This article is an update to the 3/17/2021 article SCC MEETING - IT'S AGAINST THE BYLAWS TO ELECT OFFICERS USING ELECTRONIC VOTING
It includes Ben Nicholas' rebuttal to a challenge of his intrepretation of the bylaws and a SOLUTION to the problem this causes for remote voters.
March 22, 2021
To all patriots who believe in the rule of law. I offer the following in response to concerns that my recent letter analyzing our bylaws was incorrect.
First of all, let me clearly state the I have not endorsed any candidate for the Chairmanship. It strikes me odd that all of these candidates who want to run this organization know nothing or shall we say very little about our bylaws. This is evident by their silence on this topic of remote voting.
It is my goal that all SCC members cast a vote for our officers legally.
Recently, it was brought to my attention that a gentleman disagreed with my analysis. For some reason this gentleman believes that HOUSE BILL 21-1001, (11)(b) grants plenary powers to the Chairman to change, alter, create or in this case ignore Article VIII, Section A., which prohibits the use of technology (electronics) for the election of party officers.
In his review of my analysis he failed to acknowledge the last six words in the citing of HOUSE BILL 21-1001, (11)(a) in particular the last six words; “…IF ALLOWED BY THE PARTY'S RULES.” These six words govern the remaining paragraphs in HOUSE BILL 21-1001.
He cites paragraph (b) …STATE PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MAY ADOPT PARTY RULES OR BYLAWS TO IMPLEMENT SUBSECTION (11)(a) OF THIS SECTION.
The operative word is “Adopt” from our existing rules. It does not mean that new ones can be created nor does it mean they can be altered or ignored.
Blacks Law Dictionary
The leading legal dictionary in the U.S. is Blacks Law Dictionary.
Adopt: To accept, appropriate, choose, or select; to make that one’s own (property or act) which was not so originally.
I won’t use the Wikipedia definition this time because in my previous letter some people did not understand that I was contrasting the little difference between the leading legal dictionary and the least recognized authority.
I spoke with a member of the state executive committee about the most recent meeting. In that meeting an agreement was reached amongst them. The agreement is, in exchange for having an in-person meeting the use of electronic voting would be allowed, which is consistent with Article VIII, Section A.
However, nothing in that agreement was said or implied that approved the use of (technology) electronic voting for the election of party officers. Article VIII, Section A., prohibits the use of (technology) electronic voting for the election of party officers.
Here’s the problem, Article VIII, Section A. cannot be altered nor ignored, it must be complied with.
The emergency bylaws and our own bylaws allow for SCC members to remotely cast votes electronically, but not for the election of party officers because it conflicts with Article VIII, Section A. In addition, the emergency bylaws prohibit the use of proxies, effectively disenfranchising those who chose to participate remotely.
Let me offer a solution.
• After the opening gavel, a motion is made to repeal the emergency bylaws.
• If the repeal is successful then proxies can be used by SCC members who chose to participate remotely.
• They can vote electronically (technology) for business other than the election of officers, but most importantly they can issue their proxy to a trusted person for the purpose of voting for a party officer of their choice while that trusted person is at the in-person meeting.
• These two actions are compliant with our bylaws.
It is important to note that there is a time constraint for filing proxies and that is why it is critical to make the motion to repeal the emergency bylaws at the opening gavel.
Article VIII, Section D. Proxies. Any voting member desiring to vote by proxy shall designate his proxy in writing which shall specify the meeting and be dated, signed, witnessed and submitted to and approved by the Credentials Committee.
3. A proxy of a member absent when the meeting is called to order shall be submitted before ½ hour after the call to order. This requirement may be waived by a majority vote of the CRC.
I feel confident that my analysis was and is correct. I believe HOUSE BILL 21-1001 is being interpreted by some in our own party in an unconstitutional way. This House Bill was passed by a Democrat controlled house and I fail to remember a time when any democrat did something beneficial for republicans.
Ben Nicholas
Bonus Member
Adams County