In four separate meetings over the past three months, the majority of the State Central Committee (SCC) has voted five different times to nominate our statewide candidates at a convention. However, a minority of the SCC has refused to cooperate with the majority in trying to make the convention as inclusive to Republican delegates as possible. The minority says they want more people involved, they want delegates to be able to vote close to their homes, and they do not want any Party Plan Amendments considered at the convention. In the published statement copied below, the majority members of SCC have offered to meet each of those concerns. The statement reads:

Since our first vote on the issue in December 2020, the State Central Committee members supporting a convention to nominate our 2021 statewide candidates have supported an unassembled convention.  We have advocated for a convention very similar to last year’s statewide convention – with multiple polling locations – that will allow delegates to vote safely, quickly, and conveniently.

Under our proposed convention structure:

• Each Congressional District would have a sufficient number of voting locations to provide all delegates with reasonable transit time to convenient polling locations.  Geographically large districts would be required to have multiple locations to cover the entire district.
• No Party Plan amendments would appear on the ballot; delegates would only be voting to nominate our statewide candidates.
• We would remove limits on the number of delegates who can be elected; anyone who properly files to be a delegate would be able to vote at the convention.

Our approach has several benefits:

1. Delegates can vote in their localities.  No one will have to travel to a central location, in Lynchburg or elsewhere.  The party will identify locations convenient even for delegates in remote locations.
2. It provides proper oversight to ensure confidence in the results.  To execute a successful unassembled convention with multiple local polling places, each local polling location requires neutral observers and oversight as well as troubleshooters who can quickly resolve issues that may arise.  Our proposed convention structure carefully strikes the balance between the twin goals of having convenient polling locations and providing adequate oversight and troubleshooting capability at each location.  
3. It ensures uniformity and fairness.  Because this is a state convention nominating statewide candidates, it is important our convention takes a uniform approach across all Units and Congressional Districts.  By basing the number of polling places on the geographic size of the district, we ensure every unit and district is providing all delegates the same degree of access to their locality’s polling place.  Moreover, under our proposal, the RPV Executive Committee will review site selections to ensure fairness.
4. It is efficient.  Using ranked choice voting will allow delegates to check in, vote, and leave.  
5. It avoids controversial Party Plan amendments.  Last year’s statewide convention included several hotly debated proposals regarding RPV structure and policy.  Under our plan, no amendments will be considered at this convention.  Voters will only need to vote for the nominees for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General.
6. It maximizes participation and minimizes administrative work and costs.  By removing the delegate limits, any Republican activist can participate.

We urge our colleagues on the State Central Committee to accept this compromise.  We believe it is in the best interest of the party.  It provides our candidates, who have for months been planning for a convention with remote voting sites, the certainty they need in order to properly execute their campaigns.  It provides Republican activists convenient voting sites and allows for maximum participation by our activists.

At this point, time is of the essence.  We have no choice but to continue to prepare for a legal single-location convention.  However, our strong preference is to execute the convention plan with local polling sites as we have described, and we are prepared to immediately turn to planning it.  Recalcitrant State Central Committee members need only say the word.

The minority members so far have refused to accept the majority’s offer. They still refuse to help the RPV hold a nominating process that is open to and convenient to all Republicans. The majority have offered solutions to all of the minority’s declared issues. That causes me to wonder what the real reason is for the minority’s obstinance. What is the minority not telling us?

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

The State Central Committee (SCC) of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) has voted five times over the course of nearly three months and four meetings to nominate our candidates for statewide office by convention. Because the meetings were live-streamed, the contentious debates and… inelegant… language that was used by some were an embarrassment to Republicans across the Commonwealth.

We had hoped to approve an unassembled convention as we did in 2020, but because of one word in the emergency meeting article (XII) of the Party Plan, we needed a vote of 75% of SCC to do so. Because the primary caucus (those who supported a primary) dug in their heels and obstinately refused to budge, we settled for a “single-location” drive-up convention (envision a drive-in movie theater) to be held on May 8 at Liberty University.

