GOP presidential caucus: Is what’s good for Rand Paul also good for the party?

With the exception of my college years, when I voted by absentee ballot, my Election Day routine has been the same: Go to a location not too far from home, slip into a secluded corner and cast a secret ballot for the candidate of my choice.

But thanks to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul’s desire for a political safety net, that routine may be changing next year, and not necessarily for the better.

Paul, Kentucky’s first-term junior senator who was elected in 2010, recently announced his worst-kept-secret-in-America intent to run for president next year. He also wants to run for re-election to his Senate seat.

If he lived in a different state, that might not be a problem. In Wisconsin, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan was re-elected to the House of Representatives even as he was losing his vice presidential race as Mitt Romney’s running mate in 2012. In Connecticut, retired U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman was re-elected despite also being on the ballot as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. And in Delaware, Joe Biden was lucky enough to win both the vice presidency and re-election as a senator in 2008. Guess which position he resigned?

Kentucky isn’t one of those states, though, and state law prohibits a candidate from running for more than one office on the same ballot. That poses a problem for Paul, who wants to pursue his presidential ambitions while at the same time being able to fall back on his Senate seat should he lose that race.

Our senior senator, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also has an interest in how this all unfolds. Although Paul’s seat is generally considered safe for Republicans, the GOP faces a challenge in keeping its newfound majority in 2016. The Senate seats up for grabs are in states said to be favorable to Democrats. The loss of a red state senator would be devastating, especially in McConnell’s home state.

Paul has explored multiple avenues for dealing with the situation. Originally, he sought to have Kentucky’s law changed to allow a run for president and a lower office simultaneously. A bill filed in the General Assembly last year by a supporter went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled House, and no attempt was made this year to push similar legislation. He also mentioned the possibility of filing a lawsuit to overturn the law, but that didn’t happen either.

The solution that has emerged, however, would on its face offer a solution to Paul’s quandary. Plans are in the works now for Kentucky Republicans to choose their presidential preference in a one-time-only caucus sometime in late winter or early spring, and then have primary candidates for other races on the ballot in the traditional May election. That would initially allow Paul to be a candidate for both offices without running afoul of the Kentucky Revised Statutes.

There are a lot of questions about how caucuses would operate, and who would participate.

Would they be held on a precinct or other local level, allowing voters to continue to cast their ballots close to home? Or would they take place by district or region, requiring participants to travel a significant distance to participate?

Voter turnout is abysmally low in most cases as it is. The Kentucky GOP gubernatorial race was one of the most exciting in memory, yet Tuesday’s turnout was microscopic. If voters are forced to drive an hour or more to attend a caucus, who other than die-hard supporters of certain candidates will take part? I know I’d hate to give up the better part of a day to have to drive to London, Hazard, Somerset, Pikeville or other location in my congressional district to participate.

And how will the process take place? Will votes be cast by secret ballot? Or will attendees be forced to make a public vote and risk retribution if they don’t support the right candidate? Since this process is being developed for Paul’s benefit, those of us who aren’t inclined to support Paul may be reluctant to publicly vote for Ted Cruz or any of a number of other candidates (announced or unannounced) who are better choices. There may also be the perception that the fix is in for Paul, also depressing participation.

What happens if Paul happens to win the GOP presidential nomination and also wins his senatorial primary? He still faces the you-can’t-run-for-two-offices-at-the-same-time problem, and there’s no guarantee that a lawsuit filed after the presidential nominee is chosen would be resolved by the time the November ballots are set. It’s unknown if Paul could drop out of the Senate race in favor of a Republican replacement. And with the national Electoral College map as hostile to Republicans as it is, there’s no way the GOP could forfeit Kentucky’s eight votes by taking Paul off the Bluegrass ballot.

That’s probably all a moot point anyway. Paul won’t be the Republican presidential nominee. The establishment usually gets its way, and it’s hostile to him. Paul also may face a backlash from voters who aren’t happy with his have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too approach. Some are already pointing to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who faces a similar situation but has decided to run only for president and forego any re-election bid.

Still, the caucus idea raises a lot of questions. Will it be good for Rand Paul? Definitely. Will it be good for Kentucky Republicans? That remains to be seen.

(H.B. Elkins is a former award-winning Kentucky community newspaper editor who now works in public relations. All opinions expressed are his own and do not represent the views of his current or any former employer. Reach him at hbelkins@gmail.com. Read more at kentuckyvalleyviews.blogspot.com.)