The first issue showed how the Convention has been reduced from a governing body to a rubber stamp. District caucuses stripped of their authority, then eliminated. Parliamentary procedure ignored while the aura remained. The State Committee amending its rules repeatedly to undermine the convention, presuming the authority to bind it, and culminating in the 2024 IRSC rules amendment: "Subject to the Republican Party of the State of Indiana in the State Convention duly assembled, The State Committee is the supreme Party authority in this state." I promised a second issue telling you what to do about it. As promised, here it is.

What I give you is only the tools you need to make informed decisions on the business before you. You may agree with us on the merits of this business, or not, but it is in your personal interest to preserve the right to have these discussions at the convention, even if you eventually vote no on the merits. And for those worried about the risks of a convention where delegates can freely bring business, I will address those risks and how to solve them.

There are two items of business we wish to place before the Convention. First, to close our primary to those who are not Republicans. Second, to direct the State Committee to restore district caucuses so delegates have an orderly way to bring business by right in the future. The appropriate time to address these items is at the adoption of the report of the Committee on Permanent Organization, Rules, and Order of Business. If the matter cannot be resolved beforehand through committee, we will move to amend the proposed rules and order of business to include them. It has also come to my attention that a group of delegates intends to bring a platform amendment to the floor. We won't cover it here, but the same procedures apply.

THE ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Order of business runs, generally, as follows:

• Official welcome and opening ceremonies;
• Special introductions and speeches by prominent Republicans;
• The call to order;

• Committee reports;

  • Committee on Credentials (Motion to adopt official membership list);
  • Committee on Permanent Organization, Rules, and Order of Business (Rules Cmte.) (Motion to Adopt Rules and Order of Business);
  • Committee on Resolutions (Platform Cmte.) (Motion to Adopt Platform);

• Nominations;

  • Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller;
• Adjournment;

You may notice that there is no item for new business. That isn't unreasonable per se. Conventions usually restrict their business to some degree, but usually there is a mechanism to filter new business. We used to have that in the district caucuses, but now the best we can do is ask politely for the rules committee to put our item on the agenda, and then bring it to the convention floor if they ignore it.

The adoption of the rules is an important point in the convention, because it is the point at which the general parliamentary law is overruled by standing rules crafted for the needs of the convention. Where these rules are silent, the general parliamentary law still fills the gaps, and is binding on the whole assembly. Standing rules often override the default rights of delegates until adjournment sine die. Where can business be placed on the agenda, and where can it be stopped? To answer that, we must understand the committees.

THE CONVENTION'S COMMITTEES

First is the Committee on Credentials. Their job is to make sure only the proper people are seated as delegates with the real rights of membership. They oversee challenges to delegates for issues like good standing with the party. They submit a report to the convention on the proposed list of people to be authorized as members of the convention.

Second is the Committee on Permanent Organization, Rules, and Order of Business. They consider and make recommendations to the convention on those three things. The Permanent Organization is the Republican Party as it exists when the convention is not in session. This is the State Committee, County Committees, Precinct Committee, etc. It also includes the rules those committees are under, such as the ones we took issue with in the previous publication. Rules means the rules the convention is to adopt and proceed by, and the order of business is self-explanatory.

Lastly is the Committee on Resolutions. This is the committee that considers and recommends the platform (platforms are procedurally a collection of resolutions often passed as a package), and any other resolution that delegates bring to be addressed by the convention.

It is important to note that the committee reports are recommendations only. The convention has no obligation to pass them. The same principle applies to all three.

Perhaps a delegate feels they were wrongfully stripped of their credentials. Their court of appeals is the full convention, moving to amend the credentials committee report at the appropriate time, because until the convention passes the final delegate list, the matter is not settled. This exact scenario was explicitly addressed by the supreme court in O'Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1 (1972).

The rules committee is important because before the convention adopts rules, the entire convention proceeds according to the general parliamentary law. A big convention with multiple thousands of delegates needs guardrails that go over and above the common law to prevent a convention unexpectedly lasting for days (something which has happened in the past), and so the convention adopts rules constraining business. Therefore, if there is an issue worth the entire convention discussing, and that the committees have brushed under the rug, it must be placed on the agenda through amending the Rules committee report.

The Resolutions committee introduces the platform and any other relevant resolutions in their committee report. Since this is after The Rules adoption, amendments are not usually in order here unless that was handled in the previous item.