Between the third and fourth meetings, in an effort to avoid the type of verbal warfare that had existed in prior meetings, Chairman Rich Anderson convened a group of three members each from the convention caucus and the primary caucus who agreed to a plan of action that would keep the last meeting from turning into another debacle. That meeting convened on February 23 at 7 p.m. (after the deadline to choose a primary).

Under the agreed plan, SCC first voted again on the amendment that would remove the one word of the Party Plan that prevented us from having an unassembled convention. Although the vote was 39 in favor, 31 opposed, and 5 abstaining or recusing themselves (because they were being paid by one or another of the campaigns), the motion failed because Party Plan amendments require 75% approval.

As agreed, since the first amendment vote failed, SCC did not address several related amendments but moved to a motion brought by the primary caucus to change the method of nomination to a “firehouse primary.” This would have given us the same problems we would face with a regular primary, only worse. And we have never done a statewide firehouse primary, so the chance for it to fall apart at some point was high. Additionally, a firehouse primary would require a voting location in each of the 126 Republican units across the state. This seemed hypocritical because the primary caucus had said we couldn’t have 30 unassembled convention locations for a whole list of reasons, all of which would still be problems made four times worse because of the greater number of firehouse primary locations. The motion to change to a firehouse primary lost by a 34 to 36 vote with five abstentions.

Following the defeat of that motion, the agreement called for SCC to approve a call for a single location convention. Many of the primary caucus members argued against adoption using arguments that claimed disenfranchisement of voters. The only problem with those arguments was that it was the primary caucus members who voted against the Party Plan changes that would make the convention more open to more Republican voters. The final vote to approve the call was 38 to 31 with six abstentions and one who did not answer to the roll call vote.

A number of us would still like to see the convention still move to an unassembled format which would allow many more people to participate in the nomination process. But Jeff Ryer, one of the leaders of the primary caucus, said during the meeting, “There is no way that is ever happening.”

If you want more participation in the nomination process, contact your representatives on SCC and ask them how they voted. Then ask them to vote to increase locations so to increase voter participation. They should listen to you. After all they are supposed to represent you and not some “elite” political influence operation.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

An October 7, 2020, report published in U.S. News and World Report noted that “the United States had the second-lowest integrity score among liberal democracies for elections between 2012 and 2018.” The article goes on to say that American election integrity rates 57^th compared to other nations around the world.

Under the Constitution, state legislatures have total control over the management of elections in their states. And states are waking up to their responsibilities. The Georgia State Election Board has referred 35 cases of voter fraud to law enforcement officials. Arizona is still conducting a forensic audit of Dominion voting machines. And the Michigan legislature passed a bill increasing punishments for election fraud – although that bill was vetoed by their Democrat governor.

Democrats in Congress must be desperate to halt that kind of supervisory review by states of election integrity because they have introduced HR 1, misleadingly called the “For the People Act.” It could be more accurately called the “For the Fraud Act.” The bill would impose penalties of up to five years in jail and a $100,000 fine against anyone who attempts to “mislead” or “impede” voters in the 60 days leading up to an election.

The language in HR 1 regarding “misleading” voters is almost identical to the language some of the on-line and mainstream news outlets used to justify censoring the conservative side of issues. This was their excuse for hiding, during the run up to the November election, information about the indiscretions and illegal actions of Joe Biden’s family. These corporations called those conservative views “misinformation” and effectively censored Americans’ First Amendment rights of free speech as well as the right to know the truth about those who run for public office.

The word “impede” could be used to attack anyone who questioned whether a prospective voter was a citizen, was of age, lived in the district, or was otherwise eligible to vote. Instead of being placed in “Facebook jail,” people who question the legality of a voter could actually go to real jail. The damage to our nation’s voter integrity could be incalculable. HR 1 would perpetuate the extreme weakening of voter integrity laws that came about because of the Covid-19 quarantine.

