See below FAQs which are sorted by the rule within which they apply. The rule numbers are from the FINAL version. Click the expand arrow next to each rule to see the Q&A.
Q: Why did you delete “The officers of each Precinct Committee shall have equal right to vote at Precinct Meetings.”?
A: By listing the Precinct Committee officers within the list of “voting members” of the committee, they automatically have the same rights as other members. This is further supported by RONR 1:4, 4:56, 25:11, etc. There is no need to re-state their right to vote and it is redundant.
Q: Why did you delete “The County Chairman and Vice Chairman shall have the same right to vote at any meeting [County Committee Meeting] as the other members of the committee [the County Committee]”?
A: By listing the Chair and Vice Chair within the list of “voting members” of the committee, they automatically have the same rights as other members. This is further supported by RONR 1:4, 4:56, 25:11, etc. There is no need to re-state their right to vote and it is redundant.
Q: Why did you delete “The County Chairman and Vice Chairman shall have the same right to vote as the other members of the committee [the County Executive Committee]”?
A: By listing the Chair and Vice Chair within the list of “voting members” of the committee, they automatically have the same rights as other members. This is further supported by RONR 1:4, 4:56, 25:11, etc. There is no need to re-state their right to vote and it is redundant.
Q: Why did you add “…(as designated in RULE…” to both 4.2.3(3) and 4.2.3(4)?
A: To provide clarity, especially to new members, as to where these members were elected/appointed. It could be interpreted that they are additional members (and not the same members as) to those elected/appointed in the other rule. To avoid any confusion, this was clarified.
Q: At the top of 4.2.3(6), why was (a) added?
A: This sentence actually was struck from paragraph 4.2.3(6)(c) and moved into 4.2.3(6)(a), therefore it is not new.
Q: At the beginning of 4.2.3(6)(b), why did you add “For counties whose population is less than 200,000…”?
A: This was added for clarity. The next paragraph 4.2.3(6)(c) applies to counties whose population is 200,000 or more, and therefore this paragraph applies to those whose population is less than 200,000. No change to current intent.
Q: Why did you add “…(as designated in RULE…” to 4.2.4(3)?
A: To provide clarity, especially to new members, as to where these members were elected/appointed. It could be interpreted that they are additional members (and not the same members as) to those elected/appointed in the other rule. To avoid any confusion, this was clarified.
Q: Why did you add “The Secretary and Treasurer of the County Committee shall, by virtue of their offices, also be Secretary and Treasurer of the County Central Committee”?
A: This provides clarity to who serves in these roles for this particular committee.
Q: Why did you add the Congressional District Chairman and Vice Chairman?
A: There were already members per old Rule 9(c); no change to existing rules.
Q: Why did you add “…(as designated in RULE…” to 4.2.5(3)?
A: To provide clarity, especially to new members, as to where these members were elected/appointed. It could be interpreted that they are additional members (and not the same members as) to those elected/appointed in the other rule. To avoid any confusion, this was clarified.
Q: Why did you delete “the County Chairman and Vice Chairman of the counties of each district shall by virtue of their offices, also be members of the committee of each congressional district in which the county lies with the same rights and duties as other members.” and “The Congressional District Chairman and Vice Chairman shall have the same right to vote as the other members of the committee [the Congressional District Committee]”?
A: By listing the Chair and Vice Chair within the list of “voting members” of the committee, they automatically have the same rights as other members. This is further supported by RONR 1:4, 4:56, 25:11, etc. There is no need to re-state their right to vote and it is redundant. Two sentences also repeated the same information.
Q: Why did you add “…(as designated in RULE…” to 4.2.6(3)?
A: To provide clarity, especially to new members, as to where these members were elected/appointed. It could be interpreted that they are additional members (and not the same members as) to those elected/appointed in the other rule. To avoid any confusion, this was clarified.
Q: Why did you delete “They [The State Chairman and Vice Chairman] shall have the same right to vote at any State Committee meeting as members of said committee.”?
A: By listing the Chair and Vice Chair within the list of “voting members” of the committee, they automatically have the same rights as other members. This is further supported by RONR 1:4, 4:56, 25:11, etc. There is no need to re-state their right to vote and it is redundant.
Q: Under 4.2.7(12), at the end of the sentence “The highest-ranking Republican Senator of the Oklahoma Senate…” why was the last part removed that states “shall also be members of said committee by virtue of their office, with the same powers and privileges as the other members”?
A: By listing the members within the list of “voting members” of the committee, they automatically have the same rights as other members. This is further supported by RONR 1:4, 4:56, 25:11, etc. There is no need to re-state their right to vote and it is redundant.
Q: Why did you add “The Secretary and Treasurer of the State Committee shall, by virtue of their offices, also be Secretary and Treasurer of the State Central Committee”?
A: This provides clarity to who serves in these roles for this particular committee.
Q: Under 4.2.9(4), at the end of the sentence “The State Treasurer…” why was the last part removed that states “shall, by virtue of their office, also be members of said committee, and shall have the same power and authority as the other members”?
A: By listing the members within the list of “voting members” of the committee, they automatically have the same rights as other members. This is further supported by RONR 1:4, 4:56, 25:11, etc. There is no need to re-state their right to vote and it is redundant.
Q: Why did you add “The Secretary of the State Committee shall, by virtue of the office, also be Secretary of the State Finance Committee”?
A: This provides clarity to who serves in these roles for this particular committee.
Q: Why did you add “The Secretary of the State Committee shall, by virtue of the office, also be Secretary of the State Budget Committee”?
A: This provides clarity to who serves in these roles for this particular committee.
Q: Why did you add 4.3.1.2(2) about the County Committee Secretary and Treasurer?
