An insurgent campaign within the California Republican Party to break away from

are

historical opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage is divided

the party

weeks ahead of scheduled appearances by former President Trump and other GOP White House hopefuls.

A proposed platform overhaul, which could be voted on at the fall convention of the state GOP in Anaheim, is a notable break from conservative dogma in the state that Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon nurtured.

It’s a seismic shift, but it’s a shift that comes from practical necessity. Look at what’s happening not just in California, but in many more conservative states, and realize anti

–

abortion, positions against same-sex marriage are no longer tenable, said Jessica Levinson, a professor of suffrage at Loyola Law School. I think it shows that they recognize that the sand has shifted under their feet.

Political platforms, while largely symbolic, are believed to embody a party’s principles and core beliefs. Discussions about changing it often lead to controversy.

The California GOP proposal passed by a party committee in late July supports traditional family values ​​and a strong and healthy family unit. But it removes language that says it’s important to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The bill also removes opposition to a federally protected right to abortion, while retaining support for adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Longtime conservative leaders are shocked by the proposal, both because of its content and the likelihood that it will be divisive at a key time before the state’s presidential primaries.

This will be extremely controversial and will require a convention designed to unite the party, but it will instead become a major feud, said Jon Fleischman, a former GOP executive director. It’s the last thing the party needs.

He described it as a big middle finger to the presidential candidates who will be speaking at the convention, all of whom are embracing the various party boards that are proposed to be removed.

Supporters counter that the updates align party principles with voters.

Charles Moran, a Los Angeles County deputy who serves on the platform’s editorial committee, said it is critical to move away from rigid orthodoxy to give our California Republican candidates a chance.

We need a party platform that empowers our candidates, not one that serves as a nuisance around their necks, said Log Cabin Republicans president Moran.

The proposal reduces the platform from 11 pages to four. The vote to approve the draft took place in Irvine on July 29, following a controversial meeting of the state party’s executive committee on the review of how state party presidential delegates will be paid in the March primary. (Despite California’s overwhelming blue color, it’s home to the largest Republican state party in the country and will send the most delegates to their presidential nominating convention next year.)

The draft platform will be voted on at the fall convention of the state parties, which former President Trump, Florida Gov. Ron de

S

antis, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and others

Republican

presidential candidates

are expected to be present

. If the party delegates cannot reach a consensus, the platform debate may be rescheduled for their spring meeting.

Passing the proposed changes would bring the party’s platform closer to the beliefs of most Californians and Americans.

More than three-quarters of California adults did not want federal protections for abortion access lifted.

according to in

a 2021 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California. That included 59% of Republicans.

Nationally, 71% of Americans think same-sex marriage should be legal, according to a recent Gallup poll.

But the state’s GOP is more conservative than state voters, making the proposed overhaul of the platform a test of party priorities.

The question they’re going to wrestle with is this: what is the primary purpose of a political party, said Dan Schnur, a professor of politics at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley. If it’s to reflect the ideological passions of their most loyal members, then they shouldn’t be making these changes. But if it’s to win more elections, then it’s probably something they should think about.