Another unbelievable idea just came out of Washington, D.C. A majority of the D.C. Council and Mayor Muriel Boswer are planning to allow 16- and 17 year-old “people” to vote in presidential and all other federal elections.(Note that they don’t seem to limit it to “citizens.”)

The D.C. Council isn’t the only locality that considers this a great idea. Takoma Park, Maryland, a D.C. suburb, began in 2013 to allow 16-year-olds to vote in municipal elections. They have been followed by a few other cities including – why am I not surprised – Berkeley, California.

The only member of the Takoma Park city council who voted against lowering the voting age there, Fred Schultz, has not changed his mind. He says, “The vast, vast majority of 16- and 17-year-olds simply lack common sense.”

As a former college professor, I can assure you that there are many intellectual and maturity differences between 17- and 18-year-old freshmen students and 21-year-old seniors. Let me quickly add that I have met many thoughtful, mature high school students, but not enough. We can’t write a law that only applies to the thoughtful and mature. It would also apply to those who have not yet learned what it means to take responsibility for their own lives (as can be seen in some of our citizens who already have the right to vote).

Some of the arguments I’ve read for allowing 16-year-olds to vote show a lack of the kind of understanding necessary to comprehend the issues on which they would be voting. One supporter said that if a 16-year-old is old enough to make his own choices and live his own life, then he should have the right to vote. Well that argument cuts out almost all American 16-year-olds – the ones who still live under their parents’ roof, who eat their parents’ food, and who expect their parents (or the government) to pay for college.

One opponent noted, “The mental capacity of the brain of a teenager is not fully developed until the age of 25 according to the World Health Organisation (sic). The brain isn’t fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.” Think about it. The Democratic D.C. Council thinks less maturity is required to vote than to rent a car.

Another opponent wrote “They don’t know what it’s like to own property by themselves or pay taxes on that property. They aren’t experienced enough.” I agree that until you have to take responsibility for your own life, you don’t have the experience to cast a responsible vote.

A teenage opponent said, “I am 16, and I strongly feel that we are too easily persuaded by our friends and family to make a decision on our own. I know many people my age would vote for some extremist parties just because they lack knowledge of our diverse society.”

The D.C. Council gives the usual “feel good” reasons for lowering the age, but NBC News puts it pretty bluntly. “If they vote like their slightly older peers, who lean overwhelmingly liberal,the change could be a boon for Democrats.”

Since the Democrats can’t seem to get enough votes from thinking, adult citizens, they are resorting to getting votes from illegal aliens, immature teens, and anyone else – dead or alive – who can be swayed to vote for them for reasons that have nothing to do with their ridiculous policies.

The safety factor here is that Congress can veto any law that the D.C. Council passes – provided Republicans retain control of the House and Senate. The not so good news is that similar bills have already been introduced in Minnesota and Georgia among other states. So far, none has passed.

This is all just further reason for us to work on telling our conservative story to our upcoming generations. We have far too much to lose if we don’t.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

P.S. I was appointed chair of one of the committees for our upcoming convention. The logistics of just my area of responsibility are mindboggling. Imagine everything that is involved in the entire convention. If you are willing to volunteer to help at the convention, please contact secretary@6thdistrictgop.organd let Sandy know. Thanks.

We are required to use “weighted votes” at our District convention in May. Article VIII, Section F of the Virginia Republican State Party Plan reads in part: “In all proceedings at the District level, the relevant Unit shall be entitled to one (1) delegate vote for each 100 to 500 votes…. The exact number shall be decided by the appropriate Official Committee and included in the call.”

In practical terms, that means that the number of voters a unit turns out to vote for the Republican candidates in the last presidential and gubernatorial general elections combined determines the number of “delegate votes” each unit gets to cast at our May 19th convention. The Party Plan says that the total number of votes recorded will be divided by a number between 100 and 500. The result of that formula determines how many “delegate votes” that city/county’s Republican committee (unit) gets to cast at the convention. Since there can be no more than 5 delegates per “delegate vote,” the 6th District Committee decided to award one “delegate vote” for each 100 general election votes. This gave us the most “delegate votes” and allowed for the greatest number of delegates to attend the convention. We appear to have done well since we have certified right at 4200 delegates.

The complete list of unit voting strength is provided on page 2 of our Convention Call. Rockingham and Augusta have the most “delegate votes” with 439 and 434 respectively, and Lexington City has the fewest with 13.

