Ken Moellman has published the following excellent analysis of how the Judicial Committee filled its vacancies.
An analysis of Article 8 §1 and a recommendation for clarifying amendment
1. Background and posture
The bylaws provide for a seven-member Judicial Committee elected at each regular non-presidential convention, with “any five members” constituting a quorum. The same provision directs that “the remaining members of the Judicial Committee shall appoint new members if vacancies occur,” and adds that “should all Judicial Committee positions be vacant, an Intervening convention may fill such vacancies.” Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) governs by Article 16 in all cases not inconsistent with the bylaws.
At the most recent regular non-presidential convention, the election produced only two members. Judicial Committee and at-large National Committee elections run through Convention Rules 9 and 8 §2, which use approval voting with a threshold of a majority of the ballots cast and contain no runoff round. The chair ruled that a single round was correct; an appeal of that ruling failed on a majority vote; and a subsequent motion to suspend the rules and reopen nominations failed to reach the required two-thirds. The convention then adjourned with five seats unfilled.
The two elected members thereafter appointed five additional members who satisfy the bylaw eligibility requirements (Party membership of at least four years; not National Committee members), and the National Committee acknowledged the result by adding all seven to the committee’s distribution list. The committee now treats itself as fully constituted and is moving to amend its Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
A dispute remains over whether the two elected members could validly appoint the other five. That single question is the subject of this analysis.
A related threshold objection holds that the five never-filled seats are not “vacancies” at all, because a vacancy presupposes a seat once filled and later emptied. This is the weakest position. In ordinary parliamentary usage a vacancy is any unfilled position the body is meant to have, and RONR treats a seat to which no one was elected as a vacancy to be filled by the normal procedure. The conduct of the election — a deliberate, twice-tested single-round outcome — confirms that the five seats are genuinely unfilled rather than the product of an incomplete or defective election. The seats are vacant. The two genuine positions concern the quorum question, set out below.
2. The two positions
Position A — The remaining members may fill the vacancies regardless of their number. The specific direction that “the remaining members … shall appoint new members if vacancies occur” is a self-contained grant of authority that operates whatever the number of remaining members. It governs the vacancy situation and is not defeated by the general five-member quorum, which addresses the committee’s ordinary business. On this reading, two members may appoint up to five others, and the committee is now validly constituted at seven.
Position B — No appointment is valid without a quorum of five. “Any five members shall constitute a quorum” is a fixed number that vacancies cannot reduce. Appointing members is the transaction of business, and under RONR a body below its quorum may not transact business. With only two members in office, no quorum exists, the committee cannot act, and the five purported appointments are void. The committee in fact has two members until the next election fills it.
3. Analysis of Position A
The principal supports for Position A are textual, structural, and consequential.
A mandatory command read into impossibility. The vacancy provision is not permissive but mandatory: the remaining members shall appoint to fill vacancies. Position B reads that command so that, in the very circumstances it governs, it can never be carried out — a committee of two is at once directed to appoint and forbidden to act. Interpretation, parliamentary and legal alike, avoids converting mandatory language into a dead letter where another reading is available. The difficulty is acute here because of how narrowly Position B confines the clause: with a five-member quorum on a seven-seat body, “the remaining members shall appoint” could operate only when five or six members remain — that is, for one or two vacancies — and would do nothing for any larger number, the cases in which a vacancy-filling mechanism matters most. Position A gives the command its natural reach, down to a single remaining member. (Position B’s answer — that a directive presupposes the capacity to act, so the command simply lapses when no quorum can be formed — is taken up under Position B.)
Specific governs general. Among RONR’s principles of bylaw interpretation, a specific provision controls a general one where the two conflict. The quorum clause is general to all committee business; the vacancy clause is specific to the vacancy situation and is phrased as a command (“shall appoint”). Where fewer than five members remain, the two provisions collide, and the specific, mandatory direction is the one that supplies the operative rule for that situation. This reading does require treating a numerically fixed quorum as displaced for the single purpose of filling vacancies, which is a genuine interpretive step rather than a plain reading of the words; its justification is that the alternative drains the vacancy command of nearly all effect and disables the committee, as the other points in this section develop.
