Month: April 2011

The convention is now over. Celeste Greig was re-elected along with the rest of her slate. The important Bylaws Amendments were not even discussed. The Sunday session was rather tame compared with the previous day’s festivities. Litigation plans were clearly well underway and something will probably be filed tomorrow.

The biggest looser from the convention was clearly Peggy Mew; the Membership Secretary that conspired with Karen England to fix the election was thrown-out of office. Yesterday, she repeatedly refused to reveal any membership records even as the paper clubs she was vouching for were systematically being disqualified from having their delegates seated. The only rational explanation for her refusal to reveal the records was that there were no records.

Peggy let it slip that yesterday that “every chartered club was entitled to two delegates”. At the time I thought it was a strange comment to make in the context of the discussion. Now I think it was a window into her approach to the convention. If a club didn’t have delegates then she helps to find some.

Peggy assigned delegates to dormant clubs with no active members. As a result, these delegates were incapable of answering such basic questions as:
Who was your club president?
When did you meet?
How were you selected?
Even Karen England could not name the president of the club that she claimed membership in. I was told that the interview with her was embarrassing.

There is an old saying that should serve as a warning to Karen and her legal team. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” I think the next round of litigation could backfire on Karen and her friends and out them as empty suits running a bluff worthy of a world-class poker tournament. After the TRO last week if Peggy produced the records as requested and they showed what she purported then Karen world be president today.

The issue is will Peggy turn over the records to her successor or refuse to comply. If the records are released then everyone will know whether this is a bluff. If she refuses then we know that way also. I think either way she has a problem.

If the clubs denied the seating of their delegates are real then England will be back for round two at the next election; however, if she was gaming the system then I doubt we see her again.

Many folks were and are emotionally invested in this controversy. My sympathy goes out to those newbies that were used as cannon folder in this warfare. Most will never know how they have been manipulated. Emotion often trumps logic in such situations. I look back at my time with Barbara Alby and her minions when I first got involved in CRA. Demonizing the “other guys” and vilifying other people is a shortcut to power and is not a legitimate tool of leadership.

The contentious CRA convention began today with a visit from the Sacramento Police Department. Apparently fisticuffs broke-out when some folks that were not credentialed tried to force their way into the delegate meeting’s morning session. About 125 people were not seated by the Credentials Committee.

After many false starts, the Committee met last night to decide who would be credentialed. The court order not to take residency into account was meticulously followed. The Committee was charged with verifying that the delegates were legitimate. Delegates are awarded per the Bylaws based on the number of members in each chapter. However, the Membership Secretary would not provide any rosters of membership. As stated in the emails from Karen England, Peggy Mew—the Membership Secretary—decided that only she could decide who was a legitimate delegate. This is what the debate was about for most of the day.

The majority of the Credentials Committee voted to verify the number of delegates seated based on the club membership for all clubs. 52 chapters complied. About 40 did not. 8 chapters submitted no delegate list.

Prior to the meeting last night, the Credentials Committee has found many irregularities in submissions. Here are some examples: the same person was submitted as a delegate for three different chapters; registered Democrats and Decline-to-State voters were submitted; at least one name submitted is a registered Republican in Illinois; and many names submitted were not known to be members.

To avoid the appearance of partiality, any chapter that submitted a roster that seemed in order was allowed to seat their delegates. The one know drawback to this approach was that due to a lack of records, the Committee could not verify that all dues were current.

At the morning session today, the 52 delegations were seated without many changes to the list. At the afternoon session which was still going at 4:30 pm, when I finally left, the delegations that did not follow the instructions of the Charter Review Committee were being denied any delegates.

My biggest complaint in the proceedings was that George Park was presiding over the Credentials Committee and the Convention session that decided delegates. Since, he and brother—Aaron—were the chief apologists for Celeste Greig, it seems to me that someone else that appeared more impartial should be running the credentialing process. While deciding the fate of delegates in the afternoon session, George took a volatile situation and made it even worse. He did not strictly follow Robert’s Rules and in between voting on the fate of dubious units he kept handing the microphone to others that kept defending the actions of the Credentials Committee. He also made comments that were provocative and unnecessary. He took a long session and made it even longer. If he needed a break he could have yielded to someone else to keep the meeting moving.

The only time that the forces of Karen England almost gained some ground was when a prospective delegate came into the room and spoke of how he had come all the way from San Diego to vote. He tried to sound like a conservative warrior that he earned the right to be there. Park exposed him as a fraud by asking only one question. How were you selected as a delegate? Like anyone skilled in politics when faced with a yes or no question, he began to filibuster and it was clear he had no idea how or why he was a delegate. I told my wife the story of this young man and I was told that he works for Karen and is a Facebook friend of my daughter.