In a perfect world, a committee doing its job properly is treated with respect and not questioned lightly. It is an unpaid position after all. Filtering the convention's business is hard, and like everything in politics, someone is always unhappy with the result. But a conscientious committee anticipates that its report may be challenged on the floor, and that prospect disciplines its work. It must ask whether a measure has real support and speaks to the whole convention. A committee that answers to the full body has incentive to weigh such questions honestly.

That accountability has broken down. Chairmen have flouted the rules to keep such business from reaching a vote, so the delegates pose little risk of overruling a committee, and with the threat of challenge gone, so is the incentive to deliberate carefully. Worse, committee members are currently chosen by the state committee rather than the delegates, leaving them beholden to the very body the delegates may wish to scrutinize.

THE CONVENTION IS ABOVE THE IRSC

One premise underlies everything that follows, and I state it yet again. The State Committee has no authority to bind the action of the Convention or its delegates. But we should follow their reasonable recommendations with respect; deadlines, for example. Be aware that it is an extraordinary amount of work to put on a convention such as ours. If they say we should submit amendments 72 hours before the convention begins, then we should do so. If it came down to a debate, I doubt the convention would have much patience for a serious motion made without time for promulgation to the delegates and consideration by the committee.

That being said, there are items in the State Committee's rules which clearly flout the convention's authority, discussed in the previous issue, and those should be treated as statutes in conflict with the constitution— void. They have no effect, and should not interfere with delegates bringing business in good faith to seek a proper hearing by the convention.

It is entirely likely that the convention chairman will take the position that we aren't allowed to bring business to the convention. He might say "Sorry about your luck, the state chairman hasn't consented to your motion, so it is out of order." Well, Mr. Chairman, such a ruling would itself be out of order because that rule has no binding force on the convention. Let me first explain how to get business on the agenda, what we do if the chairman continues to ignore the rules, and the proper moves and countermoves. I hope that by educating you, the delegates, in these fundamentals, that the state committee will understand that they won't be able to pull one over on the delegates this time, and we will simply have an orderly convention, disposing of business in the proper way, having a short debate on important party matters, and leave the day a more unified party, with a focus on what needs to be done to win in the fall.

THE PROCEDURE

What will this look like? If it gets particularly hairy, the delegates must know what is going on. The state committee wants you to think that we are just some rabble rousers that "don't know the right way to do things". If you have made it this far, I am confident that you, dear reader, realize that we are fighting for our right to do things "the right way," and for most of you, the most we will ask of you is simply to understand what we are doing and vote or otherwise respond accordingly.

We will respect the deadlines set forth in the committee's rules. Ideally, the committee will recommend them on the agenda. If not, we will move from the floor. It will look something like this:

After the welcome, the ceremonies, the introductions, and the speeches, the convention is called to order and the committees report. Watch for the Committee on Permanent Organization, Rules, and Order of Business. The instant the committee moves their report's adoption, and before the body votes, the floor is open to amend both with a motion and second.

A delegate, seeks to be recognized by clearly and loudly announcing "Mr. Chairman."

The chairman says "The gentleman from [county] is recognized."

Then the delegate says something like, "Mr. Chairman, I move to amend the report of the Committee on Permanent Organization, Rules, and Order of Business in accordance with my duly filed written motion."

Generally, the proposed order of business and rules package will include limits of debate, the items we have discussed on the agenda, and a parliamentary manual such as Robert's Rules of Order, since they have not been put in the convention rules the last few years. We think 10 minutes per side is plenty, and with our two resolutions and the proposed platform amendment, it would only extend the convention a little more than an hour if the platform amendment is taken up. If the motion to amend the rules succeeds, everything else follows standard procedures. But it is possible an attempt will be made to prevent the convention from deciding, as it has the last two conventions. Our proposed rules and agenda will be shared ahead of time and will be reviewable at oliverpmorton.com/2026convention.

WHEN THE CHAIRMAN WILL NOT PLAY FAIR

In 2022 a delegate's point of order was ignored and security intervened. In 2024 the chairman announced beforehand that points of order would not be recognized and appeals were not in order, preventing the Convention from deciding the appeal. We are prepared for more of the same. Robert's Rules anticipates exactly this situation in §62, "Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair."

Before the particulars, it is important to understand one fundamental point: we are the ones keeping order here. Everything that follows is done calmly, courteously, and strictly by the book. A chairman who knowingly breaks the rules is the disorderly man in the room; a delegate who holds him to them is not. Keep that firmly in mind, because the last of these remedies is going to look dramatic to the untrained eye, and you will want to recognize it for exactly what it is— an extreme remedy, justified only by a chair in dereliction of his duties.