HR 1 would allow candidates to siphon off campaign funds for personal use. They could pay personal bills, give money to family members, and pay their own businesses for doing “election-related work” whether it had anything to do with the campaign or not. This could lead greedy politicians to do almost anything to stay in office and keep the “golden eggs” coming.

As noted earlier, several states have taken positive steps toward improving voter integrity. Virginia is required by statute (Section 24.2-671 of the Virginia Code) to conduct “a post-election risk-limiting audit annually of ballot scanner machines in use in the Commonwealth.” This is done specifically “to study the accuracy of ballot scanner machines.”

The audit proposed this year in Virginia by the State Board of Elections calls for 1400 ballots – out of the millions cast in November – to be audited. Granted that an audit can use a statistical sample to approximate the total without recounting every ballot, but I have done enough work in statistics and research design over the years to recognize that 1400 ballots is a pathetically small sample to check.

My concerns are likewise shared by State Senate Republican Leader Pro Tempore Steve Newman, House Republican Leader Todd Gilbert, House Republican Caucus Chair Kathy Byron, and House Republican Whip James Leftwich, Jr. These Republican leaders also note, and rightly so, that the language of the code clearly states that “the audit is intended to test the particular ballot scanner machines in each locality, not simply test the accuracy of the statewide results in a single election contest.” The audit plan presented by the State Board of Elections does not meet the requirements of the Virginia Code, but that doesn’t stop them from continuing with their missteps.

Voter integrity is under absolute attack in America at all levels of government. If citizens want their votes to mean anything, we must put a stop to these attacks on the keystone of our fundamental right to govern ourselves – the foundational principle of free and honest elections.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

The word that best describes me at the moment is “perturbed.” I know that people want light and cheerful, but that’s not our world this year. I feel perturbed about two specific issues that affect the future of the America in which I spent most of my life. I’m not the only one I know who feels this way, and it is not a good feeling.

One perturbing issue is the ridiculous and seemingly never-ending distraction of how we will nominate our candidates for statewide office. There is no rhyme or reason for the continued maneuvering to change the method of nomination. We have wasted over twenty hours in three meetings and voted four times to reach the same conclusion. Worse, the foot-draggers refuse to work with the majority of the State Central Committee to create a nominating process that is worthy of our Republican voters. Even as I started writing this newsletter, I learned of a Zoom meeting of local Republican officials where the issue again reared its ugly head even though those officials have no say in the matter. All the continued bickering does is breed dissension. This is incredibly short sighted.

Instead of repeatedly rehashing our decision on the nomination method, we should be working together on higher priority issues such as developing strategies to actually win in November – whomever our statewide candidates are. But we cannot do that because this continual parliamentary tantrum does not allow us to progress to that discussion.

A friend on State Central sent me a list of announced Democratic and Republican candidates for the House of Delegates. To date 39 districts do not have a Republican candidate. Most of those Delegate districts seem to be from the same areas from which come the foot-draggers on State Central. Republicans would be much better served if the foot-draggers would put their efforts into finding candidates rather than continuing to fight against a decision that has been made four time already. We have until March 25 to find those 39 candidates.

The other thing that perturbs me is the number of grassroots people who rail against the Republican Party and what it isn’t doing. They seem to believe that the Republican Party is some monolithic robot with endless people and resources; it is not. The Republican Party is grassroots, conservative people. Until the grassroots people step up and become part of the solution, they have no right to complain.

We would have those 39 candidates in no time if 39 grassroots, conservative voters would stand up and say, “I’ll run!” It requires a lot of work and commitment. It entails a lot of responsibility. But it will produce better results than just complaining about unchallenged seats.

Many of our grassroots supporters complain about voter integrity. I am one of the complainers. But I have actually done something about it. I have for several years served as an election officer in Lynchburg. More Republicans must stand up and become election officers especially in heavily Democratic areas. We need grassroots Republicans to stand up and become trained poll watchers to look for discrepancies in the operation of the polls. We need a majority in the General Assembly to change some of the ridiculous voting laws passed last year. We need workers to campaign for solid conservative candidates at all levels of the government. We need voters to hold our elected Republicans accountable to do what they said they would do when they campaigned.