Thus far, two things are clear. First, England lost the battle today thanks to overreaching & not having Peggy Mew work with the Credentialing folks. Second, before noon on Monday a court action will be filed claiming the CRA violated the TRO issued by the judge.

For claiming to be a conservative leader, Celeste Greig has proven that she is not. She is tone-deaf to the ramifications of her inaction. Rule number one: politics is perception. I think what happened today was within the rules but the way it was done has resulted in the maximum damage to the organization.

Karen England has proven that she won’t take the high road victory. I went to the convention today planning to vote for her but the way she and her inner circle conducted themselves today made me change my mind. In the morning session our good friend Ron Givens was leading the charge against Park. Later Mike Spence took the lead.

The conduct of England’s forces were the same tactics that I have seen when the prochoice lesbians show up at a prolife rally or when harassing sidewalk counselors in front of an abortion clinic. How and why Karen got a bunch of Republican staffers from the capitol to behave like this is very disappointing. If she had followed the rules leading up to the convention she would have won.

The bad news is that she brought in a bunch of people with no history with the organization and has been feeding them a diet of half-truths and bald-faced lies. Karen has poisoned the well and inoculated these newbies against holding both sides accountable. Everything now is personal.

As I watch this and listen to Karen, I think I am seeing many of the same tactics unfolding that Barbara Alby used in the 1980s to take over CRA. The difference this time is that it is happening to the folks Barbara brought into the organization. In a sense, the cycle is coming full circle. My question is after Karen captures the organization at the next convention and purges all the dissenters, will the CRA still exist?

I am amazed at the extent Karen has gone to in repaying Aaron & George Park and Tom Hudson for the harm she feels they have done to her. Truly hell hath no fury…

Update

My initial comments on this matter were based on this release from Restore the CRA.

Moments ago in a Sacramento courtroom, the judge granted a Temporary Restraining Order against Celeste Grieg, George and Aaron Park, Tom Hudson, Craig Alexander and their assorted minions prohibiting them from using the “policy” passed by the Board at the end of March that purported to restrict delegates to the geographic boundary of their unit club in clear and obvious violation of the current CRA Bylaws.

The Judge made clear that “this temporary restraining order which preserves the existing CRA Bylaws” will be in effect this weekend for the CRA Convention. All CRA Convention delegates qualified on March 26 by submission of the delegate lists should attend the Convention, register and vote.

President Celeste Greig, the Park brothers, Tom Hudson, Craig Alexander and the CRA mechanisms they control are now enjoined by the Court from interfering, directly or indirectly, with your right to vote.

PLEASE LET RESTORE THE CRA KNOW if any of them attempt to further interfere with your rights to attend under the current Bylaws and vote your conscience.

Units are NOT required to send George Park, Joe Sturges or anyone else their Bylaws or any other information not specifically required by the current CRA Bylaws. The Membership Secretary has performed the actions need to certify delegates on all lists sent to her. This essentially means that units and delegates should do what they have done in prior conventions which has been accepted as proper practice. All delegates need to plan on attending convention and exercise their right to vote.

Violation of this Court Order will mean that perpetrators are in contempt of court and subject to both civil and criminal penalties. Lawyers in contempt may additionally have action taken against their license to practice law by the California Bar Association.

Congratulations to Karen England, CRA VP Scott Voigts, Tom Rogers and the Mid-Empire RA for their courageous leadership on behalf of honest grassroots leaders and upholding the institution of CRA and the rule of law!

While the judge did issue a temporary restraining order, it only nullified the CRA Board vote not to seat otherwise qualified candidates who lived outside the boundaries of their local chapter. Contrary to the claim in the release above, nothing was said about the Membership Secretary having the final say on who was a delegate.

Here is the heart of the judge’s decision:

The few cases identified by defendant CRA of irregularity in the RA delegate selection process can be appropriately dealt with by the CRA Credentials Committee without the wholesale deprivation of voting rights by delegates selected to respresent their RA pursuant to the existing bylaws.

Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order
IT IS ORDERED that defendant California Republican Assembly (CRA) appear on April 28, 2011, which is 15 days from April 13, 2011, when the TRO issues, [See CCP 527(d)(1]). at 2 p.m. in Department 53 of this Court, located at 800 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be ordered, preliminarily restraining and enjoining defendants, their agents, or any other persons acting with them or on their behalf, from taking any action directly or indirectly to disqualify and refuse to seat, pursuant to the policy approved by the CRA Board of Directors between March 29 and 31, 2011, otherwise qualified delegates that have already been selected and presented to CRA for the CRA Annual Convention.

