong contingent
of Republican voters, let alone a majority. In other words, the call to rescind
was the opinion of a relatively small faction. Here’s their wording:
Article V Convention of States: We support the
rescission of the State of Texas application to Congress for a convention under
article V for proposing amendments to change the current limits on federal
spending, jurisdiction, and terms of office. Our Constitution is the firewall
guarding our unalienable rights – but it is a document, not self-enforcing. We
petition our elected officials at all levels to support, enforce, and give
effect to the Constitution and to Interpose between The People and the federal
government, as required under Article VI, and resist any efforts to enforce it
via changes. This is the remedy espoused by James Madison to “runaway
government.”
Article VI is added in, and various other things. Here’s
where politics comes in. What I believe happened was this: the temporary committee people who favored the rescind
idea planned, got themselves appointed (usually this happens by volunteering to
whoever handled the platform at the SD level), and then expressed interest in
the Constitutional Issues subcommittee, where they could put forth their ideas
and persuade the rest of the subcommittee.
Their SDs were made aware—because the Convention of States
people were paying attention—and those temporary committee members were replaced Saturday
night at their respective SD caucuses. Then, in the Sunday morning meeting, the
debate was to delete the plank—the rescind version above. That passed, meaning
no Article 5 plank remaining. But there was confusion by some on the committee,
because they thought that this would automatically mean it would revert to the
2018 wording. With more time for debate, that could have happened. A proposal
could have been made to add a plank containing the 2018 wording. But the motion to delete happened just before the break to begin testimony. And the short time before
close of meeting after testimony didn’t allow for it.
Again, with or without, Texas has already expressed its
favor for a Convention of States by passing the legislation. And we haven’t
changed that in any official expression. Removal of that plank from the 2020 platform can be seen as
just housekeeping. But I believe the Minority Report is asking to restore the
2018 wording.
I was concerned that, bringing it up during floor debate
would open an opportunity to the rescind people to express their message to the
whole crowd, and it might do more harm than good to the Convention of States
cause. (Personally, I lean slightly in favor of COS, but with some
reservations. I have experts to turn to, but I don’t know for certain that it
is safe. Mark Levin’s book on this issue is on my reading list. There’s
time while we wait for additional states to make their call.)
However, the way it stands, being able to bring it up in a
survey, without floor debate, may just accomplish what Convention of States
people want without the downside of a floor debate.
Notes I scribble to myself to document each editorial change as I make it permanent, collaborating with the committee chair. Glamorous work, I know. |
As for my work, it’s nearly done. I was finally able to do a
careful edit this week, and go through each and every jot and tittle with the
committee chair. There are still a few questions outstanding, where I’m waiting
for feedback. Meanwhile that latest edited version is available for viewing on
the convention website, as it has been all along (with some formatting problems
inherent in Google Docs that look perfectly fine in the master document in
Word). I hope when/if they do the survey, it is using the post-careful-edit
version, instead of the quick and dirty one the RPT has had in hand since
Sunday afternoon in anticipation of floor debate.
What I thought was going to be a week-long commitment has
eaten up much of my month. And that was with the help of a good team. So I’d like this neverending convention to be over.
If you still find errors in the final product, please forgive me. But I think
it’s worth reading. And, if you find an issue you’re passionate about, consider
doing some citizen lobbying when we get to the next legislative session, just a
half a year away.
No comments:
Post a Comment