Mark Obenshain Calls on Political Parties to Stop Burdening Localities

Every time Virginia Republicans or Democrats choose a primary to nominate their political candidates they strap localities with the cost of the process. At a time when localities are hard pressed for money, political parties that claim to be fiscally responsible should not be forcing localities to shell out large amounts of money for them to choose a candidate. Primaries are not the only way for political parties to select a nominee in Virginia. Virginia political need to stop forcing local government to subsidize their operations. Thankfully Mark Obenshain is bringing up this issue this year in the General Assembly. In a recent e-mail Obenshain introduced his idea.

Ending Subsidies to Political Parties

Virginia is in a somewhat unique situation: we don’t allow voter registration by political party, but we still pay for party primaries. And the truth is, we pay through the nose, sometimes as much as $20 per voter.

There are perfectly good alternatives. Parties often choose to nominate via convention or party canvass, or through a “firehouse primary,” in which a limited number of polling places are opened in each locality, usually for fewer hours than in a government-run election. All of these methods are common, all are relatively affordable – and all are paid for by the political parties themselves.

If a political party wants a conventional primary, fine – but they can pay for it. Our localities are burdened enough as it is. If a party cannot or will not put up that much money, they can always go with a cheaper option. Our localities can ill afford it – and under my proposal, they wouldn’t have to.

It is highly doubtful this legislation will pass. Both parties have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is. However, Maybe legislators will do the right thing, help localities, and do the right thing. No matter what this is an important issue that needs to be raised.

RPV State Central Roll Call Vote

At the RPV Advance, state central voted for a primary. The following is the list of how everyone voted. It was a public roll call vote. Regardless of how you wanted the vote to turn out, it is an important vote with potentially important consequences.

__________________________________________________________

Republican Party of Virginia State Central Committee Roll Call

Vote to Hold 2012 U.S. Senate Nomination by Primary.

Vote held on November 20, 2010

* A Yes vote is a vote for the primary

Chairman, Pat Mullins Abstain

First Vice Chair, Mike Thomas Yes

Morton Blackwell, National Committeeman No

Kathy Hayden Terry, National Committeewoman No

Paulina Campbell, Secretary Did Not Vote

Brian Plum, Treasurer Yes

Linwood Cobb, Budget Chairman Yes

Lee Goodman, General Counsel

William Fralin, Finance Chairman Yes

Juanita Balenger, Eastern Vice Chairwoman No

Kevin Gentry, Eastern Vice Chairman No

Judi Lynch, Western Vice Chairwoman Yes

Wendell Walker, Western Vice Chairman No

1st District

Tom Foley, Chairman Yes

James Bowden sent a proxy, which was disallowed, opposed the primary

John Van Hoy No

Michael Lowe No

Carol Dawson No

Allen Webb No

2nd District

Gary Byler, Chairman No

David O'Kelley Yes

Curtis Colgate No

Roger Miles No

3rd District

Mike Wade, Chairman Yes

Bryan Meals Yes

Chris Woodfin Yes

Cortland Putbrese Yes

4th District

Jack Wilson, Chairman Yes

Col. William Flanagan Yes

Irene Hurst Yes

Wayne Ozmore Yes

Bob Wheeler Yes

5th District

Bill Stanley, Chairman No

Christopher Shores No

Renee Trent Maxey No

Gene Smith Yes

Rachel Schoenwald Yes

6th District

Trixie Averill, Chairman Yes

Mickey Mixon No

Matthew Braud Yes

Jim Crosby No

Mark Peake Yes

Lynn Mitchell Yes

7th District

Linwood Cobb, Chairman Yes

Kristi Way Yes

Marie Quinn Yes

John Tucker Yes

Doug Rogers Yes

David Fuller Yes

8th District

Mike Ginsberg, Chairman Yes

Vellie Dietrich-Hall Absent

Michael Giere No

Mark Kelley No

9th District

Michelle Jenkins, Chairman Yes

John Kilgore Yes

Jerry Lester Yes

Jack Morgan Yes

10th District

Howie Lind, Chairman No

Jo-Ann Chase No

Elizabeth Kay Gunter No

Gary Lofton Yes

Mary Gail Swenson Yes

11th District

Becky Stoeckel, Chairman Yes

Keith Damon No

David Ray No

Patsy Drain No

Caucus Representatives

Senator Emmet Hanger Yes

Delegate Morgan Griffith Yes

Senator Frank Ruff Yes

Delegate John Cosgrove Yes

Virginia Federation of Republican Women

Fay Williamson VFRW President Yes

Vicki Alford Yes

Anna Lee Yes

Young Republican Federation of Virginia

Micheal Hardy, President Yes

Andrew Vehorn Yes

Neil Miller Yes

College Republican Federation of Virginia

Lena Morill, President Yes

Jadan Horyn Yes

Lexy Rusnak Yes

How Desperate is George Allen?

In less than two years Virginia will have a competitive election for U.S. Senate. It appears George Allen is all in as he fights to reclaim his old seat.

Regardless of your opinion on state central's decision to nominate our 2012 U.S. Senate candidate through a primary, the timing of the vote seemed to be politically motivated. While people were originally being told state central would vote on that issue in March, suddenly days before the November meeting Mike Thomas, a close George Allen ally, moved the vote to that meeting. While Mike Thomas denied the timing of the vote was politically motivated, a long time Allen ally ramming through a vote that would help George Allen seems to be a very political move.

As if setting the method of nomination in his favor weren't enough, it now appears George Allen is trying to clear the field of primary opponents. Corey Stewart is planning to run for U.S. Senate. He recently made some critical comments about a George Allen candidacy. (One of few high ranking elected officials to do that.) Days after making those comments, the Washington Posts that Corey Stewart may face a primary challenge in 2011. A few more days pass and we learn that George Allen may be behind this primary challenge.

Appearances suggest George Allen is setting the method for the nomination contest, and clearing the field of opponents. This smacks of some one desperate for power. George Allen has a record and connections. He should be using them to build support, and lay out a bold message for why we should support him, not manipulating the system so that he is the only option we have.

Cuccinelli Supports Making Conventions Financially Viable

The State Central meeting at the Advance this weekend will be about one thing. Conventions. Cuccinelli is proposing party plan amendments to make conventions more financially viable. These have been debated and discussed by party activists since they were first unveiled in the summer. As a supporter of conventions, I support Cuccinelli's efforts. Bill Bolling and Bob Marshall along with others are opposing them.


