LCRP Meeting Recap: Process, Proxies and the 2-of-3 Debate

Monday night’s Lexington County Republican Party Executive Committee meeting was enlightening to say the least.

After special guest speaker Hamp Redmond, Chairman Mark Weber opened the business portion of the meeting with an officer’s report emphasizing his commitment to keeping meetings short, ending on time, and becoming more disciplined with process and Robert’s Rules of Order.

Efficiency. Order. Structure.

Ironically, the moment he concluded, Second Vice Chair Debbie Heim’s “report” proceeded as a nearly 30-minute lecture on how a bill becomes law.

To be fair, this concept was already masterfully covered in about three minutes by Schoolhouse Rock!,  specifically the cinematic masterpiece, I’m Just a Bill.

After multiple additional leadership reports, we finally arrived at the 3 resolutions on the agenda, right at the 8pm deadline. The chair then asked the body whether we wished to extend the meeting to actually conduct the party’s business.

To my knowledge, business meetings exist for the Executive Committee to conduct business, not to sit politely while leadership enjoys the dulcet tones of its own officer reports.

⸻

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 #𝟏: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐀𝐜𝐭

The first resolution supported the SAVE America Act. Preston Baines offered two amendments:

1. A technical amendment. The title of the resolution and the references throughout were to the SAVE Act, which is a different bill than what was passed by the US House and being considered by the senate.

2. An additional sentence encouraging the U.S. Senate to use the talking filibuster and any means if necessary to pass the bill.

Debate was nominal, both amendments passed and the amended resolution passed.

Then came the real headline.

⸻

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 #𝟐: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟐-𝐨𝐟-𝟑 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐕𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

The proposed candidate qualification resolution would require any Republican candidate to have voted in two of the last three Republican primaries in order to be eligible to run in a primary.

Though party leadership exists to facilitate debate, not advocate from the chair, Debbie Heim opened discussion with a lengthy argument in favor of the resolution before it was even read in full.

She framed it as allowing county parties to “recommend” candidates and cited Harriet Holman, a former Democrat county councilwoman who switched parties and flipped a long-held Democrat state house seat.

I raised my hand to clarify that a 2-of-3 requirement would override any county recommendation system, despite how it was being characterized. Debbie’s response was repeated reframing of the rule as merely “recommendational,” and when I pressed the inconsistency, my question was ignored and instead I was repeatedly asked if I wanted to offer an amendment.

No clarification.
No direct answer.
Just deflection and condescension.

Meanwhile, state Rep. Jay Kilmartin had his hand raised for some time to disapprove of the resolution before being recognized, as leadership repeatedly returned to the microphone themselves.

⸻

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐱𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐲

My brother John Allen was serving as proxy for our other brother and precinct EC, George. George arrived late, but made it before the end of the meeting.

When John stood to speak during discussion, Debbie Heim announced he could no longer serve as proxy because George was now physically present.

We were told this was a rule regarding proxies.

Despite his willingness to comply with the new enforcement, John accurately noted that this “rule” has never been enforced in prior meetings. Proxies have routinely continued speaking and voting even after the principal arrived.

Debbie Heim proceeded to state that George would need to leave the room if John wished to continue speaking, at which point George excused himself.

⸻

“𝐖𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐖𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐑𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠”

During debate, John raised concerns as a young Republican that this 2-of-3 rule would effectively hinder younger Republicans from participating.

At that point, Debbie Heim and other members of leadership openly admitted they do not want young people running for offices, whether internal or public.

That statement alone deserves its own reflection.

Other members on the floor continued to offer their concerns regarding the new resolution, namely:

1. Unfair impact on military members.

2. The contradiction between the resolution’s language and the South Constitution regarding ballot access and the right of voters to choose their candidates. Debbie Heim denied this, at which point the EC expressing his concern read aloud the actual resolution, which confirmed his rebuttal.

At each point being made on the floor, Debbie Heim and other members of leadership continued to claim the existence of “exceptions” and “waivers” despite no such verbiage being present in the proposed resolution.

⸻

𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐥

Preston Baines delivered a comprehensive rebuttal.

He dismantled the example used by leadership of a self-described Bernie Sanders supporter who ran as a Republican. Preston revealed the rest of the story, noting that this candidate received less than 3% of the vote, having zero impact on the race.

He also highlighted the obvious contradiction that while the SCGOP routinely celebrates “growing the party” by welcoming converts, this rule would prevent new Republicans from running for years.

Finally, he addressed the elephant in the room: that despite the denials from leadership, this resolution appears aimed squarely at candidate for Attorney General David Pascoe, who is currently winning straw polls across Republican clubs statewide.

Preston noted that while the narrative from the SCGOP and county leadership insists they’ve supported this policy “for years,” the 2-of-3 component is a new addition, not included in any previous closed primary bills.

Finally, Preston moved to table the resolution. Chairman Weber immediately corrected him that “lay on the table” is the appropriate way to motion. That wasn’t the first time Mark had said that during the meeting. Nobody ever states the motion in that way in organizational bodies by the way.

The motion to table passed nearly unanimously, with one lone “nay” from the back.

The chair then immediately opened the floor for adjournment before the final resolution on the agenda was ever presented: Preston’s resolution to endorse the clean closed primary bill, H5183.

There’s little doubt it would have passed. But the timing is worth noting nonetheless.

You can view the entire 2/3 debate by clicking here.

⸻

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

If the candidate qualification proposal is so popular and so principled, why is it being pushed from the top down?
Why the procedural gymnastics?
Why the sudden need to narrow who may run?

It makes you wonder why the powers that be feel so suddenly threatened that their need for control has become obvious for all to see.

In the end, last night was a huge win for liberty, and the LCRP voting members were heard loud and clear:

We the people have the right to choose our candidates, not SCGOP gatekeepers with vendettas on the line.