fusion of earned media so no preordained candidate could front end load the system. that's a tool that was not available when the delaware plan came along. but i say that because it illustrates how intricate all these various pieces are. there's the debate piece. there's infused earned media. there's the cooling off period, there's pushing it back so we have a shorter time period. there's the whole prospect of the way in which different states calculate proportional delegations. all of those things are quite tracky. all those things require a rubik's cube approach. that's way more than we could probably do here. if we try t.d. do anything, the net effect would be a massive set of unintended consequences and to my colleague from alabama, that we could never fix because we in the south always vote as a bloc on the reform n.c. and i could never cross the 25% threshold. >> thank you, mr. evans.

i'm going to recognize one more individual and then i'll entertain a motion for previous question. >> i urge a no vote and i move the previous question. >> see how well that worked? thank you. we're going to move directly to a vote on closing debate all those in favor of closing debate those in favor say aye. any opposed, nay. the ayes have it. we will now move directly to a vote on the text of the amendment. those in favor of adopting amendment 16.4 please say aye. those opposed, nay. the in a i -- the nays have it. next we will go to amendment 16.5. this is the amendment that i directed the lady from maine to. this is -- this involved rule number 16-c-2, submitted by mr. recognized --

recognized for the purpose of making a motion. mr. ash: this is rule 16-c-2, page 30, line 10, strike march 15 and insert march 31. i'll make this as painless as possible for everybody. if you liked the last amendment, you'll love this one. if you didn't like that so much, you're probably not going to like this one. >> is there a second? all right. there's been a second. i'm sorry, i think i just lost track there for a moment. i apologize. without objection, the chair will recognize only two speakers on each side of this, if there be some. is there anyone who would like to rise in opposition? anyone who would like to rise in opposition? mr. dupree. >> brevity is the soul of wit. i rise in opposition for the exact same reason we just debated on the previous rule and move the previous question. >> the previous question is in

order. we'll move to a vote on whether to close debate. those in favor of closing debate please say aye. any opposed, nay. the ayes have it. we'll now move directly to a vote on the amendment. all those in favor of adopting amendment 16.5, please say aye. those opposed, nay. the nays have it. i believe that completes rule 16 . and we have no amendments for rule 17. do we have any amendments for rule 18? we have some. ave they been withdrawn? they have not been presented. rule number 19, we had none. rule number 20 has not been presented to counsel's office. , ll go now to rule 21.1 dealing with contests and resolution by state. rule number 21.1 impacting rule

21 has been proposed by the gentlelady from virginia, ms. gentry who is recognized for the purpose of presenting the motion. ms. gentry: good evening, ann gentry from virginia. i propose the language you see then escreen to add the words after the district convention in question or after the word meet. thank you. >> is there a second? it's been moved and seconded. ms. gentry would you like to speak to your motion? >> thank you. this is to address the situation we had this year in virginia where our state convention took place in the middle of our district conventions. we had district conventions both after and before our state convention. >> thank you. is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? is there any further discussion to this amendment? hearing none, we'll move directly to a vote. all those in favor of adopting amendment number 21.1, please

say aye. those opposed, nay. he nays have it. all those in favor of adopting mendment 21.1, please stand.

>> i apologize for whispering, we were just saying we think we need to bring chocolate omorrow. all right, thank you. would you please be seated. all those against, please stand.

>> madam chair, parliamentary inquiry, please. >> yes, sir. >> for those of us who were distracted initially, how might we register our vote, having missed the standing earlier? >> are you in favor or against? >> i'm in favor. >> all right. without objection, i will add one more to the tally. >> i was distracted, talking to him. please add me as well. >> without objection. ok, we're starting a flood here. if we keep this up we're going to have to do this again. let me see if it's going to make a material difference.

ok. it does not make a difference. i am informed the chair was in error. there are 44 -- there are 40 for and 34 against. i appreciate the opportunity to get that right. that amendment passed. i think some of you are so tired, you're hoarse, i'm not hearing it. lest you give up hope that you will give out of here in a reasonable time, we have two more amendments that impact multiple rules, and then we need to go back to mr. ash's amendment, and then we will have completed our work on the second section and i will suggest that we adjourn for the night at that point. all right. the next amendment that we will take up is amendment m-2.1. which stands for multiple rules, first amendment.