The other issue is that it seems Mike Thomas and others have decided to force a vote for a primary at the meeting. Bob Marhsall who seems inexplicably on a warpath against conventions is also supporting the vote for a primary, even though that will insure that he loses if he runs for U.S. Senate. Apparently he has a proxy and will be voting for a primary at the meeting on Saturday.


I will post more about the primary vote later. For now, here is Ken Cuccinelli's statement on the party plan amendments he is proposing.

MEMO – PARTY PLAN AMENDMENTS TO BE VOTED ON AT 2010 RPV ADVANCE
From: KEN
CUCCINELLI
TO: MEMBERS OF RPV STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE

This memo is intended to share my perspective on the content and purpose of the two party plan amendments being proposed that will increase the financial viability of conventions as a method of nomination for statewide offices. These amendments to the party plan are being proposed in light of the 2009 convention, which left RPV with lingering financial obligations.

1. The first proposal being put forward is to allow the party to charge up to a $25,000 filing fee for candidates for all statewide offices.
2. The second is to allow the party the option of charging pre-file fees to delegates to attend conventions. The number being put forward is no more than $50 per delegate.

My reason for supporting these concepts may seem counter-intuitive. When you think of an entire nomination process - including the campaign itself, not merely the nomination election day - a very large convention filing fee, e.g., $25K for a candidate for statewide office will cost much more than a primary filing fee (approximately $4,000), but running a convention campaign can be done for a fraction of the cost of running a primary campaign.If you compare the cost of the 2009 Cuccinelli/Brownlee/Foster convention to the candidates – about $1 million total, to the cost of the 2005 McDonnell/Baril primary to the candidates – about $5 million total, it’s clear that even with significant filing fees, conventions provide the lowest cost access to a realistic, competitive nomination.

By increasing the likelihood that conventions will end up in the black financially, they will be even more viable as a nomination option. Following this page are some questions I’ve encountered about the need for these proposals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are these fees helpful?

In an ideal world, we would not have to charge fees at all in order to run for public office. Personally, I am in favor of keeping the bar to entry for candidates to enter nomination contests as low as possible. However, because the 2009 GOP Convention resulted in a financial loss for RPV, it would be helpful to make changes so that the State Central Committee can vote for conventions without serious concern that it will send the Party into the red.

Won’t these fees make it more expensive for longshot or low dollar candidates?

No, exactly the opposite. While these fees represent a significant increase from the 2008 and 2009 conventions, they are still significantly lower than the cost of running a statewide primary. For example, in 2005 McDonnell/Baril primary cost both candidates a combined total of around 5 million dollars, whereas in 2009, the convention contest for the same office cost less than 1 million dollars.Conventions are, by far, the cheapest method of nomination for statewide office. By far.If conventions are not more reliably financially viable – the alternative (primaries) will shut out many candidates who otherwise would have had a realistic shot in a convention.

Won’t delegate filing fees keep people from attending the convention?

While charging a fee for delegates to attend a convention is undesirable in some circumstances, it doesn’t mean it will substantially lower the turnout. For example, the 1978, 1993 and 1994 GOP conventions were the largest conventions in Virginia’s history, yet in all three the Party charged a pre-filing fee for delegates.

Will the Department of Justice approve these changes to the Party Plan?

Maybe. This is something that we will only know when an approved party plan amendment is submitted to the DoJ. Based on a case that arose in Virginia, the courts have said that delegate fees would have to be pre-cleared by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act. This is one of those that we just won’t know until we try.

Is there any alternative to charging delegate and candidate fees?

At the moment I believe these are the two simplest alternatives. Voluntary contributions to the party to help offset the cost of conventions are the other most obvious alternative; however, it may be dicey to rely upon that approach to generate the necessary revenue to pay for the event.It is important to remember
that these proposals are to allow RPV to charge the fees if you all feel they are necessary to pay for the conventions. If we come up with an alternate revenue source in the future – the fees may not end up being necessary, and thus don’t need to be charged. This is simply a vote to allow RPV SCC the discretion to charge the fees if they feel they are necessary.ant to remember that these proposals are to allow RPV to charge the fees if you all feel they are necessary to pay for the conventions. If we come up with an alternate revenue source in the future – the fees may not end up being necessary, and thus don’t need to be charged. This is simply a vote to allow RPV SCC the discretion to charge the fees if they feel they are necessary.

VA Primary Results

As of right now (8:49pm), pretty much everything is called for VA:

1-Rob Wittman (88%)
2-Scott Rigell (39.3%)
5-Robert Hurt (48.1%)
8-Patrick Murray (51.3%)
11-Keith Fimian (57.3%)

Unless there are any surprises, that's the gist. Put that along with -

3 - Chuck Smith
4- Randy Forbes
6 - Bob Goodlatte
7 - Eric Cantor
9 - Morgan Griffith
10 - Frank Wolf

And there you have your Republican Ballot for the general this November.

Virginia 2010 Primary Election Results

As polls close at 7 pm in Virginia, all eyes turn to the watch the results. Everyone is saying that voter turnout is very low, so maybe there will be a surprise.

The best places to track Virginia returns are the VA State Board of Elections website, and Bearing Drift. Bearing Drift will be tracking the results in real time starting at 8 pm.

Hopefully the true conservative wins these primaries, and the party can unite quickly no matter who the nominee is. In November we have to beat the Democrats, and we have to focus on that immediately after the results are in.

To watch returns from across the country I recommend Politico 2010.

I would also like to welcome back to the blogosphere my friend Will Burton of Roanoke on the Right.

UPDATE:: Here are the results for VA's congressional primaries.

Super Tuesday Primary 2010 Preview

This Tuesday is being called Super Tuesday. Ten states are holding their primary , and Arkansas is holding its runoff on Tuesday. Before Tuesday let's take a look at the big races.

AR-Sen

Will Bill Halter be able to pull off the third primary defeat of an incumbent senator of the year and defeat Blanche Lincoln, as both parties seem to want nothing to do with moderates?

CA-Sen

Carly Fiorina is leading in the polls, but will low voter turnout enable Chuck Devore and conservative activists to win another Senate primary contest? We have a great opportunity to defeat Barbara Boxer. Let's nominate a conservative fighter to take her on.

NV-Sen

Even if Chuck Devore doesn't win in CA it appears tea partiers will win a nomination contest Tuesday when Sharon Angle earns the right to take on Harry Reid in November. Unlike KY, the tea party candidate is not the gaffe machine in the race.

IA-Gov

Sarah Palin endorsed Terry Branstad, but will Chuck Norris's endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats prove more valuable? Chuck helped beat the pundits in Iowa two years ago. Can he do it again?

