A Party Without Rules Is a Party Without Leadership - By Gary Perry

There is a growing concern within the Republican Party of New Mexico (RPNM) that goes beyond internal debate. At its core, this issue is about adherence to the rules that govern the party and whether those rules are being applied consistently and without exception.

The Uniform State Rules (USRs) are not suggestions. They are the governing framework of the party, recognized under New Mexico law (NMSA §1-7-2), and they clearly establish one fundamental principle: the State Central Committee (SCC) governs the party—not the Chair. The Chair’s role is to preside, not to control, override, or ignore the governing body.

This is the danger of unchecked authority. As Thomas Jefferson warned, “When men assume a power which they have not, they are not only usurpers, but oppressors.”

This dynamic is not new. As H. Beam Piper observed in The Cosmic Computer, “The trouble with any sort of authority is that it tends to become an end in itself.” When authority becomes the goal rather than the responsibility, the rules that constrain it are often the first to be ignored.

Yet that is exactly where the concern begins.

This is not a single issue or misunderstanding. It is a pattern of actions that, taken together, undermine the structure and integrity of the party. The most clear-cut example is Rule 1-4-4. That rule requires that when a party officer enters a contested Republican primary, they must immediately vacate their position. The reason is simple and logical: neutrality. The party cannot fairly oversee a primary election if its leadership is actively competing in that same race while still holding authority.

In this case, that rule has not been followed.

At the same time, other neutrality safeguards are implicated. Rule 1-4-2 prohibits the use of party resources to favor one Republican over another, and Rule 1-4-3 prohibits party officers from endorsing in contested primaries. Even without an explicit endorsement, remaining in a position of power while running in a contested race creates unequal influence. That imbalance alone runs counter to the purpose of those rules.

The responsibilities of the Chair are also clearly defined. Under Rule 2-1-4(F)(1), the Chair is expected to act with professionalism, neutrality, and leadership appropriate to the office. Conduct that includes public disparagement of party members, fostering division, or using the position to influence outcomes does not meet that standard. It instead raises serious concerns about whether the duties of the office are being fulfilled.

The rules go further. Rule 2-1-2(B) requires protection of party welfare and unity. When actions create division, discourage participation, or erode trust, that obligation is not being met. And when members begin to question whether the process is fair, the damage extends far beyond internal disagreements.

Perhaps most concerning is the issue of authority itself. Rule 2-1-5(B) explicitly gives SCC members the power to call meetings, and Rule 2-1-5(C) establishes the SCC as the governing body of the party. When SCC members attempt to exercise that authority and are blocked, delayed, or ignored, it is not just a disagreement—it is an obstruction of the party’s governing structure. The party cannot function properly if its own governing body is unable to act.

The rules also emphasize participation. Rule 1-2-1(B) makes clear that the party is intended to be open and accessible. Any conduct that discourages involvement or creates a controlled or hostile environment runs directly against that purpose. Likewise, the Chair’s authority over operations and spending, outlined in Rules 2-1-4(F)(9)-(10), is not unlimited. It is bound by accountability and neutrality, not personal discretion.

Some have argued that the rules of the Republican National Committee (RNC) do not apply here. That argument is incomplete.

Their reading of the preamble is correct in part—but it does not mean the RNC rules are irrelevant to state parties. While the preamble makes clear that those rules govern the national committee and convention process, it does not isolate state parties from their effect. The RNC rules establish the framework under which states participate in the national party, including delegate selection, contests, and national representation.

State parties, including RPNM, are not independent entities operating in a vacuum. They are constituent parts of the national Republican Party and must operate in a manner consistent with national rules as a condition of recognition and participation. That creates a direct relationship: state rules must be interpreted and applied in harmony with RNC rules where overlap exists, particularly in areas involving fairness, neutrality in contested races, and the integrity of the electoral process.

That standard only works if it is enforced consistently. As Ronald Reagan made clear, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.” Accountability must remain with those who choose not to follow the rules.

The RNC’s stated purpose—ensuring openness, equality, and no favoritism—is not merely aspirational language. It is the governing standard for how the party functions at all levels. If it is being asserted that RNC rules are being followed, that claim strengthens—not weakens—the expectation of compliance at the state level. Because if the national standard requires neutrality, equal treatment, and fair process, then any state-level action that undermines those principles is inherently inconsistent with the rules the party claims to follow.

In short, the RNC rules govern national processes, and state parties operate within that national structure. State conduct cannot conflict with those standards without creating a breakdown in party governance. The issue is not whether the RNC controls day-to-day operations—it does not. The issue is whether actions at the state level align with the national principles the party is bound to uphold.

This matters for a simple reason: rules only matter if they are followed.

When rules governing neutrality, participation, and authority are ignored, the fairness of the primary process is compromised. The authority of the SCC is weakened. Member trust is eroded. Participation declines. Division grows.

This is not how a functioning party operates.

The rules are clear. The SCC governs. The Chair presides. Neutrality is required.

The following rules are implicated: Rule 1-2-1(B) (purpose and participation), Rule 1-4-2 (neutral use of party resources), Rule 1-4-3 (no endorsements in primaries), Rule 1-4-4 (mandatory vacancy requirement), Rule 2-1-2(B) (protection of party welfare), Rule 2-1-4(F)(1) (duties of the Chair), Rule 2-1-4(F)(9)-(10) (limits on authority and spending), Rule 2-1-5(B) (SCC authority to call meetings), and Rule 2-1-5(C) (SCC as the governing body).

As H. Beam Piper also warned in The Cosmic Computer, “When the structure is gone, men make rules to suit themselves.” That is exactly what is at stake here.

When those rules are not followed, the issue is no longer interpretation—it is compliance.

And if compliance becomes optional, then governance itself becomes meaningless.

That is the real issue facing the Republican Party of New Mexico today.

And it is one that cannot be ignored.