My perturbation comes from political insiders who refuse to accept the decision of the majority and from grassroots voters who expect someone else to fix the problem. Frankly, people who are not actively part of the solution are truly part of the problem.

There are so many projects that need to have begun two months ago, but we don’t have enough grassroots volunteers, and we don’t have people with enough gumption to stand up, speak out and perhaps even run for public office. If people don’t like the decisions made by leaders of the Republican Party, then by all means they should run for leadership roles in the Party. The best way to fix a problem is to be the person who has the authority to fix it.

Whether or not I remain perturbed is of no importance. Whether or not we do what is necessary to win in November is of great importance. Don’t complain about the problems unless you are committed to being part of the solution. That is really the only way to win.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

The Preamble to the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) reads, “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.”

Since I taught courses in broadcast journalism throughout my twenty-plus years as a college professor I concur with the thoughts of this paragraph. I only wish it were more widely practiced by journalists in America today.

The SPJ declares that four principles make up the foundation of ethical journalism. The first of those principles is “Seek Truth and Report It.” Among the eighteen precepts the Code lists under that principle are these five that say journalists should:

• Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
• Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
• Support the open and civil exchanges of views, even views they find repugnant.
• Label advocacy and commentary.
• Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.

I imagine that I am more sensitive than most to the advocacy and commentary that is presented as news in the mainstream media because I took points off when my students committed that offense.

Many journalists attempt to abide by these precepts, yet when reading the points above, most people can name stories they remember when journalists took facts out of context, used secret sources, refused to provide both sides because they found one side “repugnant,” or distorted facts. The first one that comes to my mind is the pictures of illegal immigrants held in “awful” fenced enclosures under the Trump immigration policies. What journalists failed to report was that the pictures had been taken during the Obama presidency, but few news outlets would report that.

Bias in journalism existed long before the Trump years. In 1969, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne died when a reportedly intoxicated Senator Ted Kennedy drove his car off a bridge – on a road not on the way to where they were supposedly going – and landed upside down in Poucha Pond on Chappaquiddick Island. Kennedy got out of the car and walked home. Kopechne drowned. Kennedy did not notify authorities until the next day. Many news outlets gave much less coverage to the incident than they might have with another politician, in part because the media had built up the Kennedy clan as “American Royalty” and their image “must be protected.”

However, there was an incident shortly after the accident when one major newspaper printed a photo of Senator Kennedy walking with a young woman half his age. The caption read, “Senator Kennedy and an unidentified woman leave his private plane.” A different newspaper printed an uncropped version of the photo showing four men and two women with the Senator. The caption read, “Senator Kennedy and his aides arrived in his private plane.” Regardless of the motives of the editors or what anyone thinks of the Kennedys, one of those photos was dishonest because the way it was cropped left a dishonest impression with the readers.

In 1998, Professor Paul Lester of the California State University, Fullerton, and author of “Photojournalism: An Ethical Approach wrote, “It is actually a positive occurrence for the public to lose its naïve view of the truth in photographs. Critical thinking is the result. In no other profession are the complaints about its practices made so public as in journalism. Consequently, the public learns to question what they see and read in all media….” Unfortunately, our schools and colleges are not producing graduates who have critical thinking skills. The public have not learned to question what they see and read. In this matter, ignorance is not bliss; it is a disaster.

In a 2001 New York Times interview, producer and writer Andrew Niccol said, “It’s gotten to the point that our ability to manufacture fraud now exceeds our ability to detect it.” If that was the case twenty years ago, it is much worse in today’s digital age where manipulation is as easy as making a meme.  Be wise. Be wary. Check multiple sources that present multiple viewpoints. That is the only way to get close to the truth.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.