Ever since I moved up from Florida as a teenager, I have loved Iowa’s Caucus-to-Convention process.
The rest of the nation may frequently mock our “byzantine” rules or our activist-oriented state party structure, but that’s usually because they don’t understand it.
I do, and that’s why I love it.
Unlike many primary states, Iowa’s caucus-to-convention process encourages activism, investment, involvement and leadership development at the grassroots level.
It acknowledges the difference between Republican voters, who show up to select candidates, and Republican activists, who raise money, doorknock, phone bank, hammer out the platform and – critically – select their own leadership and representation.
It’s that last point that caused conflict to break out at Saturday’s state convention – precipitated by some of the very GOP state legislators the body had come together to endorse and support.
I’m going to talk a little inside baseball here, but stick with me because this really matters to me, and I think if you care about integrity and accountability, it will matter to you, too.
And if you’re one of our Republican state legislators reading this, please know that I respect you, support you and have spent many hours trying to elect you and your colleagues, and that this critique – which may at times seem harsh – is from a desire to strengthen the party and provide for a healthier relationship between our legislative majorities and our party leadership, which must remain distinct.
For several terms, some of our state legislators have also served on the Republican State Central Committee (SCC), which governs all of the affairs – and finances – of the Republican Party of Iowa. I am not aware of any controversies or problems related to their dual roles, but it did result in questions about potential conflicts of interest, since the state party is supposed to provide accountability to our Republican elected officials, on behalf of the party and its platform.
When I was elected to serve on the State Central Committee in 2012, the party was embroiled in a scandal in which RPI materials were being sent out in support of incumbents during contested primaries, implying the endorsement of the state party when none was given.
This was a major issue at the time, and our incoming administration quickly ended the practice. Part of the setup that allowed this to occur was the close relationship of RPI operations and the House and Senate Majority Funds, which belong to the legislature but are sometimes administered through RPI for logistics reasons.
The relationship had grown too close, resulting in grassroots primary candidates being effectively opposed by their own state party on behalf of entrenched incumbents.
Philosophically, the underpinnings of such a scandal mark a long-standing rift in the GOP’s identity:
Are we candidate-driven, or platform-driven?
At every convention, we hear about the importance of electing Republicans, which is, of course, a critical function of the party. But it’s not the only function of the party, and conservatives in particular have long felt disenfranchised by Republican officials who gladly received that support but did not vote in accordance with the party platform.
Yes, we need to elect Republicans, but as my esteemed Dallas County Republican colleague Ernie Rudolph frequently reminds activists and officials alike, our purpose is to elect Republicans who will vote the platform. Without that, we might as well elect Democrats, no matter the letter behind the name.
To underscore that point, here’s the party’s purpose, according to the RPI Constitution:
“The purpose of the organization shall be to conduct the activities of the Republican Party of Iowa, to promote Republican principles and policies, and to cooperate and assist in the conduct of national, state and local elections.“
The purpose of the party is to promote Republican principles and policies – not just to elect anything with an R behind it.
And notice the order – principles and policies come before elections. The latter is a means to the former.
With this in view, there began to be some sentiment that state legislators being in RPI leadership would amount to the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse: How can the party hold legislators accountable if a significant portion of its ruling body is comprised of those same legislators?
There are arguments on both sides of this, and it’s a fair debate that the party was prepared to have at this year’s state convention.
But that debate was never allowed to happen.
Earlier this year, Republican leaders and activists around Iowa introduced a proposed amendment to the RPI Constitution that would bar state legislators from being elected to the State Central Committee, and went through the appropriate (and robust) process to submit it for consideration by the Convention body.
But weeks before convention, at the end of the legislative session, Republican legislators preemptively removed the prerogative from grassroots Republican delegates when they quietly slipped the following language into an unrelated appropriations bill at the very end of the legislative session:
“A state party constitution or bylaws shall not prohibit an elected official from serving on a state party central committee.”
The provision, allegedly added by Representative – and State Central Committee member-elect – Taylor Collins, took the decision out of the hands of the very Republican activists, donors and workers that our elected officials effusively praised from the stage on Saturday.
Regardless of how you feel about legislators serving dual roles, the question of process is separate from the question of content – and it’s difficult to see the way this was handled as anything but spiteful and underhanded.
This code change was clearly aimed at preempting a perceived threat, not from party bosses and insiders, but from grassroots Republicans – your friends and neighbors.
It was a pure power play by legislators against their own base.