Point of order. The instant a rule is broken, the response is to rise and declare "Point of order," and state the breach. The chair must rule (§23). A chairman who declares points of order out of order is himself violating the assembly's right to order.

Appeal. If the chair rules wrongly, any delegate may say "I appeal the ruling of the chair." With a second, the chair must put it to the body. The assembly, not the chairman, decides (§24, §62:6).

Division. If the chair gavels a voice vote through against the evident sense of the room, a single delegate calls "Division!" to demand a counted, standing vote. No second is needed (§29). In a body as large as ours, a division is often counted by county, each delegation tallied separately by county chairmen and its count carried to the secretary.

If he simply refuses. Should the chair refuse to entertain a proper point of order or appeal at all, as in 2024, the body is not helpless: after a legitimate motion, point of order, or appeal has been clearly made and persistently ignored, a member may himself rise to where the chair stands and put the question to the assembly himself (§62); and if the chair "culpably fails to perform the duties of the chair," the assembly may replace him with one who will follow its will (§62:10).

Now understand what this will look like from the floor. A delegate walking up the dais to put a question over the chairman's objection is a dramatic sight. It is serious, but it is not a stunt, not a tantrum, and not a breach of order. And it's taken 3 conventions to escalate to this point. It is a remedy which exists for precisely this circumstance. If you see it happen, do not mistake it for chaos. The chaos is a chairman refusing to let the convention vote. The disorder is his. The order is ours. Understand this now, so that if the time comes, you will recognize the orderly machinery of parliamentary law doing its work, rather than rabble rousing for its own sake.

A FEW ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL NOTES

Removing a delegate takes a vote. A delegate is a member of the convention, and the convention, not the chair, and certainly not security, decides who sits. Unless a delegate poses an immediate threat of bodily harm, he cannot be removed except by a vote of the body. If security is sent after a delegate who is merely invoking his rights, as happened in 2022, understand this is inappropriate. See §61.

"Lay on the table." There is one procedurally legitimate way the other side could try to stop us: a motion to lay it on the table. Ordinarily it is used to set something aside briefly, but it is also used to kill business without a real vote on the merits. It's not debatable, so it may happen fast. If our attempt to amend the rules is recognized by the chair, and you hear this motion, vote no, it is an attempt to sidestep important business.

The "we don't follow Robert's Rules" argument. In 2024 the chair claimed that points of order and appeals were out of order because the convention has not adopted Robert's Rules. This is backwards. Before a body adopts its own rules, it does not operate in a vacuum, it proceeds under the common law of parliamentary procedure, the body of long-settled practice that governs every deliberative assembly by default. Points of order and appeals are not Robert's-Rules inventions; they are bedrock features of that common law, found in every parliamentary manual ever written. They exist whether or not this convention ever names a manual. Robert's Rules is simply the most widely accepted statement of that law, which is why we cite it as authority even before it is formally adopted. Declining to adopt it does not abolish your right to a point of order; it only muddies the water. With all that out of the way, we can now discuss why we have chosen our particular resolutions.

WHY THESE TWO

The two resolutions were not chosen at random. They were chosen because between them, they answer the two problems the first issue laid out, and they answer them in a way that demonstrates the convention's authority while applying it.

The Convention has been reduced from a governing body to a rubber stamp: stripped of its caucuses, relieved of its procedure, and quietly subordinated to a committee that now calls itself the supreme authority of the Party. The delegates can no longer meaningfully influence the party officially outside nominations. Any real remedy must do two things at once. It must reestablish that the Convention can act, and ensure that when it does, it acts in an orderly way. One resolution does the first. The other does the second. Let's review them.

Closing the primary is the Convention asserting itself on a matter that is plainly its own. Of all the questions a state convention might take up, few sit more squarely within a party's own authority than who may help choose its nominees. The supreme court has ruled that it is the political party, not the legislature, who has the final say on whether to open or close its primaries (citations below). The party is entitled to make this decision, which is exactly why it is the right place to begin.

It is also not some fringe preoccupation. Closing the primary has been argued up and down the state, in the legislature and in the county committees, for years. A measure that is both squarely within our authority and already on everyone's mind is the natural vehicle for reestablishing that the delegates, assembled in convention, may govern. The point is as much the act as the outcome: a convention that can close its primary is a convention that has its hands back on the wheel. And even if you disagree with the merits of the resolution, it would be good to have a healthy public debate on the issue.

