Veto Amendment ill, but not Dead

At last week’s State Central Committee meeting, SCC members reconsidered and sent back to the Constitution and Bylaws committee the infamous ‘Veto Amendment’ — a State GOP Constitutional amendment that would have granted the SCC veto power over any constitutional amendment brought forward and approved by a super-majority vote (2/3 vote) of State Delegates at a State Party Convention (read more about the amendment here).  This amendment was a focal issue during the recent Utah County Republican Party leadership and SCC member campaign period, where Utah County Delegates made it very clear that they did not approve of this apparent power-grab amendment.

Sending the amendment back to committee took it off the table for the day, but does not necessarily kill it (as some in leadership are claiming).  In fact, just two days ago I received an email in which Clair Ellis (Chair of the State C&B Committee) was seeking support to resurrect the Veto Amendment by attaching it to a separate Constitutional amendment entitled “Delegates’ Rights to Amend the Constitution or Bylaws”.  Ironic, considering the Veto Amendment runs contrary to delegates’ rights.

The amendments submitted to the C&B Committee for consideration at convention are listed HERE.  It appears that Clair did not receive support for his request (he certainly didn’t get any from me), as the Delegates’ Rights amendment appears to be unchanged.

This is an issue we will have to keep our eyes on if we want to avoid attempted resurrection of the Veto Amendment.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Republican Party. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Veto Amendment ill, but not Dead

  1. Lisa Shepherd says:

    In State C&B tonight, I moved to “postpone indefinitely” the Constitutional Amendment Radification amendment that the SCC referred back to the C&B on May 14. I was surprised when a few members stated that it was not the intention of the SCC to KILL this amendment by referring it back to the C&B.

    Didn’t we clarify this motion to refer back to C&B in SCC that the intention was to kill it? I thought we clarified that several times before our vote. My motion failed to kill it 4/3.

    So, I am looking for a confirmation from the Party officers what their intention of sending it back to committee is/was. To kill it in committee or to have it resurface in SCC? I had a solid understanding of it’s intention of “kill” from points of information that were raised and answered in the SCC before our vote. I am puzzled.

    I did move to have another C&B meeting to further discuss it before the August 27 SCC meeting, so we may report on our action with this referral before a “new” C&B Committee takes it’s seats.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s