the chair will recognize the sponsor, mr. ryder of tennessee, for the purpose of -- before you do that, mr. ryder, we're taking just a moment to pass these out because they will not fit in one screen on the video monitors. so just give us a moment, mr. ryder, so everyone can be caught p. sorry. i'm feeling a little bit of an energy drain here. thank you.

all right, does everyone now m-2.1? opy of amendment if you do not please raise your hand. all right. mr. ryder, you are recognized for the purpose of making a motion. mr. ryder: madam chairman, john ryder of tennessee, i move the dotchings the amendments shown as m-2.1. >> thank you, mr. ryder. is there a second? it's been moved and seconded. mr. ryder would you like to address the merits of your amendment. mr. ryder: yes, i would. thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, thank you. >> can i ask the staff to be just a little more quiet, please? or whoever it is back there talking. little distracting for the chair, thank you. mr. ryder: this is a series of amendments that arose out of this year's experience with the certification and contest

procedures. and there were a number of difficulties and there are a number of provisions of the existing rule which is appear to be archaic and burdensome and so what we have tried to do is come up with a package of amendments and streamline, clarify, modernize these procedures. and what i would like to do is just very briefly go through the points one by one. 18-d, st item is in rule which requires the -- which prohibits delegations from filling vacancies any later than 12 hours prior to the general session. i don't -- this gives us time to do things like print the temporary roll and that 12 hours prior to the general session i believe would fall at 2:00 a.m. on sunday this year.

so i don't think anybody will be filling their delegation at 4:00 a.m. on sunday. rule 20-a, we strike the words date of the meeting of the national convention and replace that with the date on which the national convention is scheduled to begin. we have seen situations in prior conventions where we were scheduled to begin on a monday and because of a weather event had to meet at a later time and so we -- the trigger date needs to be when everybody was notified of the trigger date. n rule 20-b, we insert the words, by sending names and addresses in the following manner. if you look through 20-b that isdz you the various ways

authorize to back up the certification from the state chairman. after the-b-2, we add words all certificates and/or copies of certified election results, again providing another mechanism readily available to the state party for certification of their delegates. 20-b-2, same language that we used in 20-b-1.

in 20-b-3, again the same language providing for another authorized officer. in 20-c, again the same language regarding the date on which the national convention is scheduled to begin. in 20-d, we strike the words as of the date of the start of the convention and again put in the language about the date on which the convention is scheduled to begin. 202 -- 22-a, we strike the words presenting certificates of election from and replace it with the words certified by. in 23-a we strike the words registered mail. we had a real problem in one of the contests we had where the contestants had to be noticed by registered mail, it's expensive, it's cumbersome, it's time consuming, and we think that can be accomplished with much more efficiency and still provide

adequate notice. or other means set forth in the committee on rules ancon tests. 23-b we strike the entire rule, it is a reversal of the wording there, to say instead of only in alternate -- alternate or delegate may file to start off with a contest may be filed against the delegate or alternate delegate. i think the wording is clear. parenc, just delete the -s-close paren. in 24-b, the current procedure requires that the parties file their pleadings on the same day and that is a very awkward procedure. what this does is the contestant files 27 days in advance and then the respondent would have

five days to file a response. in 25 b, we replace the language six and strike the language six and insert the earlier of 24 hours after the r.n.c. passes the temporary rule or 12 hours prior to the commencement of the onvention. madam chairman, all this is simply to make clear what the rules are and in some cases to streamline. there is no other agenda other than clarity and efficiency here. i would urge adoption of the amendment. >> is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the amendment. >> i have a couple of questions of mr. ryder. >> generally, questions should be addressed to the chair but without objection, i'll have mr. ryder and mr. little to have a discussion that may benefit all

ofous. mr. little: mr. ryder, through madam chairman, you indicated it was 2:00 a.m. as of sunday when your very first amendment here, but of course it refers to the republican national committee meeting, session of that -- mr. ryder: i'm sorry. that's right. 12 hours prior to the general session of the -- mr. little: that would have been this week. and that's because the r.n.c. is required to adopt a temporary rule. mr. ryder: that's correct. thank you for that clarification, mr. little. i should have directed that to you, madam chairman. >> i thought it would be more helpful if you talked to each other for a moment. are there any other individuals who wish to be recognized for the purpose of opposing the motion? seeing none, we move to a vote. those in favor of adopting mr. ryder's motion, please say aye. those opposed, nay. the amendment passes.