Avoidance of an unworkable result. If sub-quorum members cannot appoint, the bylaws supply no cure for the present situation for roughly four years. The National Committee has no authority over Judicial Committee composition, and its members are barred from the committee. The intervening presidential convention’s power to fill is conditioned on all positions being vacant, which is not the case here, and ordinary election of the committee is reserved to non-presidential conventions. The intervening convention could in theory amend Article 8 by a two-thirds vote to grant itself the power and then act, but that is a bylaw amendment requiring a supermajority, not the operation of the bylaws as written. As the text stands today, the choice is appointment by the committee or no functioning committee until the next non-presidential convention. A two-member committee can never reach its own five-member quorum, leaving the Party without any forum for the matters the bylaws commit exclusively to the Judicial Committee — including the only route to challenge a National Committee decision as contrary to the bylaws — several of which carry deadlines that presuppose a sitting committee (the specific functions lost are set out under Position B). Where the text admits of two readings, the established preference is for the one that preserves the operation of a mandatory body over the one that disables it — not because a drafting defect is impossible, but because, given a genuine interpretive choice, parliamentary authorities lean toward workability.
Drafting history. The “all positions vacant” sentence was added at the 2020 regular convention, immediately following the 2018 convention that failed to elect anyone. Earlier still, a committee of three — already below the five-member quorum — had filled its own vacancies, and that action was accepted at the time. The discussion around the 2020 amendment closed only the total-vacancy gap, with the stated intent of ensuring that an independent Judicial Committee continues to exist. Had the contemporaneous understanding been that the remaining-members mechanism fails whenever the committee drops below quorum, the rational fix would have authorized a convention or other body to fill any sub-quorum vacancy, not solely the case of an empty committee. The narrowness of the patch — combined with the earlier, accepted three-member appointment — is consistent with a contemporaneous understanding that the remaining members could act in all cases short of total vacancy.
The conduct of the election. At recent conventions the body had suspended the rules to elect the leading candidates for the At-Large Representative and Judicial Committee seats without regard to whether each cleared a majority of the ballots cast. At this most recent convention it did not do so; it held the election according to the rules. The delegates declined to suspend the rules to skip the election, knowingly elected two members under approval voting, declined to overturn the single-round ruling, and declined to reopen nominations. This establishes that the body intended a Judicial Committee to exist and that the two seats are validly and finally filled with five genuine vacancies — foreclosing any argument that the election was incomplete and must be redone. It does not establish that the body wanted a two-member committee: the route to a fuller committee on the floor was suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote that was not reached, so the shortfall reflects the absence of a supermajority to expand the field rather than a majority decision to leave the committee at two.
The parallel at-large election. The same convention produced a near-identical situation for the five at-large seats on the National Committee: a single round of the same approval-voting method elected only two. There, the body mustered the two-thirds needed to suspend the rules for a second round, which elected one more; it did not attempt a third; and the National Committee then filled the remaining two seats at its first meeting after the convention, as Article 7 §7 expressly empowers it to do. The comparison is instructive in two ways. First, it confirms that the convention treats seats left unfilled after balloting not as a failed election to be redone but as vacancies to be filled by the body the bylaws designate. Second, and more pointedly, it shows why the Judicial Committee’s own mechanism must be read to work: for the at-large seats the bylaws supply an external filler — the National Committee — so stopping the balloting short of a full slate is harmless, whereas for the Judicial Committee the bylaws supply no external filler at all, the National Committee being barred from its membership, leaving “the remaining members” as the sole means of filling vacancies short of total vacancy. The drafters plainly knew how to assign vacancy-filling to a separate, fully constituted body when they wanted to, and deliberately did not do so for the Judicial Committee. A reading that disables the only filler the Judicial Committee has cannot be reconciled with that choice.
No nullification of a mandatory body below the amendment threshold. Article 8 makes the Judicial Committee a mandatory standing body with assigned functions. Under RONR a bylaw of this structural character — as distinct from a rule of order — cannot be suspended, and the bylaws permit amendment only by a two-thirds vote (Article 17). Position B’s reading would mean that a convention outcome falling short of two-thirds, or the mere failure to elect a full slate, can render the committee inoperative for an entire term with no available cure. That permits a result to be reached by a lower-threshold path, or by simple inaction, that the Party could not lawfully accomplish directly except by a two-thirds amendment — in effect nullifying a bylaw-mandated body by less than the vote required to nullify it in form. An interpretation that opens that back door is disfavored. The force of the point is partly rhetorical: a failure to fill seats is a failure to execute the provision, not a formal vote to suspend it. But its substance holds against Position B, because the vacancy clause exists precisely so that incomplete election does not disable the body, and Position A is the reading that gives that design effect.
