Republicans in California may remove opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage from the state’s official party platform to resonate with voters, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.
Reportedly, the proposal was adopted by a party committee late last month and could be voted on at the state GOP’s fall convention in Anaheim. While it supports “traditional family values” and a “strong and healthy family unit,” language that asserts that “it is important to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman” is not included. In addition, the draft proposal does not include opposition to a federally protected right to abortion.
In addition, the draft proposal “eliminates language about taxpayer protection for homeowners and a plank about opposing racism,” the Times pointed out.
“It’s a seismic shift but it’s a shift born out of practical necessity. Look at what’s happening not just in California but in much more conservative states, realizing antiabortion, anti-same-sex marriage stances are no longer tenable,” Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School, told the Times. “I think it shows their acknowledgment that the sand has shifted underneath their feet.”
Jon Fleischman, a former California GOP executive director, told the Times that the proposal is “the last thing the party needs.”
“This will be extremely controversial and will take a convention that is supposed to be about unifying the party and instead it ends up becoming a big feud,” Fleischman added. He pointed out that the proposal is “a big middle finger” to the presidential candidates who will speak at the upcoming convention, “all of whom embrace the various party planks that are proposed for removal.”
Charles Moran, a Los Angeles County delegate, who was part of the committee that drafted the proposal, told the Times it’s meant “to give our California Republican candidates a fighting chance.”
“We need a party platform that empowers our candidates, not one that serves as an albatross around their neck,” Moran said.
“The question they’re going to wrestle with is this: What is the primary purpose of a political party,” Dan Schnur, a politics professor at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley, told the Times. “If it’s to reflect the ideological passions of their most loyal members, then they shouldn’t make these changes. But if it’s to win more elections, then it’s probably something they need to think about.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member