we will move now to amendment impacts rule number 14 -- in a number of aspects. this has been raised by mr. ash of arizona who is recognized for the purpose of making a motion. mr. ash: thank you, ma tam chairman. bruce ash from the state of arizona. you will see before you various . tations within rule 14 the gist of where this is going is, as earlier discussed by mr. little and others, we've rejected those amendments, perhaps the purpose of still making this motion at the present time is to get this on the docket for when the temporary -- when this temporary

committee begins meeting. the concepts here to be aware of is the change from population basis electoral votes to republican performance, which is one delegate per 50,000 republican votes cast. this doesn't take into account illegal aliens and it bases representation on g.o.p. performance. this should encourage g.o.p. participation, rewarding productive states with more delegates and prompting those states with -- that have been underperforming to do better. approximately 30% more delegates are created by this, with 10% more participants. now, under this particular plan, 39 states would gain delegates.

one stays the same and only 11 drop. the territories stay exactly the same from where they are now. it also moves large numbers of alternates over to being delegates. getting more people participating in the process. there are probably -- there probably is good reason at this time, given the past votes that have been taken this afternoon, madam chairman, to refer these ideas to a committeeful. but it would be -- to a committee. but it would be wise for us to at least look at these currently to respond to any questions or any debate that we might have. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. ash. the chair is a little bit confused on what you'd like to suggest so let me ask you this. are you proposing that we go ahead with a vote on your amendment or are you proposing to withdraw it with the understanding of the body that this will be referred to a committee? mr. ash: thank you.

i would like to have debate and a vote on it. if the body decided not to adopt these amendments, then of course i would hope that some of these ideas, if not all of these ideas, might be the topic of conversation when this committee begins meeting at a later date. >> thank you, mr. ash. we will proceed with debaten the amendment. are there individuals who wish to be heard in opposition? >> would it be a point of inquiry, i'm trying to understand some of the language on what is stricken, and could i ask a question to clarify? >> certainly. >> am i correct in understanding that this would delete all delegates from the district of columbia and the territories? it talks about striking 10 through 12. >> mr. ash is that the intent of your motion?

>> no, it would not. >> so it would leave the delegates from d.c. and the territories? >> and the ter toys, correct. >> all right, thank you. is there someone who would like to speak in opposition? the gentleman -- i've forgotten your state, i apologize. >> delaware. the delaware plan. >> of course, of course. the gentleman from delaware. >> thank you, madam chairman. i rise in opposition to this proposed rule. as i see it, i haven't seen the breakdown but my guess is the 10 states that suffer are the smallest states, just looking at it from delaware's perspective, where we have the largest congressional district that is only one congressman. we would no longer, right now under the current laws we get three delegates for each congressional district, that's the rule this rule says if you don't have a republican you only get one. we only have 17 delegates to begin with. we lose delegates that way. this awards additional delegates for every, i think it's 500,000

-- 50,000. every 50,000 republican votes cast. delaware is a pretty small state. we've only got about 500,000 registered voters, more than half of them are on the other side of the aisle. and yet a big state, new york, california, illinois, they're just going to get a lot more delegates and that's not even in the rules. so this is going to further exacerbate the differential in state impacts and state sizes and i think it should be opposed. i don't have any problem studying it but i'm sure further study will come to that conclusion as well. thank you. >> thank you. are there others who wish to be heard in support, in support? of the amendment. are there others who wish to be heard in opposition to the amendment? >> thank you, madam chairman. the first amendment, page 24,

lines two through four, i'm not sure what the intent of that actually is because it seems to me that perhaps what the author wants to do is to strike the word state before republican party in line three, rather than state after the word each. because it's not clear what the effect of that is. >> mr. ash, would you like to address that? >> ma cham chairman, i don't have an excellent answer for my fellow delegate. i wish i did. i don't have an answer for you. it was part of our drafting that we did. >> are there other individuals -- did you have anything else? >> no, i would -- i believe this is a confusing amendment and i

would urge that we vote against it. >> is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? anyone else who would like to speak in favor? is there anyone else who would like to speak -- i see the lady from wyoming is still coming -- >> point of information. >> yes, sir. >> i'm confused by the effect of this amendment, specifically for the virgin islands. is the intention to change the amount of delegates going forward? >> mr. ash? >> thank you for that question. the territories are not impacted by this. they don't -- they don't lose, they don't gain. >> all right, the lady from wyoming is recognized to speak in support. >> yes, i speak in support of this amendment again because it is based upon the concept of rewarding those states that are

