Local Republican Party elections finally held

by John Dowd

Last week, on Monday, March 31, the Ravalli County Republican Central Committee (RCRCC) finally held their elections, an action that has been contested within the committee for some time. However, even though the elections were held legally, and by an order from a judge, one committee member, Tony Hudson, expects the problem may not be resolved. 

Hudson suspects the Montana State Central Committee may not recognize them as duly elected officials, or certain persons of the RCRCC may be held in contempt of court. Hudson further stated, “This chaos takes up so much oxygen in the room” that nothing productive gets done and nobody has the energy to fight it.

The state and county central committees are affiliated with the national Republican Party (GOP), and are required to hold election of officers. These have historically followed the U.S. primary elections. Primary elections occur on even years, and the state and county central committee elections have occurred on odd years following the primaries. That way, things operate with “clearly elected people,” and, “represent the current electorate,” said Hudson. The county and state committees hold these elections every two years.

However, in 2022, the Montana State Central Committee changed the county election years from odd years to even years. This did not last long, as the State Central Committee realized their mistake, and again changed it back to odd years in 2023, when the last election was held. They also decided that the change would take effect in late 2026, or early 2027. However, this was another mistake. 

As a response, Hudson filed a “writ of mandamus,” essentially a petition, to the county urging the Ravalli County District Court to order the RCRCC, and its chairman Ron Stoltz, to call a convention and hold elections. As a direct result of this, the State Central Committee is allowing counties, at will, to hold elections this year. Hudson said, those that do not are operating illegally.

Hudson is among those elected last week, on April 1, to represent the county at the State Officers Convention this June to vote to elect state officers. 

Prior to an order, resulting from that writ of mandamus, officers and leadership of the RCRCC decided to continue to wait until 2026/2027, which Hudson believes was done intentionally. Hudson, and others, believe that reversing the decision would mean they were supposed to hold elections by April 1, 2025, with no right to push the date back until 2026, regardless of whether the State Central Committee allowed it.

In an interview with Hudson, his arguments centered around state law MCA 13-38-205. The law requires the presiding officer to call a convention in order for elections to be held, and that this must take place prior to the State Officers Conventions. Hudson testified that this had not occurred after the last U.S. primary elections. The RCRCC was operating on a false assumption. “They do not believe they need to follow the law,” added Hudson.

Hudson believes, regardless of the reasoning, this decision to push a vote back to 2026/2027 robs the voting public of representation for two years, “disenfranchising” voters of their control. Essentially, this breaks the contract of election, whereby an agreement is made between voter and elected, that the term will be limited to only two years. The decision to wait would buy already elected persons another two years in their terms, or an entire term period.

The law Hudson cited applies only to requiring that a convention and elections be held. It does not specify term limits. However, according to Montana state law, MCA 13-38-202, the law clearly states: 

“Each precinct committee representative serves a term of 2 years from the date of election or appointment pursuant to 13-38-201. Once the term has expired, the position becomes vacant.”

This law bolsters Hudson’s opinion that such a delay would indeed be against Montana state law, and would be in violation of voters’ representative rights. 

“Our system (U.S. governmental system) is amazing because it gives the rights to the minority,” said Hudson, speaking of concepts like the electoral college. For him, these systems turn true democracy, which he compares to mob rule, into a more fair system; that no matter how large a group is that votes, all points of view are equally presented, and all walks of life are equally represented. This means, for example, that those who live in rural areas, with a lower population, will not be drowned out by the voices of higher population centers. However, according to Hudson, “it only works if we follow the rules.”

In this particular case, Hudson argues that voters were under the impression that the term was two years, an assertion that Judge Jennifer Lint agreed with. Lint issued an order to compel the Ravalli County Republican Central Committee to hold the convention and elections. Additionally, Hudson said the judge went beyond what he and others in the committee were requesting. Hudson said Lint issued an order, following the hearing, to hold the convention to a standard that could not be later called into question. This order laid out all specificities in detail as to the proper procedures of such a convention.

However, Hudson does not believe this order was followed properly. The main issue was that only 23 of the RCRCC’s 43 members attended, including only one of the previously elected officers, Robert Wallace. This meeting was not overseen by the presiding officer, Ron Stoltz, who did not attend.

Additionally, not one of the previous officers, as of the interview with Hudson early this week, has responded to committee inquiries. The former officers also did not turn over any minutes, financials or other important information required to operate the RCRCC. 

Hudson fears the State Central Committee may not recognize this election, even though a quorum was present, elections were held and new officers were voted in following a legal order from a judge. However, according to Hudson, if none of the infrastructure is turned over to the new officers, the issue could return to court, and consequences for the previous officers not following the judge’s order could be very serious.