SC-Gov

South Carolina seem to be repulsed at one of the dirtiest smear attacks ever, let's see how big of a win Nikki Haley garners in SC.

If you live in California vote for Chuck Devore.
If you live in Nevada vote for Sharon Angle.
If you live in Iowa vote for Bob Vander Plaats.
If you live in South Carolina vote for Nikki Haley.

They are all proven conservatives who will fight for our principles, and they need our support on Tuesday.

(The VA House races are very important and as such deserve a longer post of their own. Don't worry I didn't forget about them.)

The Controversial Sarah Palin Endorsement

Today, Sarah Palin released another endorsement via her Facebook page that is causing not-so-abnormal-controversy. Terry Branstad for Iowa Governor?

Her post:

Iowa, your great state’s motto is “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” That motto will be well served by voting for Terry Branstad for governor next Tuesday!

Please join me in supporting Governor Branstad’s campaign. Visit his website here, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

- Sarah Palin

Followed by almost 400 comments, the opinions seem to range from exited approval to vehement disapproval, however, disapproval makes up the overwhelming majority.

"Big mistake endorsing Branstad. He is part of the good ole boys club (RINO) who masquerades as a conservative. I think you forgot to do your homework on his one. The other 2 candidates running against him are true conservatives. We HAD Terry Branstad before; we don't need him again."

"It seems like you are aligning yourself with Mitt Romney and the GOP establishment more and more these days instead of with the Tea Partiers. I think I will stick with Mike Huckabe, Chuck Norris, Dr. James Dobson, Michael Farris and David Barton, the Des Moine and Dubuque Tea Partiers and vote for the true Conservative, Bob Vander Plaats."

She hasn't responded to the comments on her page yet, but will soon, I am certain. I'll pass it on as soon as it's up.

The reason, it seems, for conservatives lack of approval in this endorsement, is found in the fact that conservatives in Iowa are scared of what Branstad will do if he becomes Governor. Likewise, a lack of trust is starting to develope in the relationship between conservatives/tea party people and Palin. Her CA Senate endorsement, along with ID-1, is giving the impression that she may not be as strategic in her endorsements as we would like her to be. But it begs the question: who is advising her to make these endorsements?

The final consensus of one sums it up nicely: "She is a good person, but she, at bare minimum, is surrounded with incompetent advisors."

The primary this Tuesday should be a doozy. Stay tuned!

The Danger of Open Primaries

Recently I have been doing some research into the election process and compiled this information on the impacts of open primaries on a parties ability to nominate a candidate. In a state like Virginia where we are forced to hold an open primary we should stay with a convention system to nominate candidates so that it is just members of the Republican party who decide our nominees.
____________________________________________________________________

In an open primary any registered voter can vote in any party’s primary. When a voter goes to his polling place he can choose to vote in a party’s primary, but can only vote in one primary for a race. The advantage to an open primary is that it encourages voter participation. Indpendents are encouraged to participate in an open primary. However, the downside of an open primary is that it is the registered voters of a state, and not the political party selecting its nominee. There is also a variation of the open primary known as the semi-closed primary which allows independents to vote in either party’s primary. People registered with one party can not vote in the other party’s primary in a semi-open primary. Liberal independents can vote in a republican primary, and conservative independents can vote in a democrat primary in a semi-open primary state. Open primaries permit members of other parties to influence a parties nomination contest, and they often take advantage of it.

In the 2008 presidential election, both parties impacted, or tried to impact the other party’s nomination process. In 2008, John McCain’s early victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina propelled him from a second tier candidate to the Republican nominee. However, through open primaries he never won a majority of the Republican vote in both of those two states. In New Hampshire[1] Mitt Romney won the Republican and conservative vote with 35% and 38% respectively. However, McCain won the state by 5% by winning the independent, moderate, and liberal vote by 40%, 44%, and 45% respectively. A similar thing happened in the South Carolina primary[2]. Here Mike Huckabee won the Republican and conservative vote with 32% and 35% respectively. However, John McCain still won the state by 3% by winning the independents, moderates, and liberals by 42%, 51%, and 47% respectively. In both of these elections, the independents were involved in key presidential republican primaries, and changed the results.

A similar thing happened part way through the Democrat primary. Part way through the Democrat primary when Obama was close to winning the nomination, Rush Limbaugh began what an operation for Republicans to vote in the Democrat primary for Hillary Clinton in large amounts. This operation became known as operation chaos. Following the beginning of operation chaos Hillary Clinton won the Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina primaries. Following the start of operation chaos Hillary Clinton went from being on the verge of losing the nomination to winning a majority of the elected delegates. She ended up losing the nomination as a result of the super delegate votes.

---

[1] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#val=NHREP

[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228202

Republican Response to the Democrat Primary.

In response to the Democrat primary results, Bob McDonnell issued the following video message.


Pat Mullins the new RPV chairman also issued a press statement. The following paragraphs are some of the highlights.

“Virginia Democrats have nominated a slate of three candidates that would raise taxes as soon as possible and lead with the people’s checkbook as their weapon. Should they succeed in their mission, these three candidates would increase the financial strain on Virginians and private enterprise, depress economic growth and stifle job creation.

“Given the dismal voter turnout in their primary election, it is clear that there is little excitement in their party and an even smaller appetite for the kind of expansive government their candidates represent. By contrast, our party is enthusiastically behind our excellent ticket of Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli, as proven by the attendance of over 8,000 Republicans at our recent convention. Everywhere I travel in Virginia, local Republican interest is high, which bodes well for our chances in November.

“Finally, the rejection of Terry McAuliffe indicates that even Democrats are disillusioned about the direction their party and leadership have taken. When a wealthy, insider financed, nationally prominent, personal friend of the Clintons is rebuked in such a manner, it is a clear indicator of a party in disarray from top to bottom. On the Republican side, we are energized and look forward to the road ahead.”

As a note on the excitement that is building within the Republican Party, just like on the ticket airport tour, it appears the Republicans had packed attendances at their campaign headquarters openings.

Let's keep up the energy, stay positive, conservative, and issues oriented, and we should win in November.

Democrat Primary Results

Today was the Democrat primary for governor, but you might not have noticed. Last gubernatorial primary the combined Republican and Democrat turnout was slightly above 6%. This year while the turnout was much higher today than the 2.6% the Democrats accomplished last cycle, a lot of attention was focused on the low turnout. Throughout the day reports came in from Roanoke, Harrisonburg, the Shenandoah Valley, Loudon, NOVA, all over Virginia, and other anecdotal reports of low voter turnout.

