If the Right to Nominate Amendment were passed tomorrow? For example, in Tennessee?
First, in accord with the Amendment, a non-partisan, independent Service Bureau would be appointed. This Bureau would exist only to serve a Tennessee nominating Body (called the "Jury/Convention").
In following years, before each general election, this Service Bureau will send a one-page legal form to each registered voter, asking if that voter would like to name someone personally known to them as a prospective candidate for public office. Someone the voter knows and respects.
There would of course be no obligation to do so. But for those who did return the form, it would constitute a legal document. With many safeguards and with vetting to make sure that each name submitted was a genuine private citizen nomination (NOT the product of any organized effort or campaign; NOT activist-generated, etc.; ).
The net result would be a pre-election list of the most respected persons in Tennessee, compiled by the PEOPLE of Tennessee.
A "grass roots" list of those most highly thought of by their neighbors. A list of those whose neighbors wanted to send them to the legislature or into other government offices to help pass laws (legislative); or help enforce them (judicial, executive) .
However many names the list contained, it would form the 'raw material' for a Nominating body (a "Jury/Convention") to sift through. This body would function like a large Jury, formed, like all juries, by random selection from the voter rolls.
This Jury, with about 100-120 members operating by majority vote, would be charged with the duty (and privilege) of sifting through the list of names generated from the people at large to find the best candidates to fill specific offices up for election.
After narrowing the list down to a manageable number, the Jury would proceed to invite prospective "finalist" candidates to come and address them, and to discuss issues of government. These discussions would be televised; open to the public; and above all civil: honest and respectful.
Instead of arrogant media personalities intruding themselves and dominating the conversations to promote their own agenda, this interchange would consist of neighbors and peers having an honest conversation about things that matter to all; i.e., Civil Discourse.
The sick model of the current system--arrogant media personalities "grilling" evasive politicians--would be defeated over time in the public's opinion. This sick party model will eventually be replaced by genuine dialogue, IF that dialogue becomes available by passing the Right to Nominate Amendment.
Civil Discourse is far superior, far more valuable to voters, than current displays of professional arrogance vs. evasion.
During this phase, all proceedings would be open to the public. The Nominating jury would at this point be functioning like a small Convention.
(These two historic institutions, the Jury and the Convention, combined together, can form the ideal vehicle for citizen Nomination of candidates for public office.)
After this time of public interviews, the Nominating Body (the Jury/Convention) would by majority vote select final candidates who would then appear on the ballot in the general election beside all other legally nominated candidates.
Like all jury decisions, this would be a "judgement call". Which is exactly what all juries do. It is the 'job description' of a Jury. But this Jury's charge is to "find the best candidates for public office you can", in terms of honesty, character, fairness, ability, and good understanding; shown first by how the prospective candidates have lived their lives, won their reputations, and treated others; not by phony rhetoric.
The Jury's charge would be to serve the community, to the best of their ability, and to make available the best candidates they can find, like a large, dedicated Search Team.
When we consider the work done by juries made up of ordinary citizens, we find a level of earnest effort that few other government bodies can match. Juries are not perfect. But when free men and women take an oath to "do justice", for example, they have produced some of the highest levels of public service in history.
Juries in our country have been entrusted with the most difficult of decisions: life or death; guilt or innocence; damages awarded (or not). Juries are perhaps one of the greatest examples of how free men and women govern themselves, in a framework of law.
Jury duty in cases of sordid crimes or lawsuits can be burdensome. But this jury service would be a delight for most of our citizens!
Nominating juries ("Jury/Conventions") working from a list provided by the people of the most honored citizens in a state, working under oath or affirmation for this specific service, will undoubtedly work hard to represent the people well.
They can easily find excellent final candidates for public nomination, providing the rest of us with a choice, an alternative to party politicians. We can then either take that choice or choose someone else (a party politician), in the general election.
At last, a source of uncorrupted citizen candidates to give us voters a real choice! (As opposed to the deeply corrupt, closed party system, with its already-in-somebody's-pocket candidates.)
This is how the Framers designed it to be; that is, with the people's representatives governing; not the parties'!
The parties will still be free to do as they choose. They can choose to roll in garbage at their own conventions, and try to blow the smell from that onto voters. They can nominate whomever they wish.
The voters will, as always, make the final decisions; only now the voters will not be restricted to party politicians only. With the Right to Nominate, we can judge between party versus non-party candidates in every election, restoring American freedom. We can take back the sovereignty stolen from us long ago.
Freedom works. It is the gift oƒ God, and the intended state of man.
And freedom will work again, if we pass the Right to Nominate Ammendment!