The principal cost of this reading is that it lets as few as two members — in principle, one — select the balance of a seven-member adjudicative body, the concentration of authority that quorum rules exist to prevent. That is the substance of Position B’s affirmative case, taken up below; the short answer is that the bylaws make any such imbalance temporary, because the full committee is re-elected by the delegates at the next non-presidential convention.
4. Analysis of Position B
Position B has a genuine textual anchor and a legitimate policy rationale; it is not frivolous.
The quorum is a fixed number. “Any five members shall constitute a quorum” is not a proportion of those in office; it is a fixed count. Vacancies cannot lower it, so with two members in office a quorum is arithmetically unreachable. This contrasts deliberately with the National Committee, whose quorum is “a majority of the membership” — a proportional figure that shrinks with the body and never produces this trap. The drafters chose a fixed number for the Judicial Committee. This is Position B’s firmest ground.
Sub-quorum bodies cannot transact business. Under RONR, a body lacking a quorum may take only a narrow set of actions — fixing the time to which to adjourn, adjourning, recessing, and measures to obtain a quorum. Filling vacancies is not among them. Appointing five members is plainly the transaction of business. On this view “the remaining members … shall appoint” merely identifies who fills vacancies — the committee, acting through whoever remains — and does not purport to suspend the committee’s own quorum; the direction simply cannot be carried out when too few remain, just as any directive presupposes the capacity to act. The difficulty with reading the clause this way is that it leaves “the remaining members … shall appoint” with almost no field of operation — it could function only when five or six members remain, that is, for only one or two vacancies — and it strands the committee with no cure, the objections developed under Position A.
The consequence — no appeals, and an unreviewable National Committee. Position B’s result is not merely an idle committee; it eliminates every function the bylaws assign exclusively to the Judicial Committee for the duration of the term. A committee of two can never reach its five-member quorum, so for as long as four years there would be no body to hear an affiliate’s appeal of a charter revocation (Article 5 §6), an officer’s or at-large member’s appeal of a suspension (Articles 6 §7 and 7 §5), a challenge to a platform plank or a resolution (Rule 5 §7 and Rule 6 §2), or a presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s appeal of a suspension — the last of which the bylaws require to be decided before the election (Article 14 §5). Most consequentially, Article 7 §12 makes the Judicial Committee the sole avenue by which ten percent of the most recent convention’s delegates, or one percent of the Party’s sustaining members, may challenge a National Committee decision as contravening the bylaws. With no functioning committee, such decisions simply stand, unreviewed: the one structural check the bylaws place on the National Committee disappears, and rights the bylaws expressly confer on members, officers, candidates, and affiliates become unenforceable. An interpretation that produces that result should be accepted only if the text compels it, and it does not — Position A is available and avoids it.
The policy rationale, and its limits. The affirmative case for Position B is structural caution: allowing two members to appoint the other five lets two people compose the entire tribunal that rules on affiliate, officer, and candidate suspensions, the concentration of control that quorum rules exist to prevent. The concern is legitimate but limited here. Appointees serve only until the next non-presidential convention, when the delegates re-elect the entire committee, so any imbalance is temporary and the membership retains ultimate control; and it must be weighed against the alternative the same reading produces — no adjudicative forum at all. As a practical matter the rationale is also largely moot in the present situation, where the realistic choice is between a committee constituted by appointment and no committee, not between two competing methods of constituting one.
Prior practice does not rescue Position B. Position B may invoke RONR’s rule that a custom yields to a written rule once the conflict is pointed out, treating the earlier three-member appointment as an unchallenged error rather than evidence of meaning. That principle assumes the written rule is clear. Where, as here, the interaction of two written provisions is genuinely ambiguous, the prior consistent practice is legitimate evidence of how the body reads its own bylaws, not a custom being overridden by a plain rule.