The low voter turnout statewide prompted Terry McAuliffe to send an e-mail to his supporters reminding them to vote and remindign them how big a difference their one vote could make. The interesting thing is he had to resort to an internal poll of 200 people to find hope of a victory.

While the Democrats eventually hit a voter turnout of a hair over 6.4%, one thing became painfully obvious, the Democrat ground operation left much to be wanted. Along with the reports of low voter turnout, most of these reports reported included comments of weak Democrat presence at the polls. Many people reported no Democrat poll workers, and few signs. Often their were more McDonnell poll workers and signs at the polls than Democrat workers. This picture from Loudon sums it up well. The BulletProof Monk had some interesting annalysis of the lack of Democrat poll presence.

What struck me is....with the primary so important to the Dems (their decision today may mean a win or a loss, entirely based on who they choose) Loudoun (and probably many other counties) are exhibiting little or no grassroots volunteers to man the polls or even muster enough gumption to put a sign or two up on the way to work.

I attribute this to the fact that when I went to Purcellville last November, I didn't see a single person I knew there manning the Dem's tent. It was all handled (like most of the county)by Obamanauts.... I mean, the Loudoun Dem's didn't have to raise a finger last November.

While the Republicans were engaging in a "drill" and rolling out an impressive machine (with a six point reward over our sister counties for the effort)on what became a "dry run", the Dems didn't bother building a local mechanism.It was done for them.(anybody else smell the irony of that sentence?)

Hopefully he is right and this trend carries through to the general election.

When the votes were counted, it was Creigh Deeds surge was very real. The Virginia voters rebelled against Terry McAuliffe's smear tactics and Deeds took almost 50% in a competitve three way race. Creigh Deeds won every single congressional district except the 3rd district which he lost by 2%. He was particularly strong in the south western part of the state where he won the 5th, 6th, and 9th districts by atleast 68% each.

It seems that while Terry McAuliffe was e-mailing his supporters encouraging them to vote, he knew he was going to lose the primary he had invested so much money into. One report indicates he was calling his donors and warning them he would lose last night. To his credit in a show of party unity his e-mail to supporters tonight encouraged them to support Creigh Deeds and even had a link for them to donate to Deeds.

It is interesting that the two parties chose gubernatorial candidates who play well to their parties weakest demographics. Deeds has a strng base in south western Virginia, and McDonnell will do well in NOVA. It will be interesting to see how this fact plays out. The other good news for McDonnell is that his poll numbers continue to climb.

Let's campaign hard, and let the best man win in November.

What else would you expect from a Clinton operative?

The day before the Democratic Gubernatorial primary in a last ditch attempt to stave off the meteoric rise of Creigh Deeds, Terry McAulliffe decides to issue a letter from a couple victims of the VT tragedy and condemn Creigh Deeds for his stance on guns. First of all being able to buy guns at gun shows and bring them to bars has nothing to do with the Virginia Tech shooting. It is also simply a way of pulling at emotional strings for political advantage and to assault the second amendment. I thank Creigh Deeds for willing to stand up for gun rights at times, and I hope that the voters of Virginia will reject these low tactics either tomorrow or in November. I agree with Mason Conservative that this is a very low political shot, and I would have thought political operatives would have realized that these attacks tend to backfire in Virginia.

While it gives me no added credibility on this issue. I had a number of friends who were at Tech on Apil 16th, and I lived 40 mins away at the time. So don't tell me I don't care about what happened.

Democratic Primary Update

Here is a quick political rundown of the Democratic Gubernatorial primary that is only days away.

Creigh Deeds had been running behind, but now he is possibly in the lead. While Republicans are a little wary of Creigh Deeds because he almost been McDonnell four years ago, it seems he has done some things recently that may hurt his political chances.

All that said Republicans still may not need to worry about Deeds as each democrat contender has a poll that puts them ahead. Some 2nd amendment activists are trying to get gun owners to vote for Brian Moran who most Republicans would agree would be the easiest to beat.

Polling wise it still doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate. Bob McDonnell is leading in the one early poll that matters, how favorably the electorate views a candidate.

On a final note Bill Clinton is coming to Virginia one final time this weekend in support of Terry McAuliffe in what will probably be a low turnout affair next Tuesday.

David Ray: Convention or Primary

The following is a repost of an article Shaun Kenney posted by State Central Committeeman David Ray. It is a thougtful, well researched, and thorough analysis of whether the RPV should continue to nominate its candidates by convention. It is a must read for anyone interested in how the RPV should nominate its candidates.

__________________________________________________

David Ray is a State Central Committee member from the 11th District and a staunch conservative. This is a rather lengthy and intense debate within the Republican Party of Virginia, and has long been a topic of coversation. Ray does an outstanding job of outlining the problem in its entirety, and distributed this work to most of the folks on Bloggers Row at the state convention.

I forward it with his permission here for your perusal (nay — you should print this and read over lunch this week) and consideration.

Convention vs. Primary?

This weekend, the Republican Party of Virginia will select its statewide nominees via a convention in Richmond, Virginia. The last time Virginia Republicans nominated a statewide ticket via convention was 2001, when we nominated Mark Earley for Governor, Jay Katzen for Lieutenant Governor, and Jerry Kilgore for Attorney General. Virginia Republicans nominated a candidate for U.S. Senate by convention last year, but the time before that was in 1994, at the legendary Oliver North convention in Richmond. Many of the delegates in attendance this weekend have never attended a nominating convention.

Since the Republican State Central Committee voted on March 8, 2008 to nominate its 2009 statewide ticket by convention, many grassroots activists have decided to participate in our convention. However, others have decried the decision to use a convention to select our nominees, instead of doing what parties do in most other states – nominate via primary.

Many folks, particularly from the more transient parts of Virginia, are perplexed at the decision to nominate via convention instead of via primary. Some are even angry at the decision.

This pamphlet seeks to lay out the respective cases for each method of nomination, and seeks to persuade the reader that the State Central Committee made the right decision in March 2008. The case for each method has both a practical and a philosophical component. This pamphlet will explore these components for each.

Before proceeding, a little history and background are in order. Prior to the 20th Century, party nominations were routinely decided by some form of convention, for everything from Governor and U.S. Senator to U.S. Representative to Mayor, Sheriff, or local prosecutor. The Progressive Era of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century ushered in various changes in American politics. Among these changes was the move to take nominations away from the political parties themselves and put such decisions in the hands of the general voting public. The method chosen to effect this change was the direct primary – a publicly conducted election in which registered voters actually chose the nominees for public office on behalf of the political party with which they most identified and/or sympathized. This move was pioneered first in Wisconsin, and by the mid 20th Century, primaries were the most common method of nomination for every partisan public office in nearly every state.