Defendant’s response, if any, is to be filed by April 20, 2011. Plaintiffs’ reply, if any, is to be filed by April 25, 2011.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pending the hearing and determination of the order to show cause, defendant CRA and its officers, employees, agents and any other persons acting with them or on their behalf, are restrained and enjoined from taking any action directly or indirectly to disqualify and refuse to seat, pursuant to the policy approved by the CRA Board of Directors between March 29 and 31, 2011, otherwise qualified delegates that have already been selected and presented to CRA for the CRA Annual Convention on April 15-17, 2011.

No bond is required for this temporary restraining order which preserves the existing CRA Bylaws. The subject of an appropriate bond, if any, shall be taken up at the hearing on the preliminary injunction.

Contract with the CRA released to following statement two hours after the judge slapped them down.

Karen England put all of her eggs in one basket and the Sacramento County Superior Court just stomped on it!

After hearing evidence of massive voter fraud, specifically including the misrepresentation by Karen England and her campaign, a Sacramento judge said that the CRA Credentials Committee could deal with such irregularities according to the CRA Bylaws.

The Judge ordered CRA not to implement the Board policy from March 29, which stated that delegates must reside inside the boundaries of their local units.

The Judge’s order specifically says, “The few cases identified by defendant CRA of irregularity in the RA delegate selection process can be appropriately dealt with by the CRA Credentials Committee without the wholesale deprivation of voting rights by delegates selected to represent [sic] their RA pursuant to the existing bylaws.”

We agree with the Judge, this means that the application of many CRA bylaw provisions will result in several people being denied credentials to serve as delegates to this convention.

The CRA By-Laws will be strictly enforced.

In plain English this means that if a delegate can’t produce a letter of transfer that was send to the Membership Secretary and both the presidents of the old and new clubs then they will not be seated.

Section 4.06. Assignment to a Chartered Republican Assembly. Members will be assigned to the chartered Republican Assembly listed on their membership forms. Where no preference is listed, the membership Secretary may assign a new member to any chartered Republican Assembly where the member lives, works, or attends school. At any time, CRA members may transfer membership to any chartered Republican Assembly they are eligible to join by notifying the Membership Secretary and the President or Secretary of both the new Republican Assembly and the old Republican Assembly (if any). No person may be a member of more than one chartered Republican Assembly at the same time.

I wonder if the gang at Restore the CRA is willing to go for another TRO once this process starts whittling away their delegates.

Given the volatile environment that is swirling around the upcoming convention, I would like to make a proposal that is outside the current debate. I think we should adopt the framework for deciding delegates & chartering new units (see blog entry below for a possible framework) and suspend the Bylaws to allow officer elections to be delayed until the next regularly scheduled meeting in October.

While unconventional, my idea would allow for both sides to enter into a campaign with known rules that would not be changed after the names of delegates have been submitted. It would allow an even playing field for both sides to compete.

I think both sides feel that the process has been tarnished by the other. I see the outcome now as bitter, divisive and fertile ground for years of retribution on both sides. The CRA/CCR split still haunts this organization and that was about 25 years ago. CRA went from claiming over 100,000 members to having less than 2,500 paid members.

I have been in CRA for almost 24 years. The trend lines during that time has not been favorable. The only reason the fish in this pond are getting bigger is because the lake dried up long ago and a shrinking puddle is all that remains.

The way both sides are conducting themselves, it would be right that we wander for another generation in the wilderness. Currently I foresee only three possible outcomes. Either the CRA implodes, or it is taken over by outside interests or it is putdown like a sick animal. Greig and England are spending their time fighting over the wishbone while the rest of the carcass was consumed long ago.

******
I fully expect Karen England to try something in the courts to get an injunction against the current CRA leadership. What form this will take I’m not sure. Will she effectively halt the convention or just try to get more delegates seated? I wish I knew. In the long run, a “time out” might be just what both sides need.

I’d rather be in church on Palm Sunday instead of taking a vote on Sunday.

******
My last thought on this issue—however this turns out—is that the current leadership will regret not dismantling the paper clubs when they had the ability to do so. The number of paper clubs in CRA is shockingly huge.