5. Assessment
On the merits, Position A is the stronger reading. The specific-over-general principle, the refusal to read a mandatory clause into near-total nullity, and above all the avoidance of a remedy-less freeze of a mandatory committee all point the same way, and the drafting history corroborates it. Position B rests essentially on the literal fixed quorum plus a policy concern, and it carries the decisive weakness of disabling the committee — and with it the appeal rights the bylaws guarantee to members, officers, candidates, and affiliates — with no available cure. The committee’s current course rests on the better interpretation.
Two qualifications should be stated plainly. First, the question is genuinely contestable, and under RONR a society interprets its own bylaws; whichever reading prevails before a body with authority to decide becomes binding regardless of which is analytically stronger.
The only forum for an authoritative, Party-wide resolution is a convention — the body that elects the committee and that alone may interpret or amend Article 8 with effect on the whole Party. The Judicial Committee cannot supply that resolution: interpreting its own composition falls outside the enumerated jurisdiction of Article 8 §2, and in any event a body cannot sit in judgment of its own constitution. The Party Chair and the National Committee may have to take a position on the question only incidentally, when it arises in their own proceedings — for example, the National Committee deciding whether to act on rules submitted under Article 8 §3 — but neither has authority to determine the committee’s composition, and any such incidental ruling governs only that body’s own action, not the Party generally. The practical difficulty is that no convention is available to act: the bylaws provide no mechanism for a special convention (the former “non-regular convention” provisions were removed at the 2016 regular convention, and nothing replaced them), the intervening presidential convention can neither elect the committee nor fill partial vacancies, and the next non-presidential convention is roughly four years away. Authoritative resolution is therefore effectively deferred to a future regular convention, most cleanly through the amendment proposed in Section 7.
Second, proceeding now does not settle the question. Under RONR, the absence of a quorum and action that conflicts with the bylaws are treated as continuing breaches: a point of order may be raised at any time, without the usual timeliness requirement, and the action is treated as null rather than merely voidable. If Position B were later vindicated, the committee would have acted with two members, and its amended Rules and any interim rulings could be challenged on that basis. That exposure is not certain to be fatal — doctrines protecting the acts of a body that operated under apparent authority, the de facto-officer principle and its analogues, may preserve some actions as to those who relied on them, at least until the defect is successfully raised. But RONR’s treatment of a missing quorum cuts the other way for internal parliamentary purposes, and the prudent assumption is that interim acts are vulnerable.
There is, in any event, no clean external cure: the committee cannot ratify its own appointments to reach a quorum, the National Committee lacks the power, and the convention backstop reaches only total vacancy. The exposure has been deferred, not resolved, and a challenge of this kind tends to surface when the committee issues a decision an opponent wishes to void.
Any action by the National Committee that purports to legitimize the composition of the Judicial Committee should be understood as acknowledgment, not authority. It has no power to appoint, confirm, or seat Judicial Committee members; adding the seven to a distribution list records that it treats the committee as constituted but neither creates nor cures the validity of the appointments, which stand or fall on the committee’s own bylaw power.
6. Determination
At the broadest level, the two readings are not evenly balanced in what each must assume.
Position A is corroborated by nearly every independent indication of what the convention bodies intended, as expressed in the bylaws themselves: the delegates created a Judicial Committee and made it mandatory; they built in a mandatory self-filling mechanism so that an incomplete election and resignations would not leave it empty; they gave members, officers, candidates, and affiliates a right to appeal to it; at the most recent convention they held the election rather than dispensing with it; and, when a total vacancy exposed a gap, they amended the bylaws to close it.
Read together, those choices express a consistent intent that the Party have a functioning, independent Judicial Committee, and Position A is the reading that gives that intent effect.
Position B draws its force from essentially a single feature — the fixed-number quorum, together with the general rule that a body below its quorum cannot transact business — and to honor that one provision it must override all of the others, leaving the committee unable to act, the appeal rights unenforceable, and the body’s evident purpose frustrated for years. Where one reading harmonizes the whole instrument and the other vindicates a single clause at the expense of the rest, the principle that bylaws are construed as a coherent whole favors the former.
Position B need not claim the delegates wanted any of this; it treats the consequence as an unintended gap. But that concession is itself the answer: where one available reading carries out the body’s manifest purpose and the other defeats it as an accident of drafting, the body is presumed to have meant the former, not the latter. That is the basis for the conclusion stated above.