Some states still allow parties to use conventions (e.g., Delaware, New York, Virginia), some require candidates to pass a given convention threshold before being placed on a primary ballot (e.g., Connecticut, Massachusetts, Utah), some show favoritism to the convention process while leaving a primary bypass option (e.g., Colorado, Minnesota), and Iowa actually requires a nominee to be chosen by convention when no candidate receives a sufficient plurality in the primary. Michigan selects its Gubernatorial and U.S. Senate nominees by primary, but selects its lower statewide office nominees by convention, some weeks after the Gubernatorial primary. Pennsylvania uses conventions to select nominees only in special elections. Louisiana had no partisan primaries at all from 1975 to 2007.

Also, some states require primary voters to register their party identification with the state prior to being allowed to vote in a party’s primaries. Some states (like New Hampshire), while implementing such formal public registration, allow all voters, regardless of party, to vote in any primary they choose. This practice is called crossover voting. Other states allow only legally registered party members, as well as independents, to vote in a given party’s primaries, but bar legally registered members of other parties from voting in that party’s primaries. Still other states, including several former Confederate states (such as Virginia), have no legal party registration at all. In the case of non-party registration states, from a legal standpoint, there is no such thing as “crossover voting,” since no one, under the law, belongs to any particular political party, and primary elections are open to every voter.

Arguments for a primary

We’ll begin with the practical arguments for a primary. Primary advocates assert that primaries, given their inducement for participation by all registered voters, provide the winner with better name I.D. The thinking is that, in a primary, the candidates will spend money on paid media ads, the news media will devote more time and ink to covering the contest, the party will be spared any expense in conducting the contest (since the state fully funds the actual machinery of the primary election), and a successful primary candidate will have assembled a precinct by precinct operation to win the primary, thus giving him a ready-made organization for the Fall campaign, and a field-tested operation to boot. With all of these advantages, primary advocates say, any primary victor would have a better chance to win the general election. Finally, primary advocates assert that the rigors of a primary campaign, combined with successfully assembling a campaign organization, will most frequently lead to the nomination of the most electable candidate.

From the political party’s perspective, there are three general incentives to utilize primaries. The first two have already been discussed – the purportedly stronger general election candidate, and the husbanding of financial resources for the Fall campaign. The third item offered to parties by a primary, particularly in states that have no legal party registration, is the list of primary voters. The primary voter list ostensibly offers parties and their nominees a rich source of volunteers, donors, and eventually voters for the nominees in the general election.

The philosophical defense of primaries is that they are, at their core, more democratic, more reflective of the will of the electorate (or the partisan electorate, where participation is circumscribed by state law). The rationale here is that nominations should reflect the popular will instead of the will of a select few, such as party insiders, big wigs, or other “big boys” whose interests may diverge significantly from those of the general public. As such, primaries are seen as a way of taking the nomination decision out of the old smoke-filled rooms and placing it into the hands of the electorate.

Also, primaries are described by advocates as more inherently fair, since they are held at each voter’s local precinct voting location. They are viewed as more accessible, since they run most of a work day, during which state laws require employers to give employees time off, if necessary, to vote. This latter requirement makes them accessible to shift workers. Also, because of absentee voting, primaries are considered more accessible to the handicapped, the aged, those bound to a home or a hospital bed, all federal employees, and military personnel serving overseas. Finally, since nearly all states hold primaries on a day other than Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, they are more accessible to Christians and Jews who might abstain from participation on a Sabbath. (It should be noted that Tennessee primaries are held on a Thursday, and Louisiana holds all its elections, except federal general elections, on a Saturday.) These latter two arguments are the most emotionally compelling, since there is really no political capital to be gained advocating a nomination method that appears to discriminate against devout/observant religious adherents or soldiers fighting for our liberties overseas.

So, with a compelling one-two-three punch case like the one laid out above, who could possibly support nominating a candidate by any method other than a primary?

Arguments for a convention

Before we make the case, let’s define the term. What is a political convention? It is nothing more than the assembling and convening of a group of like-minded free citizens to make decisions on its own behalf, such as electing officers, nominating candidates, and/or adopting resolutions or a party platform.

Again, we’ll begin with the practical argument. Conventions are much more organizationally intensive than primaries. In a primary, candidates often focus exclusively on precincts where they are strongest. In a weighted convention (as we use in Virginia, and as most states which use conventions do), candidates can ill afford to write off any territory, since support lost in one precinct or county or city cannot be made up elsewhere. In a weighted convention, even the largest jurisdiction is limited in its overall percentage of the total votes needed to nominate, so a candidate needs to maximize his strength everywhere. Such maximization of strength makes it more likely the winner will be ready to repeat this exercise in the general election. While in the Fall a nominee may still revert to the practice of focusing primarily on his stronger areas, he will be better situated to maximize his turnout in his weaker areas as well.

Also, a list of convention delegates is overwhelmingly more valuable to the party and its nominees than a primary voter list for all of the following reasons. Primary lists are quite a bit larger than a convention delegate list. In 1993 and 1994, around 14,000 delegates participated in Republican statewide conventions. In 1996, nearly 500,000 Virginians voted in the Republican U.S. Senate primary. No campaign could begin to sift through 500,000 names to find the most likely volunteers or donors. No local party committee could remotely hope to cull from such an overwhelmingly large pool the folks most likely to become new committee members. In addition, especially in states like Virginia with no legal partisan voter registration, the primary list is riddled with crossovers, independents, and other voters who are only marginally engaged in the election. It is a foolish waste of any party’s or any nominee’s time to wade through such a list in its entirety, yet no method exists for narrowing this base to something more workable.

However, those willing to spend a Saturday (or an entire evening, when mass meetings or conventions occur on a weeknight) attending a convention are exponentially more likely to become future volunteers, donors, and/or local committee members. This pool provides even greater growth and strength to political parties and their future nominees. Strong county and city committees are indispensable to the long-term health of a party and its nominees. And party committees are strongest in states that use conventions (e.g., Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Virginia), and weakest where conventions are never used (e.g., California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas, Wisconsin). Sooner or later, regardless of the method of nomination employed, either a nominee is weaker than the party would like and/or it’s a bad year for that party. In such instances, there is absolutely no substitute for a strong, vibrant, well-organized, and well-heeled local party committee. Local party committees offer even the most poorly-funded nominee a ready-made volunteer campaign staff – something a primary list could never provide as quickly or as effectively. A strong local party committee can be ready for the Fall campaign by the morning after the convention. A primary list will always take weeks (if not months) to obtain, sift through, and draw volunteers from.