As an example, assume a unit has 100 delegate votes. If 100 delegates came to the convention, each delegate would be able to cast one “delegate vote.” But if 200 delegates checked in from that unit, then each delegate from that unit would only cast one half of a “delegate vote” since there are 200 delegates who must determine how that unit’s 100 “delegate votes” are to be apportioned among the candidates. Likewise, if only 50 delegates checked in to cast the 100 “delegate votes” then each delegate would be responsible for two “delegate votes.” Since the math rarely turns out as cleanly as in my example, fractions of delegate votes will be figured to two decimal places.

Currently, twelve units have certified more delegates than they have “delegate votes,” although four of them are within four delegates of matching there “delegate vote” total. The rest have fewer delegates than “delegate votes,” although one of those is within three.

We will have a lot of ballots to count, and if there are multiple ballots for the Congressional nomination, then we will have to do multiple counts. The process starts with getting the raw data – how many delegates from each unit voted for each candidate. Then we transfer that raw data into a spreadsheet that takes into account how many “delegate votes” each raw vote represents. Then we add up the “delegate votes” as proportioned by the raw votes and use the total to determine the winner, or perhaps who moves on to the next round of balloting.

We are currently looking at several potential methods of doing the balloting. We want the counting process to be relatively quick but to also allow for both accuracy and verifiability. The worst part about conventions is waiting to see the results of each ballot. We are working to make that wait as short as possible, but it won’t hurt to bring a good book just in case.

A friend of mine mentioned to me this week that he didn’t mind waiting around until the late hours of the night to get the final results from the convention, but he is an exception. Most people want to just come, get the job done, and get on with the other necessities of life. Conventions do require an all day commitment, but we who are involved with Convention planning have also made a commitment to make this convention run as smoothly, quickly, openly, and efficiently as possible. We look forward to seeing you there.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

P.S. Some people have accused Scott Sayre of underhanded dealings because the certified delegate lists were sent to him even though he is running for reelection. Apparently the accusers don’t understand that Article VIII, Section H, Paragraph 1(a) of the Party Plan states, “The certifications shall be delivered to the Chairman of the Official Committee….” The Party Plan gave him no options. It required that the certified lists be delivered to him in his capacity as District Chairman. It is a shame that some people have slandered him for obeying rules that were imposed on him by a higher authority.

One of my readers replied to last week’s email with questions about some of the things involved in the “plurality appeal.” I thought the answers might interest everyone, so I’ll provide as many as I can fit into one email.

First, the State Central Committee (SCC) is not a “subcommittee” of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV). The SCC is like the Board of Directors of the RPV. John Whitbeck, John Findlay, and the RPV staff handle day-to-day operations, but the SCC handles policy decisions, approves budgets, etc. So when something percolates up from a local unit or a district committee, it comes to the SCC. It’s sort of like a verdict in a Federal District Court being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. From there it could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the same way, something decided at a local unit could be appealed to a district committee. From there an “aggrieved person” could appeal to the SCC.

The 6^th District Committee denied my son’s appeal regarding the “plurality clause” because 6th District Counsel ruled he did not “have standing,” that he was not a properly “aggrieved person.” Mike would normally have appealed the ruling about “standing” to the SCC, who, if they approved that appeal, would have instructed the 6^th District that he did “have standing” and the District Committee should hear his “plurality” appeal. The outcome of the “plurality” appeal could then have been appealed by an “aggrieved party” back to the SCC. However, because all the appeals could not have been heard prior to the 6^th District Convention, the SCC could and did take up the matter of the “plurality” appeal itself – just as the Supreme Court will sometime make a bigger ruling than the case they are hearing would merit just on the face of it.

If one of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeal makes a ruling, that ruling only applies to the area of the country (the “Circuit”) served by that Court. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it applies to the entire country. In the same way, when the SCC makes a ruling about an issue in one local unit in one district, it applies to every local unit in every district in Virginia. That’s why the ruling SCC made last year that Spotsylvania County’s call had to be followed at their mass meeting mattered here. Even though Spotsylvania is a local unit and not in the 6^th District, the SCC ruling applied to all Republican entities across Virginia. And it superseded the RPV General Counsel opinion from several years ago that said the convention delegates could always determine the rules of the convention.

I cannot speak for why anyone voted for or against plurality at the January 6^th District Committee meeting. I was actually torn because I had good reasons to vote each way. I opted one way; other very good people opted the other way. Nor can I speak for why each of our six SCC representatives voted on March 24^th to remove the plurality clause from the call. I like to think that we all agreed together that the delegates need to make the final decision.

The District Committee meets again this Saturday. We will set up various convention committees including a Rules Committee. The Rules Committee will start with a “boilerplate” set of rules that they may modify to meet our specific situation. We plan to email the proposed rules to our delegates ahead of time so that everyone has time to read through them. I’m certain that the various campaigns will send emails putting this or that slant on this or that rule – depending on which rule each campaign feels would most benefit their candidate. The delegates will have plenty of time to learn what the issues are prior to coming to the convention.

