According to Rule 11.1 of the Bylaws of the PAGOP it appears that, in disadvantaging a qualified Republican candidate, the state party may be in violation of it’s own bylaws. Disciplinary measures can be triggered, “Whenever it shall appear that any member of the State Party, Leadership… opposes the Republican State Party or any Republican Party candidate for office in either a Municipal, General Election or Special Election…”. Clearly, the spirit of the rule is that we are not to allow disparaging of Republican candidates. Beyond this, there are two questions that arise from the broader language in this rule: 1) Why would “Primary Election” be omitted from the list in the definition? and 2) What is the route to trigger a complaint, investigation, and redress, if the grievance is against the PAGOP leadership? Do we have something akin to a “Constitutional crisis” emerging here?

Moreover, it does not appear that this section grants any jurisdiction over county committee decisions or activities. In fact, upon examination of Rule 2.1, though county chairs are members of The Republican State Committee by default, it does not appear that individual county Committees comprise the committee (aka The State Party) in any way at all. Rule 1.2 defines them separately within a broader body, referred to as “The Republican Party of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” (hereafter referred to as “Republican party”). It is notable that each of the caucuses are independent bodies, separate from “The State Party” as well. What is the significance of this? Well, this would indicate that, while county chairs may have some accountability to take input to bring back to the county committees, county committees are actually sovereign entities, able to make their own decisions and endorsements, free of coercion from “the top”. Of course, with representative government, this is as it should be.

Now to be clear, the State Party is charged with the “general supervision, regulation, and direction” of the broader Republican party. Naturally, that should mean they ensure that meaningful representative government is taking place. Surely we weren’t given a model where the proverbial fox guards the henhouse, right? But also factoring into the equation are rules for county committees. Rule 6.1 informs us that “Each county Republican Committee shall adopt rules and bylaws, which shall not be inconsistent with the Rules of the State Party or law…”. The Pennsylvania Election Code further directs that county committees must promptly correct their bylaws if they are incompatible with those of State Committee. In a hypothetical situation, if the State Party were to change its bylaws in a way that made every county committee suddenly incompatible, would it more fitting for the State Party to adjust their bylaws, or for every county committee to rewrite their bylaws? The answer is – or ought to be – “it depends”. Which change would reflect the principles of a democratic system? Which change would better enable a well-educated elected electorate?

Finally, remember how the word Primary was omitted from Rule 11.1? It’s interesting to note that it’s back in Rule 14.1. This rule directs the process for any candidate seeking endorsement for a position on the statewide ballot: Rule 14.1 – Exhibit B (see the last 4 pages of the bylaws). We can only assume that the wording is intentional and the effect was clear. This is not a good look for the Republican party, and it is not in the interests of Pennsylvanians. Ultimately, this is about allowing voters to be exposed to a variety of perspectives and opinions so they may cast a well-informed vote. Is this important or relevant? Let’s visit a few quotes of Thomas Jefferson on the matter:

• “A WELL-INFORMED CITIZENRY IS THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNY.”
• “AN INFORMED CITIZENRY IS AT THE HEART OF A DYNAMIC DEMOCRACY.”
• “WHENEVER THE PEOPLE ARE WELL INFORMED, THEY CAN BE TRUSTED WITH THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT; THAT WHENEVER THINGS GET SO FAR WRONG AS TO ATTRACT THEIR NOTICE, THEY MAY BE RELIED ON TO SET THEM TO RIGHTS.”

Clearly, to maintain parity, there are cases where it would be incumbent upon The State Party to change their bylaws to make clear a very basic tenet of representative government: Don’t presume to tell The People in County committees, or in The State Committee, who they can or can’t support in the primary. Our leaders shouldn’t expect to lose their First Amendment rights just because they take an interest in serving through an elected role in the Republican party. State Party, County committee leaders, and state committee people: regardless of how you may feel about a particular candidate, try to understand this. Then take your stand.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.