voting republican and that -- it is rewarding those states that have republican governors and senators and representatives, it is a benefit to -- to the vast majority of the states and i think that there was a comment about whether it hurt the smaller states, again, coming from the least populated state in the nation, looking at the numbers, it actually helps the state of wyoming and it will help other states as well in terms of increasing their delegates. it is performance-based, based upon those states that vote republican. we're trying to reward the people who get out the vote and that have the republican governors, senators, representatives, and those things. it is a performance-based type delegate allocation. thank you. >> thank you. the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, madam chairman. jordan ross of nevada. i have to echo the earlier comment from the gentleman who said that the amendment is confusing. the -- the language as i'm reading it here, striking the word state which is currently

defined in our rules to include all of the territories, not just the district of columbia, and to replace it with the 50 states and the district of columbia, i fail to see how this does not exclude the territories. and there was another question just a moment ago, the author was honest enough to say he did not have an answer. easter eggs are entertaining when they're in video games or children's easter baskets, i don't like them in rules, madam chair. i don't know what else is lurking in this. we don't have enough time to go through it. i urge a no vote. >> thank you. the gentlelady from california. >> madam chair, i call the question. previous question. >> previous question has been called. we will now move to a vote on ending debate on amendment m-2.2. those in favor of end egg d -- ending debate say aye. those opposed, nay. the ayes have it. we move to a vote on amendment

m-2.2. all those in favor of adoption of this amendment please say aye. all those opposed, nay. the nays have it. ladies and gentlemen, two more came in while we were working. let's see if we can't deal with these as well. amendment number 24.1. deals with rule number 24-e. it has been submitted by the lady from maryland, ms. ambrose who is recognized for the purpose of making a motion. ms. ambrose: hello, good evening. this proposal is to simply add a the rulee end of 24-e, pertains to we have an eight-day notice in front of this which maybe someone else could assist and give us the lead in to it but the addition is a copy of

such objection shall be provided to all member os they have republican national committee within three days of receipt and in all cases before, and now i can't read it. enlarge the screen, please, sor in all cases before the start of any meeting of the republican national committee in which the contest is to be addressed under these rules. this is simply -- >> we can ask for a second. is there a second? there is a second. now please proceed. >> thank you. this is simply a notice issue, once again. i'm of the opinion that if we criticize nancy pelosi for saying let's pass this so we can read it, we need to be able to read things before we pass them or vote on them at the republican national committee. so i'm simply requesting that we

have notice before we decide weighty issues before us. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? one of you decide. mr. ryder. is recognized in opposition to amendment 24.1. mr. ryder: if i understand this, the -- well, it gets to be a timing issue in terms of the objections we receive and when they come to the national committee. the normal procedure is that after there is an objection to the initial finding of the contest committee, the contest committee then either grants a hearing or doesn't grant a hearing. and then the initial meeting of

the contest committee is in washington and then the hearing is held in the convention city. and the contest committee then hears testimony from any party seeking a hearing, deliberates, and then gives the national committee its results and the national committee then reviews the findings of the committee rather than going behind the committee and acting as a trial court in its own right. so it seems to me that this is not an appropriate procedure for us to follow and i would urge a no vote on this amendment. >> thank you, mr. ryder. is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of the amendment? is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? seeing no one else who wishes to be recognized, we will move immediately to a vote on the amendment. those in favor of adopting amendment 24.1, please say aye.

those opposed, nay. he nays have it. the next item that we have is amendment number 16.6. his pertaining to rule 16-d-1. t has been proposed by ms. blanchard-reed of the state of washington who is recognized for the purpose of making a motion. >> i would like to make a motion to strike the word selected after the word elected. >> is there a second? moved and seconded. ms. blanchard-reed if you'd like to proceed. >> i propose to do this because systems an words matter. the word elect indicates that someone is chosen by -- to do a job. voting is open, fair, an transparent. selecting is choosing somebody according to a system and

selecting does imply a bias. it prevents the potential of selling delegates to the highest donor and voting is broad, anyone could win, and selecting is narrow and closed. so i urge you to vote in favor of replacing the word selected and adding elected. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the motion? the gentleman from nevada. >> madam chair, i see nothing that -- >> name and state. >> yes ma'am. junior dan -- jordan ross, nevada. that's why i have the name tag, in case i get lost they know to return me to my wife. i see nothing in this that says, you know, going forward, starting with the convention four years from now, so i'm looking at this, i'm thinking, anybody who -- the meth by which they were chosen to be a delegate to this convention, if it doesn't meet the precise interpretation of what an