Following parliamentary procedure, delegates can make changes prior to final adoption. Amendments and final adoption would only require a 50% + 1 majority. Understand though, that the RPV requires votes “weighted” by the strength of the Republican vote in each unit, so regardless of how many actual delegates show up from a given unit, that unit still gets a set number of “delegate votes.” This is spelled out on page 2 of the Convention Call. And this is why we ask delegates to provide their email addresses – so that they can get information pertinent to the convention.

So even though there has been a lot of moaning and complaining over the past few months about convention rules, most of it is overt gamesmanship – political maneuvering, trying to make your candidate look good while trying to make the other candidates(s) look bad. I hate that kind of stuff, and hopefully it will start to settle down now. But this is why we need our delegates to come out in full force to make sure that the decisions of the convention reflect the best interests of the people and not the product of backroom deals.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

P.S. Be sure to pray daily that our government leaders will make decisions based on what’s best for the country rather than what’s best for themselves.

The State Central Committee (SCC) of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) met March 24^th in Richmond. I was invited to sit in at the 9:00 Executive Committee meeting, which moved quickly but had few notable moments. The Executive Committee adjourned at 10:00, and we moved directly into the regular SCC meeting where we members expected to deal with four major items.

The first item was a petition to remove SCC member Freddie Burgos (11^th District) for several social media posts the petitioners alleged were detrimental to the Republican Party. Screen shots of Mr. Burgos’ posts had circulated for several weeks. RPV Chairman John Whitbeck told the Executive Committee that since he (Whitbeck) was one of the petitioners, the SCC vice chair would moderate what promised to be a highly charged discussion. Since it was a personnel matter, the SCC went into executive session. The SCC voted to remove Mr. Burgos from the SCC.

I saw some posts afterwards from Burgos supporters that said SCC members were “cowards” for not talking about what happened in executive session. But Robert’s Rules allows members to be disciplined for talking about what happens during an executive session. So the cowardice claims were just another example of angry people claiming they know other people’s motives and then making unfortunate statements.

An appeal by the Fauquier County Republican Committee to overturn the disciplinary finding against them by the 5^th Congressional District Committee was withdrawn prior to the SCC meeting. Fauquier said that the appeal was moot since they would reconstitute their unit at a mass meeting in two weeks anyway. Another SCC member suggested it was really because in the intrigues that go on before meetings such as this, the Fauquier folks were not able to drum up enough support to get their appeal approved. Either way we got an early lunch.

After lunch we took up an appeal filed by my son, Mike. Mike had filed an appeal with the 6^th District Committee asking that the paragraph in our Convention Call requiring that the convention use a plurality vote be stricken from the call. The District’s legal counsel ruled that Mike did not have “proper standing” to make an appeal. Mike appealed that ruling to the SCC. The appeal was filed so close to the SCC meeting that when Chairman Sayre was asked to respond to the appeal, he had not even seen the documents to which he was supposed to respond.

I have been working behind the scenes since January to make sure that the delegates would decide the actual method of voting at the convention. During the appeal discussion, a RPV General Counsel opinion from several years ago was mentioned. It stated that the convention delegates always had the last say. However, one SCC member pointed out that last year the SCC after much discussion had ruled that Spotsylvania’s mass meeting had to abide by their call, and that decision would supersede the GC opinion. With that, the SCC by a nearly 3-1 margin voted to approve the appeal and strike the “plurality paragraph” from the 6^th District convention call. All six of the 6^th District SCC members – Nate Boyer, Anne Fitzgerald, Scott Sayre, Joe Sonsmith, Carrie Thompson, and I – voted in favor of the appeal so that convention delegates would have the final say. [Contrary to press releases from Chaz Haywood and others, the SCC did NOT require the convention to use a majority vote. We only made sure that the delegates get to make the decision at the convention – which has been my point all along.]

The final item of interest was a proposal by Establishment-wing leader and SCC Vice Chairman Mike Thomas to institute a policy whereby the RPV would dictate to the districts and units how to distribute their delegate lists. Many SCC members including Scott Sayre argued in favor of establishing guidelines since there currently are none. However, those guidelines need to be in the Party Plan where it takes a ¾ vote to make changes rather than in a “policy” that can be changed on a whim by a simple majority of whomever holds sway in the SCC at the moment. The issue was never whether to develop a set of consistent guidelines, but how to go about it. The wiser option prevailed because the policy was referred to the SCC’s Party Plan Committee to develop a proposed amendment to the Plan so that in future we will have consistent direction as to the best way to distribute delegate lists.

