The following was received from Island Richards a State Committeeman Sweetwater County Republican Party

It was the afternoon of the first Saturday in May, and the Republican State Convention had already been a contentious one. As is the case when you put nearly 300 people into a room and ask them to make a string of decisions, there had been a lot of debate. Not only was there debate about the decisions themselves, but a continuous debate about how to conduct that debate. Heck, there was even debate about how to answer questions posed about how to conduct the debate.

Convention is always a time consuming and grueling event, but every moment of the 2014 Convention was clouded by the fact that, at some point during the process, the body would have to address proposed “Resolution Eighteen” from the Crime & Law section of the Resolution Committee report. That looming prospect created a palpable tension in the room that seemed to make every other decision we made, and every other motion that we debated, more serious, more emotional, and more difficult.

Of course, “Resolution Eighteen” was the proposed resolution to officially censure Governor Matt Mead for: signing SF104 (2013), a bill that was ultimately determined to be unconstitutional by the Wyoming Supreme Court; and, his support of the “Common Core Standards,” which the Wyoming Republican Party has adopted previous resolutions against. I’m not going to use this space to discuss the merits of the resolution; of its poorly written nature; of Governor Meads actions; nor am I going to address whether the Convention delegates even had the authority to adopt a censure resolution. Those things have been debated ad nauseum, and nothing I say here would change anyone’s mind on those subjects, anyway. No, the focus of this essay is simply, “why I demanded a roll call vote on the proposed resolution.”

First, it is worth noting that a majority of the convention delegation voted to suspend the agenda, and the floor rules, and move debate on the proposed censure to the beginning of the discussion on resolution proposals, delaying discussion on any other resolution items until the censure motion was voted on. This effectively removed the time limit for debate on the censure measure and alleviate the concern of those in support that it could be automatically tabled, as the floor rules required, if the debate on it ran too long. The consequence of that very conscious decision is we spent hours debating this single question, sacrificing the consideration and possible adoption of dozens upon dozens of important resolutions.

It was clear that the people who sought to censure Governor Mead prioritized it ahead of the convention’s ability to get its real work done: the adoption of a slate of defining resolutions. Because of the demand that we dedicate our precious time to the censure measure, to the exclusion of all of our other work on resolutions: we were not able to debate and adopt new resolutions in opposition to “Common Core;” we did not have the time to adopt resolutions outlining our Party’s expectations in dealing with the fallout of SF104; and, we weren’t able to adopt resolutions on dozens of other timely and extremely important issues. Because of the demand that we spend our entire afternoon focused on a single divisive issue that was ultimately unsuccessful, we now have an abbreviated list of resolutions to guide our candidates and elected officials for the next two years.

During the consideration of the censure, three fourths of the time was spent debating and voting on motions to amend the language of it, and as far as I can remember, there was virtually zero debate on the merits of the censure itself. Before there could be, a motion was made and adopted to move the question, closing off any possible continuing debate.

It was at this time that a delegate moved that the vote for censure be conducted as a secret ballot. It is notable that well over 100 delegates wanted to hide behind a secret ballot when they made what was arguably the most controversial decision that the Wyoming Republican Party has ever made.

While the bylaws do allow for voting by secret ballot (Article VI, Section 4, Paragraph 2), that provision was intended for use in elections, not for the adoption of resolutions. It is one thing to vote in an election using a secret ballot, but elected representatives themselves, when adopting resolutions that will ultimately represent the will of the body of the entire organization that they speak for, should do so openly and transparently. Especially when those resolutions are as serious and far reaching as a proposal to censure the Governor of the State of Wyoming. It shouldn’t be done while hiding in the shadows, under the cover of secrecy.

I wholeheartedly believe that Republicans in the State of Wyoming deserve to know exactly how their representatives to the convention cast their votes. More important, this was conceivably one of the most important and long reaching votes that any member of the State Convention will ever cast on a resolution. Every single person who enjoined themselves to vote, either for or against the resolution to censure, should have been willing to own their decision, cast their ballot proudly and openly, and live with the consequences of their actions!

Thankfully, the bylaws of the Wyoming Republican Party agree with me. Article VI, Section 11, Paragraph 1 states: “A roll call vote (“Yeas” and “Nays”) upon any question presented at the State Convention may be ordered by the Convention Chairman or can be compelled by the request of forty percent (40%) of the Delegates by standing vote.”

This bylaw means that a simple majority of the delegates to the convention cannot make a decision binding the entire body without at least identifying themselves. The right of the minority to know who is speaking for them can only be suspended by a supermajority of more than 60%. Obviously, that didn’t happen and the minority’s right to a roll call vote prevailed with a vote of 125 supporting the role call (44.6%), and 155 voting against it (55.4%).

My demand for a roll call vote wasn’t a “bullying scare tactic[s] to get people to change their vote.” It wasn’t “a pure intimidation tactic” so “a sitting governor and his AG will have a list of political opponents to go after.” I didn’t make the demand at the request of Governor Mead, or any of his representatives. I made the demand myself, personally, and did it to invoke and protect my right as an individual member of the body to know exactly who would be speaking on behalf of myself and the Wyoming Republican Party, regardless of how the vote turned out.

Mostly, though, on that grueling, contentious, and emotional Saturday afternoon, I demanded a roll call vote because I insisted on my right to stand in front of a microphone and, in no uncertain terms, publicly, openly, and proudly declare my vote on the resolution to censure Wyoming Governor Matt Mead. That vote was, “Unequivocally, NO!”

I expected, and demanded, no more and no less from anyone else in the room.


Island D. Richards, State Committeeman
Sweetwater County Republican Party
May 6, 2014