Dear Eric, We’ve Read the Bylaws. You Should, Too.

Let’s not mince words. What we’re witnessing right now is a coordinated, gaslighting attempt by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania’s leadership to strong-arm county committees into falling in lockstep behind state-endorsed candidates—whether we agree with them or not.

In addition to similar calls Vice Chair Bernie Comfort has been making, we’ve become aware of an email – a copy of which is at the end of this response – originating from Eric Anderson, the newly minted Executive Director of the PA GOP – seemingly only to county chairs who didn’t vote for the current Chair, Greg Rothman, during the state committee meeting in February – making the claim that once the state party makes an endorsement, counties are no longer permitted to endorse any other candidates. He even goes so far as to suggest that State Committee members could be “subject to removal” for supporting someone else in a primary. Not in a general, municipal, or special election—you know, the ones actually listed in Rule 11.1 of the bylaws. A primary.

Compare Rule 11.1, which addresses the bases for removal of a “member of the State Party [i.e. state committee], Leadership Committee, Finance Committee, National Committeeman or National Committeewoman,” with Rule 14.1, which addresses the state committee process for endorsing candidates. As one can quickly ascertain, Rule 14.1 specifically mentions “Primary;” whereas, Rule 11.1 does not. This reflects that where the Party intended a particular rule to apply to the Primary, it knew how to draft such applicability.

The contention in the email wasn’t a mistake; and if you’re questioning it, make sure to continue reading. It was a calculated statement of what can only be described as an act of political coercion and intellectual dishonesty. And one where the expectation is that you won’t take the time to actually read the bylaw provisions at play. Because after all, who cares what the actual law provides, right? What is perhaps most interesting is Eric’s change in position from a recent call that Columbia County Chair Christine Smith had with him.

During petition signing, a heated debate arose between Columbia County Chair Christine Smith and the Vice-Chair, regarding whether non-endorsed candidates were welcome at county events and whether their petitions could be circulated. It became so heated that Chair Smith elected to call Eric, on speakerphone before everyone in attendance, to demand an answer as to whether counties were permitted to allow non-endorsed candidates to attend county GOP events and circulate petitions, as the Vice-Chair contended. To his credit, Eric responded that while non-endorsed Republican candidates were, in fact, entitled to attend county GOP events and circulate petitions, the PaGOP would “prefer” that counties would only allow endorsed candidates to circulate petitions. At that point, without a vote, Chair Smith, in true dictatorial fashion, declared that only endorsed candidates could circulate petitions. Who cares about the county bylaws and allowing the county members an opportunity to be heard and vote, right?!?!? But I digress…

Returning to the issue at hand, the truth of the matter is that Eric knows the difference between the State Committee and the county committees. He knows that the state bylaws explicitly spell out that counties have their own rules, their own processes, and their own authority. He knows that Rule 6.1 says counties are free to govern themselves unless they receive official notice of inconsistency from the state chairman—which, to date, no county has received.

Let’s call this what it is, a power grab, plain and simple. The deep state is terrified of losing control over the grassroots—terrified that local Republicans might think for themselves, speak for themselves, and refuse to rubber-stamp candidates chosen by backroom politics in Harrisburg. They want obedience, not leadership. They want submission, not independence.

And they’re willing to lie to get it. Sound familiar? Sounds like the deep state? Well, you’re right. It is.

Let’s be very clear here: nowhere in the bylaws does it say that counties must mirror the state’s endorsements. Nowhere. If that kind of centralized control existed, the state would’ve quoted the rule. But they didn’t—because they can’t. Because it doesn’t exist.

Instead, they’re relying on fear. They’re throwing around the phrase “subject to removal” like it’s some kind of threat. But that too is an outright lie. As addressed above, Rule 11.1 only applies to opposition in general, municipal, or special elections. Not primaries. A primary is a contest within the party. Debate is not disloyalty—it’s the foundation of representation. And trying to punish disagreement within a primary is not leadership—it’s tyranny.

It’s why we adopted a direct primary system. And why have a primary at all, if whomever the Party anoints…errr, endorses, is the end all, be all? Who cares about your voice, right? At least, as far as the Party is concerned, your voice shouldn’t be heard. Who are you, after all? You’re just a minion, in their view. And there aren’t words for how truly sad and divisive their view of your voice is…

Ask yourself this: If county committees were truly required to follow the state party’s endorsements, then why would the bylaws explicitly define county committees as separate governing bodies with their own rules? Why would Rule 6.1 require the State Party Chairman to formally notify a county if its bylaws are inconsistent with the state’s – before any corrective action is even expected? And if local endorsement wasn’t allowed, why does the endorsement process require a vote, rather than a decree from the top? And these are just the start of the questions that the Party knows it cannot answer.

Let me be crystal clear to those who still believe in local control and bottom-up leadership: We do not answer to Harrisburg or the Deep State. We do not forfeit our autonomy because someone in a suit told us to. And we surely won’t sit quietly while dishonest operatives try to bully us into silence.

So here’s our message back to the state party, and to anyone trying to pressure local committees into blind allegiance: Show us the rule. Quote the bylaw. Cite the authority.

You can’t. Because it’s not there.

This is what judicial temperament looks like: measured, principled, and grounded in the law as written. I don’t twist the bylaws to fit a narrative or an agenda. I hold those in power accountable to the plain text and original intent. This is the same steady approach I’ll bring to the bench. No political favors, backroom games, or deviation from the rule of law. Because integrity isn’t something you turn on when it’s convenient; it’s how justice is served daily.

If you believe in that kind of leadership—rooted in principle, not pressure—then I invite you to stand with us. Join the campaign. Get involved. Help us bring the kind of courage, clarity, and constitutional accountability back to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

We will not comply with made-up rules, and we will not be ruled by fear. The days of quiet submission are over. We will Fight, Fight, Fight. And we’ll WIN.

Yours in Truth, Liberty and Justice,

Josh Prince Esq.

Candidate for the Commonwealth Court of PA