election is, i mean, does that mean they had to be elected at the precinct level, the county level, the state level are we then going to disenfranchise and revoke the credentials of a number of people? i don't know from various states exactly how all the delegates are chosen. i'm not willing to put my vote in favor of this without knowing that and i would advise that everyone else would do the same. again, surprises buried in rule amendments that are just too scary to go forward with. i urge a no vote. >> thank you. is there anyone who rises in support? is there anyone who rises in support of this amendment? mr. ash do, you rise in support? mr. ash? >> yes, i'm sorry. i do -- i rise in support and to answer the gentleman's question, with respect to this convention, this rule doesn't impact this convention. and really what it does is

lidify our commitment to activist voting in elections, in state conventions, and so on. and not selecting delegates in small rooms where just a few people have an opportunity to select delegates. at this time. thank you. >> thank you, mr. ash. >> i would rise to oppose this amendment because what this amendment would do is negate the provisions of rule 14-a-2 and if you'll turn your page to the top of page 32, you'll see that as , row man v is 14-8-2 which is the provision which provides for the national committee man, national committee woman, and the chair of the state delegation being

delegates to the national convention. and by removing the word selected, since those persons aren't elected as delegates, they are selected as dell fwats, because of their positions, and i believe that may be the purpose intentionally or unintentionally of this amendment so i move that it be opposed. >> thank you, sir. >> madam chairman, i'm rising in opposition to this. this particular provision would actually invalidate the republican party of texas rules. we talked about unintended consequences because it applies to alternates and uses the word selection, we have a process that if a delegate can't make it, the alternate moves up and then we have a selection process for the alternate. so i spoke earlier about not having the national party tell states what to do, this is

another example that if you come in and try change things in the way that local parties do things, you'll mess up our local rules. it wasn't broken. i didn't get 1,000 letters from grass roots activists say, please change the word select in your rules. so let's not fix problems that don't exist and then create new problems. thank you. >> thank you. >> madam chair, i would ask for some clarification. the amendment proposes to address subparagraph 1 where the word selected is included, but if you go down in paragraph 1 to subparagraph 4, the word selected is repeated. so is it the purpose of the amendment to delete the word selected up there by -- on line 12 and leave it on line 22? >> i would ask the maker of the amendment to address that.

was it the intention of the maker of the amendment to replace it only one place? or did you intend to have it replaced in both places? >> to have it replaced in both places. >> all right. we would need to vote on an amendment but without objection, let's simply vote on an amendment that would reflect that this would be the word selected would be stricken and the word elected inserted in both of those places. all those in favor of making that amendment say aye. excuse me, i was listening to him. all those opposed, please say nay. all right, the nays have it. so at this point, the text stands with the substitution in only one place. >> madam chair, my further question, in california, slates of delegates are submitted to

the secretary of state 30 days before the election and the names of the candidates are on the ballot. so like senator cruz, governor kasich, mr. trump, what have you. does that mean that delegates who are selected by the respective campaigns to represent each congressional district would not be eligible to serve? >> seems to me that that's a legal question that i would have to refer to our counsel. i don't know if they have an opinion at this point. i'm sorry. would you repeat the question, please? >> in california, the -- each congressional district, each campaign, submits a slate of delegates and alternates to serve in the event that that candidate prevails in that congressional district. the names of the delegates are not on the ballot. nor are the names of the alternates. the only names on the ballot are those of the candidates. now does that mean that

potential delegates selected to serve on the slate would not be eligible to serve or to come to the r.n.c. meet thoring convention? >> counsel informed me that his initial view would be that that is correct. >> so if i understand counsel's answer, california would be totally disenfranchised regardless of who prevailed in whichever congressional district? >> you would have to make changes to bring yourself into compliance, so you would have to alter the means by which your delegates are elected, if this passed. >> thank you, madam chair. >> is there anyone else who wishes to be recognized? >> vincent devito, massachusetts. i'm asking this committee to vote no on this amendment, i'm going to steal the gentleman from nevada's idea, because of