Candidates spend quite a bit less money in conventions than in primaries winning the nomination. This allows less well-funded candidates to be competitive (thus mitigating a well-funded candidates’ huge money advantage). This is true, given the more grassroots intensiveness of a convention campaign. Money simply does not tip the scales in favor of the richest candidate(s) in a convention as it does in a primary. Additionally, regardless of how well or poorly funded the winner is, more of his resources can be saved for the general election, when stockpiled funds are more valuable. Better to have more cash flow in October than to use the money for the nomination in the Spring. No contested nomination victory is free, but it’s pointless to bankrupt the nominee (via expensive media buys and mass mailings) just as he begins to gear up for the Fall campaign. And, while seeking the nomination, the money a candidate does spend goes more towards grassroots organizing – a more valuable Fall campaign tool – than to media outlets (most of whom favor Democrats) or consultants. No consultant fee ever won over a swing voter, but a broad-based grassroots campaign certainly can.

Granted, every nomination contest has the potential to be ugly and dirty. But, for all the hard feelings exposed in a tough convention campaign, these are magnified all the more when the fight is held in full public view via a scorched earth mudsling fest on television. Sure, candidates or their surrogates try to rough up their nomination opponents. What else is new? But it’s best to avoid airing dirty laundry outside the family as much as possible. Yes, the other party’s nominee can still drag your candidate through the mud in the Fall, but there’s no compelling reason to make his job easier.

For the political parties, conventions also provide a fundraising opportunity. Ads can be sold in a convention program, and various convention sponsorships can not only cover the cost of holding the convention, they can help give the party necessary funding to support the eventual nominees in the general election. In short, conventions make money.

Also, in Virginia, a convention offers a political party the ability to select its nominee at an earlier date than the primary, which is usually held the second Tuesday in June (except in redistricting years, during which legislative and county magisterial district nominations are usually held in either August or September). While the primary filing deadline is the second Friday in April, a convention deadline can be set months earlier. In 2007, the 29^th State Senate District Republican Committee set a filing deadline in January. Bob FitzSimmonds, the only candidate to file, knew he was the nominee in January and was thus able to begin preparing his Fall campaign 10 months out.

Finally, a convention offers a political party a way to ensure it does not have an absolutely unelectable nominee. If only one candidate runs in a convention, unopposed, the party retains the option of selecting no nominee whatsoever. Imagine if David Duke or Gail Parker were the only candidate to file in a primary. Under Virginia law, the party would be compelled to accept this person as its nominee. But in a convention, the delegates could always choose “no nominee.” Opting to reject the only candidate in a convention still allows the party to select a more acceptable nominee later.

So much for the practical reasons why a convention is better than a primary. Many may still prefer primaries to conventions, after weighing the comparative assets and demerits of each, from a practical standpoint. But the philosophical critique of primaries and the corresponding philosophical defense of conventions should eliminate all support for primaries.

First of all, conventions cost the taxpayer nothing. As the party of fiscal responsibility and reduced government spending, Republicans should embrace this saving of taxpayer funds.

Also, conventions allow political parties to exert more control over their own internal processes, especially regulating who participates in their nomination processes. While nothing short of having voters register party membership directly with the party itself will ever ensure there are no crossover participants, few Democrats are as likely to formally take part in a Republican convention (or vice versa) as they might be to cast an easy vote in a Republican primary. Ideally, each party ultimately should keep track of its own members and limit nomination decision-making only to its actual members. Lest this task seem too overwhelming, consider this: if the AFL-CIO, a national organization representing millions, can keep track of all its members for purposes of its own elections (electing union leadership, voting to approve labor contracts), then so can the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee.

Conventions allow parties to set their own criteria for who is and isn’t eligible to receive its nominations. Parties can set their own deadlines, filing fees, and any other requirements. Also, convention delegates have a realistic chance to meet all the candidates for office (something many primary voters never have). This dynamic allows delegates – those actually making the selection – the opportunity to take their measure of each candidate. While no method ensures that the a priori best candidate is chosen, people who have had sometimes multiple opportunities to meet a candidate are far better suited to deem which candidates would make the better general election nominee and the best public servant.

The single greatest reason primaries are terrible is their unjustified intrusion of state power into the internal affairs of a private association of free citizens voluntarily joined together in furtherance of a common agenda. The state has only ONE valid interest with respect to elections – ensuring that the general election be conducted honestly, and that the winner be eligible constitutionally to hold the office to which he has been elected. That is the beginning and the end of the state’s valid interests.

Imagine, if you will, the state government notifying the Club for Growth, the SEIU, the National Rifle Association, EMILY’s List, or the Virginia Society for Human Life that it would be regulating the endorsement process of each of these groups. Such regulation would include the qualifications for endorsement (such as years of membership in the group, the number of other supporters required to sign a qualifying petition, and even the amount of the filing fee to qualify), the window during which the groups might consider their endorsement options, the date on which the endorsements must be completed, the locations where the groups must conduct the selection process, and the hours of the day during which the formal selection process must occur. If government were to intrude this violently with the free choices of private organizations, we would expect lawsuits. And we would certainly be treated to passionate tirades against such government tyranny. Few Americans would feel there was any valid reason to trample upon the free association rights of a private organization.

For years, assorted public policy organizations have been assessing candidates for public office, and every cycle, these groups announce their endorsements. Each group has chosen the criteria needed to earn its endorsement, as well as the timing of such a choice. Some groups endorse earlier in the cycle than others. Some endorse in primaries. Some do not. And the endorsement decisions are not subject to any appeal. If, for example, Frank Wolf believes his record on the right to keep and bear arms has earned him the endorsement of Gun Owners of America, but GOA chooses to endorse Vern McKinley instead, that’s just the way it goes. Even if Frank Wolf believes a majority of GOA dues-paid members prefer him to Mr. McKinley, he cannot appeal GOA’s decision. Once the endorsement is made, it’s over. Frank Wolf is entitled only to try convincing the general public that his nearly 30 years of public service merit the reward of another 2-year term in the U.S. House of Representatives. And the time to submit himself to the electorate to pass on his case is on November 2, 2010 – not the arbitrary date of June 8, 2010 chosen by the state.

In the same way, no state has any justifiable or compelling interest in usurping a political party’s free association rights (a First Amendment right) by dictating qualifications for nomination of candidates, setting a filing fee, imposing an arbitrary petition signature requirement (including the ludicrous mandate than no fewer than 400 signatures come from each Congressional district, in the case of statewide candidates). If a political party wants to select a wholly unelectable candidate, or even an ineligible candidate, that is not any concern of the state.