Restoring the district caucuses is the answer to the obvious objection, and the more important reform of the two. Reasserting the delegates' procedural rights raises a fair worry: if any delegate can bring any business to the floor, won't a convention of thousands collapse into chaos? It is a legitimate concern. But the answer is not to keep the delegates gagged, it is to restore the mechanism that filtered business in the first place. That mechanism was the district caucuses. They were where business was raised, weighed, and either earned enough support to move forward or was set aside before it ever reached the full floor, so that the Convention's time was spent only on what a meaningful body of delegates actually backed. Eliminating them did not make the Convention orderly. It rendered the convention handicapped, and rendered any attempt to bring business to the convention an inconvenience. Restoring them gives the delegates an orderly channel, not only for resolutions like these, but for the things that ought to be theirs to decide, such as the selection of our delegates to the national convention, committee chairs, platform amendments, and more. If closing the primary shows the Convention can act, restoring the caucuses is what lets it act sustainably, without the disorder the State Committee will undoubtedly seek to scare you about. It is, in the long run, the structural fix the whole project depends on.

Furthermore, the process provides an excellent venue for our future Republican leaders to hone their skills before they ascend to higher office. Those who will one day defend Indiana's interests in Congress have to learn the craft somewhere — and there is no better school than a room where a man must persuade his neighbors, build a coalition for a plank, defend it under questioning, and either carry the room or lose gracefully and try again next year. A functional convention is that proving ground. Leave it out and we lose more than a filter for business; we lose a valuable opportunity to build our bench.

Taken together, the logic is simple. The first resolution reclaims delegate power; the second restores the proper process. A convention that can act but has no orderly way to act, or which has a process with nothing it is permitted to decide, is no convention at all. Passed together, they begin to undo precisely what the first issue described: they put the delegates back at the helm, and they give that body a disciplined way to govern. What remains is the text of the resolutions. Review them carefully, and please support their discussion at the convention.

THE RESOLUTIONS

Declaring the Party's Intent to Close Its Primary

WHEREAS the right to determine who may take part in selecting a party's nominees belongs to the party, not the State, under the First Amendment freedom of association; and

WHEREAS the Supreme Court has affirmed that a political party, not the legislature, decides whom it admits into the selection of its candidates; see Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 (1986), and California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000); and

WHEREAS this Convention is the highest governing authority of the Republican Party of the State of Indiana, properly empowered to declare the associational will of the Party;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of the State of Indiana, in Convention assembled, declares it the official policy and decision of this Party that participation in the Republican primary be limited to voters affiliated with the Republican Party as provided by law and party rule; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Convention instructs Republican members of the General Assembly to enact a closed primary, and directs the State Committee to take all appropriate steps to effectuate this decision; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies be transmitted to the Governor, the leadership of both chambers, and the Secretary of State.

Directing the Restoration of District Caucuses

WHEREAS district caucuses were historically the proper place for delegates to bring business, to elect the Convention's committees, and to filter resolutions and platform amendments before they reached the full body; and

WHEREAS their elimination has left delegates with no orderly means of bringing business, concentrating in the State Chairman the pretended authority to decide what the Convention may consider; and

WHEREAS restoring district caucuses would relieve the full Convention of unnecessary business while preserving the means for individual delegates to bring important matters before the convention, if they meet sufficient muster; and

WHEREAS restoring district caucuses would provide an excellent venue for up and coming Republican leaders to hone their skills in a formal setting;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Convention directs the State Committee to arrange for district caucuses in advance of the next State Convention, and of each Convention thereafter; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such caucuses shall be empowered to elect the members of the Convention's standing committees, to receive, consider, and forward resolutions and proposed platform amendments, and choose national convention delegates.

A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT

A question beckons. Can the American people carry the weight of representative government? The State Committee has already decided the answer is no: the delegates cannot be trusted.

250 years this great nation has stood, a testament to the foresight of our fathers. But the sun is setting. Nations rise and fall, and America will be reborn whether we like it or not. The question for us is what will America be reborn as? Every representative government in history has slid, sooner or later, into tyranny. Athens. Rome. Weimar Germany. And our founders knew it well. Does America need a Caesar to pull her back together? I hope and pray she does not. But if we cannot restore our institutions of Republican government, we will have an American Caesar. And we can't count on another Washington to refuse the crown when it is offered.

IT IS ON US to keep this republic. And that requires boldness. It requires strength. It requires courage. And it requires broadly dispersed knowledge of the mechanisms which keep our republic virile. So whether you vote yes or no on the merits, defend the right to debate. Insist that the convention be allowed to decide. And pray that God may preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. It begins in rooms like ours, with delegates who refuse to be a rubber stamp.

A Republic, if you can keep it.

Joseph Bortka, Editor and Delegate