The CRA was issued a court order that their Board vote was invalid and all delegates will be seated as per rules at time the names were submitted. It also appears that the Credentials Committee has been stripped of their jobs and their duties were given to the Membership Secretary.

I told ya.

As the CRA Convention draws near, I thought it would be good to post the two Bylaws amendments related to the current controversy. If the existing bylaws were followed or the Board had agreed to abide by the first proposal, the impending meltdown could have been avoided. Both Celeste Greig and Karen England have endorsed this proposal before the Board vote.

Section 13.11. Residency of Delegates. No more than one-third of the Delegates representing a chartered Republican Assembly may reside outside the territory that was previously approved for that chartered Republican Assembly by the State Board of Directors. If disputed, residency shall be determined according to voter registration records. If such records are unavailable or inconclusive, residency may be established by other evidence, such as a California driver’s license. At any time during a Convention, if the number of Delegates residing outside the territory of the chartered Republican Assembly exceeds one-third, including Alternates who are substituting for absent Delegates, then the surplus out-of-territory Delegates shall be treated as non-voting Alternates. The decision about which out-of-territory Delegates to treat as non-voting Alternates for this purpose shall be made according to the order that the Delegates were named on the list of Delegates and Alternates sent to the Credentials Committee by the President or Secretary of the chartered Republican Assembly prior to the Convention. Disputes shall be resolved by the Credentials Committee or the Convention. The Convention shall have discretion to adopt rules to prevent the same delegation from being challenged more than once under this Section.

Purpose for this Change: This amendment is designed to restore the representative nature of CRA delegations, with units primarily represented by delegates who live within their jurisdictional boundaries. When units send “delegates” from hundreds of miles outside their boundaries to represent them at CRA Conventions, it makes a mockery of the representative nature of the Convention. What is worse, the ability for units to send out-of-district delegates creates opportunities for fraud, corruption, and manipulation by outside interests. Even when units appoint out-of-district delegates with the best intentions, there may be inadvertent damage to the representative nature of the Convention, so the process should be curtailed. The two-thirds residency requirement is a compromise intended to allow units to deal with special situations. Some CRA members have more than one residence or have good reasons to join units outside of their place of residence. This amendment will allow them to be delegates as long as they do not exceed one-third of their unit’s delegation. If there are too many out-of-district delegates, the extra ones can participate as Alternates.

The second proposal deals with chartering new units.

Section 10.10. Conditions of Organization. The organization of the new Republican Assembly shall be completed, under the direction of the accredited representative(s) of the CRA; provided that the new Republican Assembly shall have:
(a) Ratified the Bylaws of the CRA.
(b) Adopted its own bylaws.
(c) Elected its own officers and directors (if any) and committees, and accomplished its organization in accordance with its bylaws.
(d) Certified to the Membership Secretary that its officers, directors, committees and members have been instructed in their duties by the accredited representative(s) of the CRA.
(e) Certified to the Membership Secretary that it has held at least four regular meetings as an organized body. The unit shall give notice of its four initial meetings to the local State Senate Director and any other CRA officer assigned for that purpose by the CRA President or the Board of Directors.
(f) In addition, for the newly chartered Republican Assembly to be eligible to send delegates to a CRA convention under either Article XIII or Article XIX of these by-laws the new Unit shall:
(1) Apply for its Charter at least 180 days prior to the next regularly scheduled convention; (2) Send to the Membership Secretary at least four sets of meeting minutes no later than 30 days prior to the next regularly scheduled CRA convention.

Purpose for this Change: This amendment is designed to assure that new units to the CRA are created for the purpose of representation and growth of the CRA in the territory outlined in the new Unit’s charter and not solely for the purpose of obtaining an endorsement of a particular candidate just prior to the endorsing convention.

Well, score one for the Park Brothers. In an email on April 5, 2011, Aaron Park fired off an email about Ron Givens. Givens recently joined the Sacramento Republican Assembly as their membership director.

This year I was asked by our Chapter President, Tim Snipes, to serve as Membership Director and was unanimously elected to that post.  I am thrilled to be a servant in Sacramento and have brought 17 new members to the SRA in just the last few weeks, many of whom were registered as DTS and have joined or re-joined the Republican Party.  I will continue to grow our membership using the same transparent means that I live out in life: Honest communication and sharing the vision of what it means to be an Authentic Conservative. http://rongivens.com

In Park’s email, the meat of the issue can be summarized in two excerpts. The first reads:

Ron Givens took a Democrat ballot in 2008 as a Decline-to-State Voter and did not register Republican until late last year (September 21, 2010), according to my sources.

