Change Commission: Raw notes from final conf call

Under the plan – every category of unpledged delegate goes away.

Clyburn: What we’re doing is making a recommendation to the RBC for them to refine as appropriate.  Couple of areas for the Rules committee to look at closely:

Ie –  A state (ie SC) where it goes for candidate B, but a district goes for candidate A.  thus – the member representing that congressional district would need to pledge against their personal preference.  Therefore, what happens to that voting delegate’s seat?  Will it be vacant for someone else to fill?  Therefore, how will it get filled?  Probably need to say that, whatever transmittal is used – we need to make clear that there are a few things to still be fleshed out and refined.  A few scenarios that could be harrowing if not laid out how they are treated.

All members of the RBC will receive this and willing to have that conversation

Dan Blue: Clarification – eliminating “unpledged delegates”   – however they will become “pledged”? 

Jeff Berman: really eliminating unpledged. Converting unpledged into NPLEO delegates will pledge in accordance with statewide results.  Filing of pledges & procedures & paperwork will occur after statewide results are known.  That’ll happen after latter part of the process. RBC will clarify how that will occur. 

Interesting question raised around whether the candidates and/or the chairs/vice chairs should ever pledge. 

If they don’t want to/can’t pledge – they’ll be able to attend w/o voting- but have all other categories.

Meredith Smith (Oregon Chair) – comment on this: if chair/vice chair if chooses to remain unpledged and go non-voting, would they be in disfavor? 

Answer from Berman – no – plenty of reasons why not to pledge and now there will be an option for it to be fine.  Outcomes are not dictated by the NPLEOs, so not a big deal. 

Tom Miller – agrees with Jeff and goes back to the basics – that we don’t want a situation for a group of people to overturn the will of the people.  With this voting NPLEO role – will get more buy in from DNC and elected officials

Dan Blue brought up the initial question around whether there’d still be an insurance plan in place in case things went south with the presumed candidate.

Litigated in Kennedy Carter convention – that worst case, folks still have the ability to change their minds.  A “pledged” delegate is still not legally bound to vote for their candidate.  Delegate may face criticism, but in terms of still having adult supervision, still fine.

Bill Carrick – how to ensure NPLEOs conform to the results of the primaries?  Candidates have the right to approve their own delegates – RBC will have to figure out new mechanisms for NPLEO delegate selection.  Don’t want to have folks masquerading as supporters of the other candidate.  Also – again – need to think about how this functions in “alternates” – and that this will function more like the regular at-large – and will need alternates.

Question on Caucuses where the delegate and popular votes are out of synch (ie – Nevada) – on which % to base the pledged delegate allocation for NPLEO. 

Berman clarifying that it’d be based on the final results.

Should include in the report – a recommendation that The NPLEO delegates need to pledge after the final results of a state are known.  Don’t want our party leaders in a position for premature pledging.

Rob Hampshire – implications on diversity requirements of the recommendation:

McCaskill – same diversity rules will apply – shouldn’t change anything – just avoiding repeat of past mistakes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s