the easter egg effect. >> all right. the chair senses that we have matter sogate on this we'll move to a vote. those in favor of adopting amendment 16.6. aye please say aye. those opposed, say no. the noes visit. we have had one additional amendment come in. every time i say that, you all just slump. but in order for us to complete the work on the second session -- section, it's necessary for us to take up this amendment. 14.10. endment number it is applicable to rule number 14-a-9. it has been submitted by mr. hunt of washington and mr. short of colorado. i see mr. hunt approaching the microphone and he will be recognized for the purpose of making a motion. >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to make the motion

to move this amendment. >> is there a second? there is a second. please proceed, mr. hunt, to address your amendment. >> thank you, madam chair. i to apologize for this not being discussed previously. this amendment is providing a bonus to the states that will perform a closed primary, thereby making the republican primary even stronger and something that would be welcomed in washington state and i hope that it will be adopted by this body. >> thank you, mr. hunt. is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to mr. hunt's amendment? is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? mr. devito. >> thank you, madam chair. vincent devito, massachusetts. i'm asking this committee to vote no on this amendment and we have debated similar amendments already about this. so rather than go into those

points again, please revisit those issues with yourself. i'm asking you to vote no. >> is there anyone else who would like to be recognized to speak in support of the amendment. the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, ma tam chair. our goal of the amendment is to benefit those states that have republican only nominating processes. we are the republican party. and we ought to select our nominees. we've done our best to respect states' rights, that's why there's no penalty if you don't have a closed primary. we recognize there are states that have democratic legislatures that we can't make any change on. so we're doing our best here to respect states, we're not trying to dictate from the r.n.c. or the republican convention committee what states have to do. but if you are a closed primary, we want to incentive size that. that will also help those states that maybe have republican legislatetures and can use this as a little bit of an incentive

to get this passed. we've definitely talked to other states who would like to pass this type of thing and need this incentive. colorado is certainly one of them, as we deal with a statewide ballot initiative right now trying to open primaries so this would be beneficial to colorado. i know virginia and washington and some other states. i urge you to support this amendment. thank you, madam chair. >> who would like to be recognized in opposition in mr. barber. >> thank you, madam chair. henry barber of mississippi. i do oppose this amendment and while it might not, quote, punish states, if you give other states a boe nut delegate, obviously states that have open primaries will be punished. so i would disagree with that comment. and certainly in mississippi and i think a lot of other states, certainly in the south, open primaries have been a good way

for the party to grow over the last few decades. so i think that i'm in strong opposition to this and i appreciate your time. >> thank you, mr. barber. is there someone else who would like to be recognized in support? anyone else who would like to be recognized in support? mr. blackwell. >> thank you, madam chairman. if you've read through the rules, and i'm confident that virtually every one of us in this room has read through the rules as part of our preparation, you know that the general philosophy in the rules is to encourage participation by republicans and not let nonrepublicans come in and choose our candidates. this is common. this proposed change has the great merit of not penalizing

anybody, but giving a powerful incentive for closing primaries. in virginia, we have had a problem for decades because our state law does not provide for party registration and on primary day, any registered voter can come in and vote at either the democrat or republican primary as he or she chooses. always, there are, and this is customary in virginia, there are many people who in the democratic party, particularly if they don't have a contested democrat no, ma'am narkse they come in and vote in large numbers in our our -- in our primary and do it not because they prefer one of these republican candidate, they try to pick somebody who democrats can most easily beat. the republican party of virginia has repeatedly asked the

legislature to set up a party registration process and we get the majority of the republicans who are conservative, but there are some republicans who i might describe as content free republicans and not all republicans are conservative as one else -- as someone else said on this microphone today and they vote with the democrats to avoid having party nominations because those content free republicans want to be able to invite liberal democrats to come into our primaries to help those incumbents get renominated. if this were passed, it would be a big argument in favor of setting up registration which the republican party of virginia that our ed legislators cooperate on but a handful of our legislators still keep voting with the democrats. it would be a great help to the

republican party of virginia. > thank you. did you wish to be recognized? >> i speak in opposition. i totally agree with what mr. blackwell said so just punch rewind and listen to that again. and then i'll pick it up. the thing is, we have open primaries in the state of georgia because we don't have registration by party. so i could go in and say i want the blue ballot or the white ballot and i vote and i go home. it would be to our great, great advantage if we could only have republicans choosing our candidates. but the state party, georgia republican party, has absolutely no control over this. it is controlled by our legislature and our secretary of state. we control the house, we control the senate, we have a republican, however we also are under the voting rights act. and if you change one period,