Later Givens fired-off a rebuttal that reads in part:

Like many conservatives, years ago I was disgusted at the leftward drift of the Republican Party, and that disgust lead me to register as a Decline To State voter for a couple of years.  During this time, I supported conservative candidates and causes, and was extremely active in the Yes on 8 campaign.

In 2008, Rush Limbaugh coined the term “Operation Chaos,” encouraging his DTS listeners and Republicans in open primary states to pull Democrat ballots in the Presidential Primary and vote for Hillary Clinton – because by that time it was apparent that our presumptive nominee, John McCain, would fare much better against Hillary than Obama.  That is exactly what I did.

I researched Operation Chaos and it appears that Givens has a problem with his explanation.

In late February 2008, Limbaugh announced “Operation Chaos,” a political call to action with the initial plan to have voters of the Republican Party temporarily cross over to vote in the Democratic primary and vote for Hillary Clinton, who at the time was in the midst of losing eleven straight primary contests to Barack Obama. Limbaugh has also cited the open primary process in the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, which allowed independent voters to cross over into the Republican primaries to choose John McCain over more conservative candidates (such as Fred Thompson), as an inspiration.—Wikipedia

Operation Chaos began at the end of February 2008 and was in full swing in March. However, California’s Presidential Primary took place Tuesday, February 5. http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2008/primary/index.html
This was weeks before Operation Chaos was launched. There are no articles on Google that I can find that Operation Chaos even existed prior to February 26, 2008 and most assuredly it is never mentioned in connection to the presidential primary in California.

California did not have an open primary in 2008, but DTS voters were allowed to vote in the Democrat primary. The reasoning offered by Givens does not seem to agree with the chronology of historical events.

Also worth noting is that Givens registered as a Republican on September 21, 2010—at the same time Meg Whitman’s poll numbers are in decline and days before “Nannygate”. As a DTS, he can vote for anyone in the General so why change his registration now?

Park’s second point is that Givens is not just soft on crime, he embraces and excuses criminals.

Recently, I learned that Ron Givens—a candidate for CRA Sergeant-at-Arms, backed by Karen England—is a leader in the organization called UNION, a prisoners’ rights advocacy group that lobbies for alternative sentencing, reduced sentences, loosening sex offender laws, overturning Three Strikes, elimination of the death penalty for murderers, and the like. View their website here: http://www.1union1.com

According to a post on the American Chronicle—http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/154128.  Ron Givens is headed out on a tour of New Zealand to speak against their proposed Three Strikes law, which Conservatives are proposing for that country.  Quoting the post: I agreed to send Rev. Ron Givens, one on our most dynamic UNION members, to tell them about the absolute financial and humanitarian destruction that the Three Strikes Law has caused to our State. . . Rev. Givens will begin a rigorous speaking tour in New Zealand on May 12 bringing the stories of how the law passed based on lies and he will be sharing letters written by our UNION families and professionals about the injustices that took place in their cases.

Interestingly, Givens has never denied his involvement with UNION or the trip mentioned in the article quoted by Park. It is difficult to do so since both the American Chronicle article and Givens own website feature the same photo of him.

f you do a search of Givens biography, it states that he has been involved with the prison chaplain program and is often called “Reverend”. The seminary that he attended is an extension of Capital Christian Center. It is called Capital Bible College. Capital Bible College graduates of the Bible and Ministries program meet the educational requirements of the Assemblies of God denomination. “Licensing and ordination is also available through other recognized denominations and ministerial associations. Graduates have met all or part of the license and ordination requirements for: Church of the Foursquare Gospel, Calvary Chapel, Christian Evangelistic Assemblies, Wesleyan Methodist, Evangelical Church Alliance, and others.” http://capchrist.edu/?page_id=17 Givens does not list any denominational affiliation on his website nor does he claim to be a practicing minister in any local congregation. Assembly of God ministers are usually called “Pastor” not “Reverend”.

How this education ties in with Givens embracing UNION (United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect) is something that he does not disclose on his website. This group appears to be a fringe Liberal special interest coalition.

We must combine all humanitarians into one voting group, whether the issue is sex offender laws, medical neglect, prison brutality, three strikes, mandatory minimums, objection to the death penalty, legalizers, homeless advocates, schools not prisons folks, and those who object to abuse of foster children because one group alone is too small to generate the necessary crowds to gain clout and recognition. –UNION website

This group is not Prison Fellowship Ministries. It does not advocate the gospel of Jesus Christ as Charles Colson’s group does as a solution to break the cycle of crime and redeem the criminal. Prison Fellowship differentiates between property and violent crimes and has some non-conventional ideas that are different because they are derived from Scripture. It advocates restitution while this is not stated as a core value of Givens’ group. UNION is not a victim’s rights group. It is a criminal rights group.

