Earlier today federal district court judge Robert Payne permanently enjoined enforcement of a Virginia statute mandating that all Virginia delegates vote for the candidate who received the most votes in the Virginia primary. The Virginia law placed delegates at the risk of criminal prosecution if they voted in accordance with their conscience or in accordance with party rules. The court framed the conflict nicely:
Section 545(D) requires that, where the party holds a presidential primary election to determine the preference of the voters, but chooses to select delegates by local convention, all delegates to the national convention are bound to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in the primary on the first ballot. In other words. Section 545(D) mandates a ”winner-take-all” result that is squarely at odds with RNC Rule 16(c)(2), thereby subjecting the Virginia delegation to the reduction-by-half penalty of Rule 17(a) and allowing Virginia’s votes to be allocated by the Convention in accordance with RNC Rule 17 (b). Thus, Correll faces the unenviable choice of (1) voting pursuant to his party’s requirements (RNC Rules 16 and 17, RPV s 16(f) Filing, and the Declaration) but facing a risk of criminal prosecution under Section 545(D); or (2) voting in accordance with the statute, but violating his pledge and the party rules and facing the risk of losing his opportunity to participate in the 2016 Republican National Convention at all.
The court then analyzed the ample precedent demonstrating, among other things, that “any interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents,” and that a political party . . . has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” This interest is “particularly strong” when nominating and selecting candidates for president and vice-president. The court’s ruling was clear:
Decisional law, therefore, makes clear that Section 545(D), which purports to govern the allocation and binding of delegates in their voting in contravention of the national party rules (by which Correll has agreed to abide) and which threatens to eliminate altogether Correll’s opportunity to participate as a delegate at the National Convention, imposes a severe burden on Correll’s First Amendment rights.
However, the court did not rule that Correll was therefore free to vote his conscience. The precise rules governing his vote are up to the delegates at the GOP convention. Instead, it ruled that the party’s rules trump Virginia statutes — a critically important ruling not just for Virginia delegates (who are now free under current rules to vote proportionally in a state where Trump achieved just 34.8 percent of the vote), but also for the convention itself. If the delegates choose to follow traditional GOP practice and allow each delegate to vote according to his or her conscience, the ruling today indicates that contrary state laws are unlikely to be enforced. The ruling applied to the Virginia plaintiff only, but its reasoning (reliant as it is on Supreme Court precedent) should be persuasive nationwide.
None of this means that a delegate revolt will occur, it just reaffirms what we’ve long known — the delegates decide. They may justify their decision to select Trump by referring to his plurality in the primaries, but they are bound only if they defy more than a century of GOP tradition and vote to bind themselves. Either way, they make the call.
Virginia Court Boosts Anti-Trump Delegates -- Holds that Party Rules Are Superior to State Laws