The Progressive Era waned after the election of Sen. Warren G. Harding (R-Ohio) to the Presidency in 1920 – 89 years ago. But primaries remain with us to this day – and they’re defended by more than pie-in-the-sky reformers who dream of a political world in which no private interest interferes with the serious business of public policy. Primaries are also the overwhelmingly favorite method of nomination by incumbents. Incumbents, because of their past electoral success, always start out with better name I.D. than their nomination challengers. Because of their incumbency, they have better access to funding from outside sources than challengers. As noted above, these incumbency advantages are magnified in a primary, and they are correspondingly diminished in a convention. No wonder incumbents prefer primaries – they’re part of an incumbency protection scheme that the government (which they control) has furnished them.

Incumbents often see themselves as presumptively entitled to renomination. Regrettably, many party regulars share this view. However, incumbents are nothing more than other job applicants for the position they already hold. While incumbents are entitled to cite their experience in office as an asset, and party members are certainly free to consider incumbency when making a nomination decision, no incumbent has a right to renomination. Every incumbent needs to earn renomination every time his seat comes up for election. And no state law should skew the political landscape in favor of incumbents.

But, state laws are written for incumbents by incumbents. In Virginia, this incumbency protection racket has reached an even more insidious low. The Virginia Code, § 24.2-509 B, provides as follows:

“A party shall nominate its candidate for election for a General Assembly district where there in only one incumbent of that party for the district by the method designated by that incumbent … [emphasis added]. …A party, whose candidate at the immediately preceding election for a particular office other than the General Assembly (i) was nominated by a primary or filed for a primary but was not opposed and (ii) was elected at the general election, shall nominate a candidate for the next election for that office by a primary unless all incumbents of that party for that office consent to a different method [emphasis added].”

In layman’s terms, General Assembly incumbents can unilaterally dictate the method of their own renomination. All other incumbents must be nominated by a primary first in order to acquire the right to demand another primary. (All Republican members of Virginia’s Congressional delegation currently have this right, under the law.) Setting aside how this law could ever withstand Equal Protection scrutiny under the 14^th Amendment, it is unmistakable that the Virginia Code was specifically designed to benefit one class of candidates (incumbents) over all others. Thus it is, under Virginia law, that if a political party wants to make sure its incumbents (other than members of the General Assembly) are more accountable to the party that nominated them, then it needs to ensure that no such candidate is ever nominated by primary. No matter how beloved an incumbent might be among members of his own party, he remains nothing more than another applicant for his job. The state, therefore, must not confer on any incumbent an institutionally unfair advantage over his opponents. Nor should any incumbent, by securing a primary in his current re-election campaign, be able to ensure an unfair advantage over his opponents in the next election, or enjoy a unique legal power vis-a-vis his nomination challengers.

Besides the simple fairness of ensuring a more level playing field for all nomination contenders, incumbent and non-incumbent alike, conventions also ensure greater accountability from incumbents to the party that nominated them. Incumbents work for the people who elected them, after all, not the other way around. So it’s most appropriate that, if an incumbent wishes to serve another term, he should have to seek renomination from the actual party activists who worked to elect him before. Conventions subject incumbents to greater party scrutiny. They also ensure that an incumbent who has strayed too far from the party’s principles has to face directly, in person, more of the party members he has betrayed. An incumbent who realizes his party’s activists will be deciding whether or not to renominate him may, in turn, be less likely to stray from the party’s platform.

A nomination, after all, is a gift bestowed on a candidate by a party – not an entitlement. The nomination ultimately belongs to the party conferring it – not the candidate receiving it and not the general public.

This latter point is why, no matter how sympathetic the plight of the shift workers, the homebound, the religious adherents, or the military personnel, there is no compelling reason for any government (federal, state, or local) to dictate and regulate how, when, if, or on whom a party may confer its official endorsement (i.e., its nomination) for public office, because there is no right held by members of the general public to participate in the internal processes of a private organization. No voting citizen would assert he has the right, under the law or the Constitution, to help the Sierra Club pick its endorsees. Correspondingly, no voting citizen has any such right to help a political party choose its nominees.

Now, lest someone envision horror stories of political parties excluding blacks, Catholics, Jews, or some other targeted group, the reality is that, if a political party wants to be electorally viable, it needs to include each of these groups, as well as any other citizens who might otherwise sympathize with its agenda. But this is a political concern – not a legal one. If a political party began excluding people from participation for bigoted reasons, it would ultimately be eradicated from the political landscape, or relegated to irrelevant status. Government has no valid state interest in maintaining the viability of any political party. Government didn’t create political parties, and it has no business seeking to sustain them or seeking to ensure they only nominate credible nominees.

In sum, conventions, which are conducted completely by private entities to transact a private internal matter, are not on trial. Primaries are. Setting aside all the respective merits of the practical justifications for a primary, the question needs to be asked: what is the compelling state interest that justifies denying a political party its First Amendment free association right to control its own internal decision-making processes? The simple answer is, there is none. Primaries are a gross violation of a fundamental constitutional liberty – free association. Thus, primaries should be abolished.

Frequently, when party committees debate whether to use a convention or a primary, each side tries to “prove” its method is better, based on electoral history. The chart below provides a fairly extensive (though not necessarily comprehensive) list of federal and statewide nominees who won a contested nomination race in Virginia since 1977. In some races, like Jay Katzen’s 2001 Lieutenant Governor race, the other contestants withdrew before the nomination was decided, but the winner did emerge from what was at one time a contested race. Such winners are included here. Convention and primary “winners” are those who won the general election. Convention and primary “losers” are those who did not. Primaries produced about as many winners as losers, while conventions yielded far more losers than winners. However, it should be noted that only one convention winner (among 21) was an incumbent – Rep. Tom Davis (R-11) in 1996. Meanwhile, the list of primary winners contains 6 incumbents (among 22) – Sen. Chuck Robb (D) in 1994, Sen. John Warner (R) in 1996, Rep. Herb Bateman (R-1) in 1996, Rep. Jim Moran (D-8) in 2004 and 2008, and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-10) in 2008. Finally, among the 41 convention losers, 19 of them lost to a candidate also nominated by convention. These 19 losers, shown below in bold, are effectively a wash. Of the remaining 22 convention losers, 20 were running against an incumbent (designated with an asterisk (*)). No incumbent federal office holder in Virginia has been denied renomination since 1966, when two incumbent Democrats lost primaries – Sen. A. Willis Robertson and Rep. Howard W. Smith (8). Sen. Robertson is the only incumbent statewide office holder in Virginia to lose renomination since 1901.