I am pleased with the outcomes of the public parts of the meeting. All in all, it was a most interesting Saturday.

Before I close, I’d like to cover something that would normally go in a P.S., but not everyone reads those. “Bearing Drift,” which many conservatives call “Bearing Left,” published a story recently that was packed with obviously biased innuendo and suppositions that bordered on liable suggesting there was something improper about the $5000 Cynthia Dunbar earned last year working for Sayre Industries. The story neglected to say that Cynthia’s experience on the Texas State Board of Education and the publishing consulting business she founded afterward give her valuable experience in publishing, that Scott hired her to help with in-house publication development and government bid processes he needed to develop for his several businesses, that Cynthia’s consulting contract with Scott ended before she became a candidate, and that they filed all the required disclosure paperwork.

No one bothered to mention that my son, Mike, who filed the plurality appeal to SCC, and his friend Craig Storrs, who last week endorsed Scott’s opponent, were also on Scott’s payroll last year. Mike and Craig can earn money by working for Scott without thereafter being wedged in Scott’s pocket. So can Cynthia. But when that doesn’t fit the false narrative her opponents want to create, the lies and innuendos come out like mosquitos on a hot night. So not everything you read or hear is fact. A lot of it is pure fantasy. That’s why I try not to make judgments or pronouncements until I ask enough questions to get past the hype and to the truth. I urge you to do the same.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

 

This Saturday the Virginia Republican State Central Committee holds our quarterly meeting in Richmond, and we have three agenda items that could each take a considerable amount of time. I’m anticipating a long meeting.

The first topic is whether to kick Freddy Burgos off of the Committee. Freddy is a grassroots representative from the 11^th District and is, I believe the only native Spanish-speaking member of the Committee. A large number of SCC members have signed a petition that charges Burgos with posting statements on Facebook that offend Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and others. The letter from RPV Chairman John Whitbeck requesting SCC members to sign the petition gave as an example of Burgos’ offensive comments a quote by John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Burgos quoted Jay’s statement: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Burgos added this comment: “Having preference for Christians over non-Christians as political leaders is not bigoted. It is a preference and a duty we are allowed.” Whitbeck said that post offended a Jewish Republican who was running against a Christian Republican for a local office. Whitbeck has since given other examples of Burgos’ posts and complains that Burgos continues to “make other statements that garnered negative attention for the Party.” My question is whether Whitbeck’s concern for the Republican Party’s reputation should not also consider the Party’s reputation if we deny Burgos his 1^st Amendment Right of Free Speech. I also wonder whether our only option is to kick Burgos out of the SCC or whether we have other options such as censure, if appropriate. I just hope we Republicans aren’t starting to act like Democrats.

We will also consider the matter of the Fauquier County unit. They have been judged by the 5^th District Committee to be in violation of the Party Plan, their own bylaws, and even Robert’s Rules of Order. They are accused of allowing only a small, hand-picked few to join the committee, of holding improperly called meetings, and of electing ineligible people to party offices. It is reputed to be an extreme example of “party boss” control. The issue has been going on for years. The question is whether the establishment members who hold a majority of votes on State Central are willing to correct the issues there, or will they grant Fauquier’s appeal and let the same cabal stay in power.

A third matter that will most likely come up is a move by establishment clique leader and SCC Vice-Chairman Mike Thomas to meddle in something that didn’t bother him when it favored his side. If it had, this would have come up a lot sooner than now. For any number of years, whenever the Establishment had control there were reported instances wherein grass-roots candidates were unable to get delegate lists at the same time the Establishment candidates got them. Sometimes the grass-roots candidates never got them at all.

Now, when grass-roots leadership in the 6^th District is trying to guarantee that all candidates get all of the delegate lists at the same time, the state Establishment has decided that they want to weigh in and make everybody do things their way. Apparently their favored candidate is not getting his way. The issue here is that every 6^th District member of SCC wants rules for delegate list distribution put into the Party Plan where it takes a three-fourths majority vote to make changes to it rather than a random policy that a simple majority can change on a whim. At the moment, there is nothing at all in the Party Plan about the release of delegate lists. There should be. Hopefully, the SCC will put it there at our quarterly meeting this summer. (There is not enough notification time as required by the Party Plan to amend the Plan at this meeting.)

This SCC meeting looks to be a longer one than usual. I will again make every effort to represent you to the best of my ability.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

P.S. Please don’t forget to pray for our country, for our government leaders, and for our Party leaders. God blessed our nation once. Perhaps He will have mercy and do so again.