All four early appointees to the rules committee for this year’s Republican National Convention told POLITICO they’re prepared to weaken or scrap a rule that could limit the convention’s alternatives to Donald Trump.

The four took issue with a rule, originally imposed by Mitt Romney forces in 2012 to keep rival Ron Paul off the convention stage, requiring a candidate to win a majority of delegates in eight states to be eligible for the party’s nomination — a threshold only Trump has exceeded so far. If preserved, the rule could block John Kasich or Ted Cruz from competing with Trump at the convention, set for July in Cleveland.


If the committee scraps the requirement entirely, it could open the door to multiple candidates, possibly even some who never entered the primaries, competing for the party’s nomination at a brokered convention. And even a lower threshold would make it easier for Trump’s rivals to challenge him.

“I’m not a big fan of the eight-state threshold. I think that’s an artificial number,” said David Wheeler, a rules committee member from South Dakota. “It was designed to prevent Ron Paul delegates — their votes from being counted. I don’t think it’s necessary to do that this year.”

If Trump doesn’t effectively clinch the Republican nomination by the June 7 end of the primary season, the rules committee is destined to be the epicenter of political wrangling and horse-trading leading up to what would be the first contested convention since 1976.

Wheeler and the three other early appointees to the panel hail from Louisiana and South Dakota. Eventually, the committee will include a man and a woman from every state and U.S. territory — a total of 112 people. But interviews with the four members, as well as two veteran Republicans who hope to join the panel, provide an early window into the factors that could drive the committee’s decision-making.

Though the panel is imbued with virtually unchecked power to draft rules that tip the nomination away from Trump — or into his grasp — most of the panelists and prospective members indicated their actions would be guided by a different principle: caution.

“We don't want to give the impression that we are leaning one way or the other in support or trying to hold somebody else back,” said Sandye Kading, the other South Dakota delegate on the rules committee.

“Fundamentally, I hope we keep the way we’re doing it,” said Ross Little Jr., a rules committee member from Louisiana. “I’m not looking for a gigantic change.”

But all four said they were open to changes to the eight-state threshold to be more inclusive. It was adopted in a year when Romney was already the presumptive nominee and meant to prevent uncomfortable optics of forcing him to share the stage with Paul, beloved of the libertarian grass roots.

“They ambushed us,” said Gwen Bowen, the other Louisiana rules committee appointee, referring to the Romney backers who imposed the rule in 2012. Bowen, a devout Cruz supporter, will be on the panel for her fourth straight convention. She said she’s against the eight-state rule but hasn’t decided what, if anything, should take its place. Bowen emphasized that she hasn’t coordinated any potential rule changes with the Cruz campaign.

Members of the rules panel are aware that any changes to the process that lower barriers for Trump’s competitors — even adjustments to the eight-state rule — could be seen as an affront to the front-runner.

“Any proposed change will be viewed as to which candidates would be helped and which candidates would be hurt. It’s a classic example of changing the rules in the middle of the game,” said Morton Blackwell, a veteran Republican national committeeman from Virginia who is considering seeking appointment to the rules panel this year. “It would be widely and correctly viewed as that outrageous power grab.”

Blackwell, too, is a Cruz supporter. He has pushed previously to weaken the eight-state threshold, which he opposes, but says now it may be too late to change without risking a backlash.

Trump has already groused about Cruz’s efforts to elect his supporters as delegates to the national convention, a dynamic that could create challenges for Trump on the rules committee, as well as on the floor of the convention, if he’s unable to secure the nomination beforehand. Though he wants Cruz to emerge as the party’s nominee, Blackwell said he hopes it’s not because of any manipulation of the rules.

“If Cruz tries to change the rules, I would advise him strongly not to do it,” Blackwell added. “I think it would not be in the best interest of the party. We’ve got to — in order to attract people to the party — we’ve got to show that we operate fairly.”

In addition, any sudden rules changes could create a public relations headache for the committee, should Trump rebel against its efforts.

“I’m sure that Mr. Trump would rail against it because anybody who’s running for president is going to use whatever means they have,” Wheeler said. He added that he’s guided by the understanding that “any change we make in the rules is going to have different ramifications on how the party comes out in the end, how unified the party is, how people view the party.”

Veteran national Republican committeeman Curly Haugland is the lone exception to the light-touch approach. He was on the rules committee in 2012 and said he intends to pursue a slot this year as well.

Haugland has for years insisted that delegates to the national convention cannot be restricted from voting their conscience. Currently, delegates are bound to vote on a first ballot according to the results of the contest in their state. But if no nominee is selected, most are free to shift their support on later ballots.

Haugland, however, argues that delegates are elected by fellow Republicans to exercise judgment on the convention floor, and should be free to vote as they please even on the first ballot. He said he intends to persuade the rules committee — as well as the convention delegates writ large — to enact changes that would allow delegates to vote for any candidate who has earned a delegate in the 2016 voting.

“They’ve created these goofy, bogus primaries out of whole cloth,” said Haugland, who argues that conventions are largely irrelevant if the party’s delegates are meant to slavishly follow the results of primaries and caucuses.

But Haugland is unlikely to find much help in his quest. Freeing delegates would invalidate the months-long election season that all three campaigns have battled relentlessly to win.

“I would not favor changing the rules regarding binding” delegates to follow their state’s voters on the first ballot, said Wheeler. “That is a core concept of how we arrive at our delegates and how we translate the votes of the people to the nominee.”

Kading agreed, saying “I don't see Curly's suggestions getting much traction.”

Kading said that despite her qualms with the eight-state rule, she intends to take most of her cues from Blackwell, who has attended every convention since 1964.

“Right now, I don’t want the scandal of a [sweeping] change in the rules,” Blackwell said. “Whomever we nominate will be more likely to win if we haven’t had a significant element in the party claiming that the rules have been changed to favor one candidate or oppose one candidate.”