And, ironically, it brilliantly illustrated the necessity of the amendment in question.
If that were the end of the story, it would be scandal enough to require apology and repeal, but that’s not the end – it’s just the backstory to a second, related scandal that happened Saturday at the state convention.
Most of the state convention was smooth, and the body seemed both energized and united in support of our elected officials and our incoming nominees – especially gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn.
But when the speeches ended, the body prepared to debate proposed Constitutional amendments and the platform, the real work we came to do.
After debate on several other proposals, the amendment barring legislators from serving on the SCC was raised. The amendment’s sponsor, myself and many others began to make our way to the microphones for our turn to speak, but it never came.
The convention chair – State Representative Craig Williams – unilaterally ruled the entire amendment out of order and refused to let debate proceed.
The reason given was that, with the passage of the above-noted law, the amendment (if passed) would place the RPI Constitution in conflict with state law.
One sponsor, Van Buren County Chair Ted Hee, countered that the law did not take effect until July 1st, allowing the change to be in effect for 19 days. This would force new elections for the SCC seats captured by state legislators, and drive a broader discussion about accountability that was clearly important to a sizeable portion of the Republican grassroots.
But the chair – the Iowa State Representative convention chair – again ruled it out of order, without disputing the facts presented. He instead invited an appeal which, amid widespread confusion about the controversy, did not succeed.
By the time the body moved on to address the platform, two properly submitted constitutional amendments had been casually brushed aside and removed from consideration, not by the body, but by the chair.
And one of them would have directly curtailed his own prerogative, and that of his colleagues.
Again, we must separate content and process.
Whether the measure would have succeeded or failed, it was properly filed, signed by the requisite number of qualified Iowa Republican leaders, and deserved to be debated by the body.
Instead, Republican legislators quietly stripped that right from their supporters, workers and donors, insulating themselves against any attempt at separation of powers (a fundamentally Republican concept), all while standing on stage gushing about how much they loved and admired the very same people they just dishonored and belittled.
The message this sent the delegates was clear: the party loves our money, our work and our applause, but they aren’t interested in our priorities – and certainly aren’t willing to be held accountable to those priorities by a grassroots-led party.
This, frankly, is what people hate about politicians.
This is why many new people refuse to get involved in the party.
This is why long-time, faithful Republicans eventually walk away from activism and just become quiet voters.
This is why normal people meeting at coffee shops and co-ops knowingly nod and talk about politics as being just the good ol’ boys club.
But this doesn’t have to be the end of the story.
I, and many other conservatives discouraged by these kinds of things, will still work to elect our Republican candidates as we always have. We’ll help beat the Democrats in November. We’ll knock on doors, make phone calls and plant yard signs as we’ve always done, because to us it’s about more than power. It’s about doing what’s right.
There’s still time for that good faith to be reciprocated.
I’m betting there are some of our Republican legislators who feel the same way, so here’s my ask:
Own this, apologize to your party and repeal the party governance changes as soon as next session begins.
Give the prerogative back to the people you claim to love and need and admire, and trust them to do what’s right through their representatives in convention assembled.
Prioritize process integrity, do things the right way and make your case at the same floor-level microphones as the rest of us.
Let’s have a proper debate about accountability between the party and the legislative majorities, and about opportunities for younger and less well-known activists to seek party leadership.
Republican leaders love to talk about unity, but there are two different ways to achieve unity:
One is friendship and cooperation.
The other is submission and servitude.
We want to be united around principles and ideals, and work together with our legislative majorities to advance them. We do not want to be seen as cattle, and have our labor and donations harvested by people who insist on retaining all the decision-making power within our coalition.
If we’re serious about unity, let’s aim at cooperation, shared prerogative and mutual accountability. That’s how we work together, both to win, and to govern well.
We can encourage transparency and avoid the suspicion and speculation about shady backroom deals caused by these kinds of insider establishment plays.
Or, stand behind this change and watch the party erupt into division and mistrust at exactly the time we need it to pull together against Rob Sand and the Iowa Democrats.
The choice is yours.
Taylor Collins is a publicity hound and partisan hack, so I’m not surprised at all… More importantly, don’t the reps realize the entire point of a party is to run independently from the state govt. It’s why parties run caucuses in the first place rather than defaulting then to the secretary of state or county auditors. I had not heard of this inside baseball controversy so thanks for sharing. Hopefully, Collins and Williams feel the heat and finally apologize, and allow the base to put power back in its own hands.