A: This came from old Rule 6(e)(2); it is not new.
Q: Why did you add a timeframe to 4.3.1.2(3)?
A: This is the common timeframe used in all other cases and was clearly intended to apply here as well.
Q: Why did you add 4.3.2(1), (2), (3), & (4)?
A: If you look closely at this entire section, the subjects in paragraphs (1) to (4) are discussed in all the paragraphs related to vacancies and are consistent throughout. In order to limit the number of repetitions and potential discrepancies, they were moved as a general statement for all vacancies and removed from the individual paragraphs.
Q: Why are there so many changes to paragraphs (5) to (12)?
A: Each item that appears to be deleted has actually been moved to another location. Many of these appear in paragraphs (1) to (4) above, and some are repetitive of topics located in other places in the document. Take a close look at the final, and you will find that the intent of these items remains intact and has not been altered.
Q: Why were so many paragraphs deleted?
A: Each paragraph was redundant and had the same language, while citing a different officer or committee. In order to remove the redundancy, the last paragraph was added which applies across the board and covers the intent in a single location.
Q: Why did you add “(1) Cause as described in RULE 3.1”?
A: If you read RULE 3.1, you’ll see that it lists cause for removal of members. This just provides a reference to that paragraph within the rule regarding removals so it doesn’t get forgotten.
Q: Why did you add “and those authorized for County Executive Committee Appointed Members per RULE 4.2.3(6)(d)”?
A: This reference was added because it was an additional exception already in the rules (see old Rule 7(a)) for removals. This just provides a reference to that paragraph so it doesn’t get forgotten.
Q: Why are there so many changes?
A: In reviewing the required number of meetings (reference the old Appendix A tables), this section was brought to be consistent with the remainder of the document for when meetings are called. Also the same language was used to bring more consistency and clarity. The intent of this rule was not modified, but only put in more clear and consistent language.
Q: Why did you add “There shall be a regular quadrennial Congressional District Committee Meeting in the year immediately following the gubernatorial elections.”
A: In reviewing the required number of meetings (reference the old Appendix A tables), this section was brought to be consistent with the remainder of the document for when meetings are called.
Q: Why did you make so many changes to the referenced notes (numbers next to each item in the table)?
A: Several notes were repeated with the exact same language. It was unnecessary to list them multiple times. Therefore, the references were updated so they pointed to the correct information in a list that was limited by removing duplicates. Also, added context to the notes that was consistent with other sections of the document to remain consistent in both places.
Q: Why did you add paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) to the top of Rule 6.3?
A: If you look closely, these were general statements that were pulled from all of the specific rules below. By listing them here, duplicate sentences were able to be reduced. Provides consistency and reduces the risk to have discrepancies.
Q: Why are there so many changes to this entire rule (6.3.1 thru 6.3.3)?
A: By adding the paragraphs to the top of Rule 6.3, many redundant sentences were able to be removed. Additionally, many of the paragraphs were able to be combined because they contained identical information. The intent of these rules were not changed.
Q: Why were so many paragraphs deleted?
A: Each paragraph was redundant and had the same language, while citing a different officer or committee. In order to remove the redundancy, the last paragraph was added which applies across the board and covers the intent in a single location.
Q: Why did you add Rule 8.2.1?
A: This was already referenced in the paragraph below and is supported by the National Party Rules (RNC Rules). Adds clarity to this section for those that may not be familiar with the process. Does not change the intent of this section, nor how elections occur. Merely provides a reference to the entire list of delegates that goes to the national convention.
Q: Why did you change the referenced year of the Oklahoma Statutes (was 2001, is now 2024)? Does it change the intent?
A: Per standard practice when updating a document, it is best to update references where it doesn’t change the intent. Doing so confirms to the readers that the statement is still valid as of the new date. In this case, the last time Title 26 §20-104 was updated was in 1987. Therefore, whether you referenced it in 2001 or 2024 it was exactly the same language. Also, the reference was updated using proper citation from The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (21st edition, 2020), published by the Harvard Law Review Association.
Q: Why was congressional district added?
A: When interpreting rules of the Oklahoma Republican Party, one must take into count the governing rules and their hierarchy which must be applied. For OKGOP rules, you would first look at National & State Law, then rules of the national party (RNC Rules), then OKGOP rules, and then RONR.
Regarding proxy voting, RNC Rule 16(e)(6) states “There shall be no proxies at any district or state convention (which shall not include meetings of a Republican state committee) held for the purpose of electing or selecting delegates to the national convention. If alternate delegates to such selection convention are elected or selected, the alternate delegate and no other shall vote in the absence of the delegate.”
Furthermore, RONR addresses proxy voting and states it as violating a fundamental principal of parliamentary law. “It is a fundamental principal of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote…” and that vote “may not be transferred to another person (for example, by the use of proxies).” (see RONR 45:2 & 45:70-71)
When the revision to the Rules of the Oklahoma Republican Party were revised to remove all allowance of proxy voting, RONR prevails and no proxies shall be allowed for any entity under the organization. Therefore, it was an oversight to leave out the congressional district within the language of this rule. It does not change the intent of the rule because the interpretation would default to the rules as provided in RONR and supported by the RNC rules.
Q: Why were the last two sentences removed? The timeline is different; doesn’t that change the intent?
A: These sentences were redundant of the paragraph above. Also, following parliamentary law, when there are two rules that seem to conflict (as in this rule with regards to the timeline of compliance), the more stringent rule prevails (see RONR 56:68(3)); therefore, as interpreted, the more stringent rule was left and the duplicate less stringent rule was removed. The intent was not changed.
These terms are defined in RONR 2:8-24.