The question nonetheless remains one for a body with authority to decide, and the durability of the committee’s actions remains contingent until it is resolved — which is why the clarifying amendment in Section 7 matters.
7. Recommendation for future conventions
The underlying defect is that Article 8 §1 pairs a fixed-number quorum with a self-filling small committee and a backstop that reaches only total vacancy, leaving an unaddressed gap between one and four remaining members. The defect is aggravated by the absence of any interim convention: because the bylaws no longer provide for a special convention, nothing can act between regular conventions except the committee itself. Any durable fix must therefore be self-executing — that is, it must enable the committee (or some standing actor) to fill vacancies without waiting for a convention that may be years away and that, in a presidential year, lacks the power to fill partial vacancies in any event. A future convention should amend the bylaws to remove the ambiguity rather than leaving it to recur each cycle. The options below can be adopted singly or in combination; the first is the minimum necessary fix.
Option 1 — State expressly that vacancies may be filled below quorum. Add to Article 8 §1 language confirming the result Position A reaches, so the question never turns on interpretation again. For example:
“A majority of all remaining members of the Judicial Committee, regardless of any other quorum requirement, shall appoint new members if vacancies occur, such appointees to serve until the final adjournment of the next regular non-presidential convention.”
Besides neutralizing the quorum objection in terms (“regardless of any other quorum requirement”), this version supplies a clear decision threshold — a majority of all members then in office — which avoids a separate dispute about how few members may act and requires near-unanimity when the committee is very small.
Option 2 — Provide a fallback when no member remains to appoint. The current backstop reaches only total vacancy and relies on an intervening convention that may not sit in time and, in a presidential year, may lack the power to act; because no special convention exists, an empty committee otherwise has no cure until the next regular non-presidential convention. Adding a standing fallback closes that gap. For example:
“Should all Judicial Committee positions be vacant, appointments may be made by a majority of all affiliate party chairs, or an Intervening convention may fill such vacancies.”
This designates a fallback that, unlike the National Committee, is not barred from Judicial Committee membership and can act between conventions. One consideration to weigh is that the Judicial Committee hears appeals of affiliate-party suspensions (Article 5 §6); the convention may wish to confirm it is comfortable with affiliate chairs selecting that body, even in the emergency case.
Option 3 — Replace single-round approval voting for these elections. The vacancies arose at the source from the election method. Judicial Committee and at-large National Committee seats are filled under Convention Rule 8 §2 (applied to the Judicial Committee through Rule 9) by a single round of approval voting with a majority-of-ballots-cast threshold and no further rounds, so whenever fewer candidates clear the threshold than there are seats, the remaining seats go unfilled — exactly what happened to both bodies at the most recent convention. The convention should adopt, for both the Judicial Committee and the at-large elections, a method designed to produce a definitive result that fills every open seat — for example, successive rounds of balloting continued until all seats are filled, or a multi-winner method that elects to the full number of seats — rather than depending on a suspension of the rules to force additional rounds case by case. Fixing the method at the source would prevent the vacancy problem from arising and reduce reliance on the appointment mechanisms above.
Option 4 — Ratify reliance, if the convention wishes to settle the present situation. A convention may include a clause confirming the validity of appointments made and actions taken in reliance on the remaining-members provision before the amendment’s effective date, which would extinguish the residual exposure described in Section 5 rather than leaving it dormant.
A clean drafting approach combines Option 1, Option 3, and, for the current committee, Option 4.
Appendix A — Summary of facts relied upon
Governing structure. Article 8 §1 provides for a seven-member Judicial Committee elected at each regular non-presidential convention; “any five members” constitute a quorum; the remaining members appoint to fill vacancies; and, should all positions be vacant, an intervening convention may fill them. RONR governs in all cases not inconsistent with the bylaws (Article 16). Bylaws are amended by a two-thirds vote (Article 17).
Convention cycle. Regular conventions occur every two years (Article 10 §1). The Judicial Committee is elected only at non-presidential conventions and serves until the final adjournment of the next non-presidential convention — a term of roughly four years. The “intervening” convention is the presidential-year regular convention between two non-presidential conventions.
The most recent convention. A single round of approval voting (Convention Rule 8 §2, applied through Rule 9; threshold of a majority of ballots cast; no runoff) elected only two Judicial Committee members. The chair ruled that one round was correct; an appeal of that ruling failed on a majority vote; a motion to suspend the rules and reopen nominations failed to reach two-thirds. The convention adjourned with five seats unfilled.
