So, I've been somewhat avoiding this one because of the subject. I used to say I avoided national like the plague, but after having lived through a global potato, I do realize that statement was somewhat harsh, and I do owe a bit of a public apology to the plague. That said, here we go...
We aren’t doing the censuring (we don’t have the authority).
Excuse me? This statement is so wrong I'm not sure how to rebut it except to say as much. There is nothing in the fundamental nature of censure or our governing documents that limits our authority to censure whoever we want for whatever reason we want. The only mention of censure in any of our governing documents that I could find is in LPTexas Bylaws, IV.b.4. which deals with the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee. I guess if someone disagrees, please provide sources.
It would be symbolic at best.
This is completely true but in a deceptive way... Censure is symbolic unless your organization's governance ties some other penalty to censure, which is the exception, not the rule. To expound upon this point, if I was part of an organization that passed a censure under normal circumstances, then years later, in a moment of nostalgia, someone recanted to me that it was only symbolic in the end. I would then reply with, "Oh, how serendipitous that it worked correctly!" That doesn't mean it's meaningless. Many people renew their wedding vows after a time together. That is an entirely symbolic gesture, and yet, is also among the most meaningful moments in some of those peoples lives, symbols matter.
The censuring is a moot point. Remember the last person we (well y'all because I wasn't on SLEC then) censured was Mark Ash and we ended up getting one of, if not the highest, vote total that election....
I'm not sure if you read that motion, but the point was never to discourage people from voting for Mark; it was to distance ourselves from the Democratic opponent he endorsed and I would recommend today as I did then that we should do the same for candidates in the future who endorse political opponents. I would say if anything were a failure in that process, it was Mark's attempt to toss his votes from our party to Garza. While I don't think our motion was causal to that failure, hooray, it didn't work... I guess... For anyone needing context to this here are a few fun links for you the retraction occurred after the discussion on censure began which makes it sound like non-binding motions can have real world effects...
https://web.archive.org/web/2022102...ey-general-recommends-democrat-rochelle-garza
https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/ryanjrusak/article268231107.html
https://www.texasdemocrats.org/medi...ral-mark-ash-endorses-democrat-rochelle-garza
and this is the original article as it sits today
https://www.amarillopioneer.com/blo...ey-general-recommends-democrat-rochelle-garza
Here is the link to the motion itself
https://forum.lptexas.org/index.php?threads/535/
So as the author of the motion to censure Mark Ash I will assure you if your reading of the intent is that we wanted people to not vote for Mark then your understanding is completely contrary to the intent.
All that said, we can censure members of national, it will not have any binding effect on them, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done or that it should. I'm completely open to hearing debate on this as to why we should or shouldn't use censure to distance ourselves from the actions of the LNC, as to why this is or is not the right list of members to censure, and as to why this does or does not violate national bylaws and how that should play into our decision. It could be the case that the LNC violated bylaws and we should distance ourselves from that action, that the LNC did not violate bylaws and we should distance ourselves from that action, that the LNC violated bylaws and we should not distance ourselves from that action, or that the LNC did not violate bylaws and we should not distance ourselves from that action. All four are possible and I'm open to hearing about it and rendering a decision based on the facts presented but to say we can't censure for some jurisdictional reason or that a motion not having a binding effect makes it useless or ineffective is a complete misunderstanding of censure.