one period in your voting, you have to go to the j.o.d. and get it approved and it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. we change one period it's going to cost us money. so even though we're republicans, -- so even though we're republican controlled, we can't control it. the party would love to do it but we have no control. so if you do that, georgia would wind up being penalized because we cannot control that at this point. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone else who would like to be recognized? support of the amendment. >> i'd like to rise in favor of this amendment. this puts the onus on the state to devise a plan to close primaries and they can d it any way they like. i'm in favor because it's a carrot approach, instead of penalizing. some states have passed state laws that prohibit registers by party. in this current cycle, our

convention results were vastly different than our primary votes, our primary outcomes. there's been some speculation to the reasoning. and this has discouraged many republicans. so this change would give states significant incentive to restrict participation to republicans. giving the states the right to decide how they can do that. thank you. >> thank you are there others who wish to be recognized in opposition? the gentleman at the front microphone. >> thank you, i'm from environment, i'm rising with those states like vermont, again, that also do have not registration by party and also under current vermont election law, we cannot have closed primaries. so again, it would be -- i would find it unfair for states like may state, we have no other option. so i would -- i do rise in support of a small little state

like vermont and other states to not support this. thank you. >> thank you. are there others who wish to rise in support? >> yes. >> the gentlelady from wyoming. >> i rise in support of this amendment. i believe that it is critically important that republicans ought to be picking our republican candidates. whether they are for governor, senate, house, the federal elections or the state elections, even local elections. we are a state that is primarily republican. we are known as being a republican state. but i can assure you with our small population, by not having a closed primary, we have democrats that often pick the candidates. they either paycheck the weakest candidate or the most moderate or more liberal candidate in many, many, many of our races. and in wyoming, it would be very, very helpful to have close primaries. we believe strongly in this. again, we believe that it ought to be the republicans picking our nominees. not democrats.

i support this amendment and encourage all of you to support it as well. >> thank you. the chair recognizes ms. demone. >> yes i'm from the great state of illinois, i was born in chicago, raised in a democrat family and i'm proud to tell you my first vote was cast in 1980 for ronald reagan. as a reagan democrat. so i tell you we cannot have closed primaries. i believe that this is the way of growing our party. i ask you to join me voting against this so we can grow our party. i ask this question to be called. thank you. >> previous question has been called. we will now move to a vote on closing debate. those in favor of closing debate please say aye. those opposed, nay. he ayes have it. all right.

sir -- we'll do division but i'll just say once again that any member who has been recognized and has the microphone has the right to call for the previous question regardless of whether other individuals have not yet spoken. so we will go to a division. those in favor of this amendment -- excuse me, all those in favor -- all those in favor of ending debate please rise.

>> thank you. please be seated. those against, please stand.

>> thank you. lease be seated. the tellers inform me the vote is as follows. those in favor, 70. those against, 13. clearly we have more than 2/3. previous question is adopted. sir, for what purpose does you seek to be recognized. >> i rise on a point of personal privilege. >> thank you. >> i know we have lots of business going on today, but i think in light of the attacks

that took place in france, maybe we can do a moment of silence. >> what i was going to suggest, i have been waiting until we finish this final amendment. if you'll allow me to take this final vote, i was going to do exactly that. thank you. >> point of information, madam chairman. did you see 13, because i just happened to be counting them while they were counting them and it was -- >> 30. >> i misunderstood. >> it may have sounded like 13, aapologize. 30. just a minute. the tellers seem to be having a isagreement. they're triple checking.

all right. ladies and gentlemen, i apologize. and stand corrected. previous question did fail. before we continue that, however, the gentleman has raised a very important point. you may have seen me scowling for the last 15 minutes or so. it's not because we are behind in our work. or because of anything that's going on in this room. it is because our brothers and sisters in france have just been victim to yet another act of terrorism. in the past several weeks, we

have all increasingly been witness to too many acts of senseless violence. and loss of life. and at this point, i would ask that god would continue to guide us in our deliberations, but also to bless our brothers and sisters in france who have just suffered another terrible loss. so i would invite you to join me in bowing our heads for a moment f silence. thank you. we will continue debate on amendment 14.10. >> madam chair, i -- personal privilege, please, ma'am. i just want to thank you for a wonderful job you've been doing. i have been honored to be here. >> thank you.