I have been involved in a many parts of the Church and I have never encountered a consistent unified worldview that can accommodate UNION, Republican, Proposition 8 and conservative in the same breath. While some Catholics view Life as the most important value and some of their views get close to some points of UNION, Givens is a Protestant and only those embracing the “Social Gospel” at the expense of the Gospel of Christ would throw-in with UNION. I just don’t get it.

As for the three strikes laws, I did some research and Givens is definitely nibbling at the margins.
California’s prison population as of December 2009 was 168,830. California prisons held 32,439 2nd Strikers, and 8,570 3rd Strikers (approximately 41,000 inmates). http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/CDCR_Year_At_A_Glance2010.pdf So Givens is flying to New Zealand to decry the injustice of 5 percent of the prison population being incarcerated for a third strike. In the old days we called these fellows three time losers. Some folks just can’t follow the rules.

It just seems incongruent for Givens to be calling himself a conservative Republican. On his website he claims, “I am pro-life.  I am pro-family.  I am pro-2nd Amendment.  I stand against big government.  These are not new convictions, I have held them deeply for years.” I’m just not sure what definitions that he would attach to his claims. IS UNION his idea of standing against big government? Is the Second Amendment there so we can be protected from the prisoners that UNION helps get released back into our neighborhoods?

Earlier I quoted his website where he claims “… sharing the vision of what it means to be an Authentic Conservative”. I don’t know what he means by “Authentic Conservative”. The folks that I run around with never use that term. I ran it thru Google and came up with Andrew Sullivan, Patrick J. Buchanan and Mike Huckabee. These guys cover a lot of ground. Of the three, I think he means the Huckster.

We know the unions in California have threatened to play in the Republican elections in the 2012 cycle. If I was to execute the plan they have announced I would recruit folks like Givens and start placing them in GOP groups in the off year so all my pieces would be in place for the 2012 cycle.

Is Givens a prototype sleeper or just an enthusiastic newbie? In my book he has two strikes right off the top. Operation Chaos had nothing to do with his vote in February 2008 and his affiliation with UNION is very troublesome.

Update 04-12-2011
A Republican that I respect has contacted me about Ron Givens. He says Ron is a “solid conservative” that occasionally is dissatisfied with the Republican Party. He also verified that Givens did work for some Republicans in the last election cycle.

Membership Section of State Bylaws over the years.

As Amended: May 5, 1991

Section12.03. Qualifications for Membership. Members of each Chartered Republican Assembly shall be those American citizens of good moral character who are registered with the Republican Party, in the geographical area of that Chartered Republican Assembly, except that those registered in an area where there is no Chartered Republican Assembly may become members of a Republican Assembly in a nearby unit until a new Republican Assembly may be Chartered Republican Assembly and must continue to comply with those Bylaws, and must pay such annual dues as may be fixed.

As Amended: April 28, 1996

SECTION 12.03. Qualifications for Membership. Members of each Chartered Republican Assembly shall be those American citizens of good moral character who are registered with the Republican Party, in the geographical area of that Chartered Republican Assembly, except that those registered in an area where there is no Chartered Republican Assembly may become members of a Republican Assembly in a nearby area until a new Republican Assembly may be chartered. Each prospective member must be accepted under the By-Laws of his Chartered Republican Assembly and must continue to comply with those By-laws, and must pay such annual dues as may be fixed.

As Amended January 13, 2001

SECTION 12.03.  Qualifications for Membership.  Members of each chartered Republican Assembly shall be those American citizens of good moral character who are registered with the Republican Party, in the geographical area of that chartered Republican Assembly, except that those registered in an area where there is no chartered Republican Assembly may become members of a Republican Assembly in a nearby area until a new Republican Assembly may be chartered.  Each prospective member must be accepted under the bylaws of his chartered Republican Assembly, must continue to comply with those bylaws, and must pay such annual dues as may be fixed.

As Amended April 23, 2005

SECTION 4.04. Membership Requirements. In order to be eligible to join CRA, a person must be an American citizen of good moral character who is registered to vote as a Republican in the State of California.

As Amended March 7, 2010

Section 4.04. Membership Requirements. In order to be eligible to join CRA, a person must be an American citizen of good moral character who is registered to vote as a Republican in the State of California.