Why did the Nevada Chairperson not use Roberts Rules of Order? I'm from Washington State (a caucus state) and at every level of the process thus far Roberts Rules of Order is what was used. It appeared that the Chairperson wanted to make her own rules and enforced them and that was one of the reasons for the upset in the crowd. Has this always been the case in Nevada? Again why not use Roberts Rules of Order. It is an established standard.
What Are The Roberts Rules Of Order?
I reviewed a great deal of the Nevada news, blogs, video and it seemed as though the audience felt cheated in some way over a number of issues.
The other question I have is how is it that the 60 some odd delegates that were rejected Saturday but had participated in their local caucuses and District Caucuses and whatever caucus came next before the final State Caucus lose their-their voter credentials at the final rung of the caucus ladder. How does that happen?
As final proof, I would like to see those rejected delegates’ proof of party affiliation, caucus attendance, proof of delegate selection and processing. In Washington State, one signs in at each step so there is proof of attendance, then if one is elected to be a delegate that is recorded as well. So there is a way to prove or disprove whether or not someone is a delegate. Unless someone is a hired trouble maker and not a dedicated voter most humans would not bother to attend or engage in a caucus process.
I believe it behooves Nevada to get to the bottom of this. There as been a plethora of voter disenfranchisement/electoral fraud taking place in this Country, especially this election cycle. To make sure the process was clean in Nevada these questions need answers.
Written By: House Member Suzanne M Rosser, Treasurer PRCS
Point Roberts, WA