The parallel at-large election. At the same convention, the five at-large National Committee seats drew only two majority winners in the first round. The body suspended the rules for a second round, which elected one more; it attempted no third round. The National Committee filled the remaining two seats at its first post-convention meeting, as Article 7 §7 permits.
Post-convention events. The two elected Judicial Committee members appointed five additional members who meet the bylaw eligibility requirements (Party membership of at least four years; not National Committee members) plus additional criteria the two members adopted. The National Committee added all seven to the committee’s distribution list. The committee treats itself as fully constituted and is moving to amend its Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Relevant history. In an earlier instance, only three members were elected, and the Judicial Committee — already below the five-member quorum — filled its own vacancies, which was accepted at the time. The 2018 convention failed to elect anyone; the “all positions vacant” sentence was added at the 2020 regular convention in response. A special- (formerly “non-regular”) convention mechanism existed previously but was removed at the 2016 regular convention and not replaced, so no convention can be convened between regular conventions.
Appendix B — Governing provisions referenced
Article 5 §6 — Affiliate-party charter revocation by the National Committee; appeal to the Judicial Committee.
Article 6 §7 — Suspension of an officer by the National Committee; appeal to the Judicial Committee.
Article 6 §8 — National Committee fills officer vacancies.
Article 7 §5 — Suspension of an at-large National Committee member; appeal to the Judicial Committee.
Article 7 §7 — National Committee fills officer and at-large vacancies “to complete the term.” Article 7 §10 — National Committee quorum is “a majority of the membership” (proportional, not a fixed number).
Article 7 §12 — Judicial Committee review of National Committee decisions on appeal by ten percent of the most recent convention’s delegates or one percent of sustaining members.
Article 8 §1 — Judicial Committee composition, five-member quorum, remaining-members appointment power, and all-vacant convention backstop (the provision at issue).
Article 8 §2 — Enumerated subject-matter jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee.
Article 8 §3 — Judicial Committee rules of appellate procedure; submitted to the National Committee and deemed approved unless denied by a two-thirds vote within 60 days.
Article 10 §1 — Regular conventions held every two years.
Article 14 §5 — Suspension of a presidential or vice-presidential nominee; appeal to the Judicial Committee, to be decided before the election.
Article 16 — Parliamentary authority: RONR governs where not inconsistent with the bylaws or special rules.
Article 17 — Amendment by a two-thirds vote (seven-eighths for the Statement of Principles provision and the amendment provision itself).
Convention Rule 5 §7 — Challenge to a platform plank as conflicting with the Statement of Principles, referred to the Judicial Committee.
Convention Rule 6 §2 — Challenge to a resolution as conflicting with the Statement of Principles, referred to the Judicial Committee.
Convention Rule 8 §2 — At-large election method: each delegate may approve any number of candidates; candidates receiving a majority of the ballots cast, up to the number of seats, are elected; no runoff round.
Convention Rule 9 — Judicial Committee elections conducted in the same manner as at-large elections.
Appendix C — Parliamentary principles referenced
Citations are to RONR (12th ed.):
Principles of bylaw interpretation, including that a specific provision controls a conflicting general one and that each provision is read in light of the whole — §56:68.
Quorum, and procedure in its absence. A quorum is the minimum needed to transact business; where the bylaws fix a specific number, vacancies do not reduce it; a body below its quorum may take only limited actions (such as to fix the time to adjourn, adjourn, recess, or take measures to obtain a quorum), which do not include filling vacancies — §40 (esp. 40:7).
Continuing breaches. A point of order is generally subject to a timeliness requirement, except for certain continuing breaches — including action taken in violation of the bylaws and action taken in the absence of a quorum — for which a point of order may be raised at any time, and the action is null and void — §23:6.
Custom. A custom that conflicts with a written rule falls when the conflict is pointed out; the written rule then prevails — §2:25.
Suspension of rules. Rules of order may generally be suspended, but provisions in the nature of bylaws — establishing the structure of the organization, as distinct from rules of order — cannot be suspended even by a unanimous vote — §25 (and §2:21 on bylaws in the nature of rules of order).
Be First to Comment