Convention winners (21):

Marshall Coleman (R), 1977 Attorney General

Tom Bliley (R), 1980 U.S. Representative 3

Dick Davis (D), 1981 Lieutenant Governor

Jerry Baliles (D), 1981 Attorney General

Jim Olin (D), 1982 U.S. Representative 6

French Slaughter, Jr. (R), 1984 U.S. Representative 7

Jerry Baliles (D), 1985 Governor

Lewis Payne (D), 1988 U.S. Representative 5

Chuck Robb (D), 1988 U.S. Senate

Doug Wilder (D), 1989 Governor

George Allen (R), 1991 U.S. Representative 7

Bob Goodlatte (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 6

Leslie Byrne (D), 1992 U.S. Representative 11

George Allen (R), 1993 Governor

Jim Gilmore (R), 1993 Attorney General

Tom Davis (R), 1994 U.S. Representative 11

Tom Davis (R), 1996 U.S. Representative 11

Randy Forbes (R), 2001 U.S. Representative 4

Jerry Kilgore (R), 2001 Attorney General

Rob Wittman (R), 2007 U.S. Representative 1

Tom Periello (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 5

Convention losers (41):

Joe Canada (R), 1977 Lieutenant Governor

Andy Miller (D), 1978 U.S. Senate

Nathan Miller (R), 1981 Lieutenant Governor

Dick Davis (D), 1982 U.S. Senate

Kevin Miller (R), 1982 U.S. Representative 6

Edie Harrison (D), 1984 U.S. Senate*

Lou Costello (D), 1984 U.S. Representative 7

Wyatt Durrette (R), 1985 Governor

John Chichester (R), 1985 Lieutenant Governor

Buster O’Brien (R), 1985 Attorney General

Linda Arey (R), 1988 U.S. Representative 5

Maurice Dawkins (R), 1988 U.S. Senate

Jerry Curry (R), 1988 U.S. Representative 2*

Kay Slaughter (D), 1991 U.S. Representative 7

Jim Chapman (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 2*

Steve Musselwhite (D), 1992 U.S. Representative 6

Gary Weddle (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 9*

Mike Farris (R), 1993 Lieutenant Governor*

Bill Dolan (D), 1993 Attorney General

Ollie North (R), 1994 U.S. Senate*

George Landrith, III (R), 1994 U.S. Representative 5*

Mark Warner (D), 1996 U.S. Senate*

John Tate (R), 1996 U.S. Representative 2*

John Otey (R), 1996 U.S. Representative 8*

Lewis Payne (D), 1997 Lieutenant Governor

Joe Barta (R), 1998 U.S. Representative 9*

Cornell Brooks (D), 1998 U.S. Representative 10*

Lawrence Davies (D), 2000 U.S. Representative 1

John Boyd (D), 2000 U.S. Representative 5*

Demaris Miller (R), 2000 U.S. Representative 8*

Mike Corrigan (D), 2000 U.S. Representative 11*

Louise Lucas (D), 2001 U.S. Representative 4

Mark Earley (R), 2001 Governor

Jay Katzen (R), 2001 Lieutenant Governor

Meredith Richards (D), 2002 U.S. Representative 5*

Lisa Marie Cheney (R), 2004 U.S. Representative 8*

Shawn O’Donnell (D), 2006 U.S. Representative 1*

Al Weed (D), 2006 U.S. Representative 5*

Philip Forgit (D), 2007 U.S. Representative 1

Jim Gilmore (R), 2008 U.S. Senate

Sam Rasoul (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 6*

Primary winners (22):

Chuck Robb (D), 1977 Lieutenant Governor

Stan Parris (R), 1980 U.S. Representative 8

Frank Wolf (R), 1980 U.S. Representative 10

Don Beyer (D), 1989 Lieutenant Governor

Bobby Scott (D), 1992 U.S. Representative 3

Chuck Robb (D), 1994 U.S. Senate

John Warner (R), 1996 U.S. Senate

Herb Bateman (R), 1996 U.S. Representative 1

John Hager (R), 1997 Lieutenant Governor

Mark Earley (R), 1997 Attorney General

Jo Ann Davis (R), 2000 U.S. Representative 1

Eric Cantor (R), 2000 U.S. Representative 7

Mark Warner (D), 2001 Governor

Tim Kaine (D), 2001 Lieutenant Governor

Jim Moran (D), 2004 U.S. Representative 8

Bill Bolling (R), 2005 Lieutenant Governor

Bob McDonnell (R), 2005 Attorney General

Jim Webb (D), 2006 U.S. Senate

Mark Warner (D), 2008 U.S. Senate

Jim Moran (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 8

Frank Wolf (R), 2008 U.S. Representative, 10

Gerry Connolly (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 11

Primary losers (23):

Henry Howell (D), 1977 Governor

Ed Lane (D), 1977 Attorney General

Jack Herrity (R), 1978 U.S. Representative 8

Ira Lechner (D), 1982 U.S. Representative 10

Dick Saslaw (D), 1984 U.S. Representative 8

John Flannery (D), 1984 U.S. Representative 10

Bob Weinberg (D), 1988 U.S. Representative 10

Marshall Coleman (R), 1989 Governor

Kyle McSlarrow (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 8

Henry Butler (R), 1992 U.S. Representative 11

Jim Chapman (R), 1994 U.S. Representative 2

Demaris Milller (R), 1998 U.S. Representative 8

Don McEachin (D), 2001 Attorney General

Jerry Kilgore (R), 2005 Governor

Leslie Byrne (D), 2005 Lieutenant Governor

Creigh Deeds (D), 2005 Attorney General

Phil Kellam (D), 2006 U.S. Representative 2

Tom O’Donoghue (R), 2006 U.S. Representative 8

Andy Hurst (D), 2006 U.S. Representative 11

Anita Hartke (D), 2008 U.S. Representative 7

Mark Elmore (R), U.S. Representative 8

Judy Feder (D), U.S. Representative 10

Keith Fimian (R), U.S. Representative 11

---

A note here about weighted conventions. Many may wonder how each city and county in Virginia is assigned its respective convention weight by the Republican Party. Weights are calculated based on a formula measuring how well past GOP Presidential and Gubernatorial nominees performed in that city or county. Because of this formula, there is an added incentive for local GOP committees to work even harder to increase favorable turnout for the Presidential and Gubernatorial nominees.

It should be noted that this year’s Virginia Republican convention has already made a profit.