home

FL Delegates Sue DNC Over Delegate Strip

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:59:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Remember Bob Bauer (PDF) on the Voting Rights Act pre-clearance problem for revotes in Michigan and Florida? Well, some Florida delegates seem to think he had a point. They are suing the DNC:

Three Florida delegates, including the state's Senate Democratic leader have filed a federal lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee claiming the DNC violated their constitutional rights by barring them from the party's national convention.

More...

. . . The lawsuit claims there are rules which the DNC is obliged to follow but did not, along with certain U.S. Constitutional rights the veteran state lawmaker and party super delegate contends are being violated. The litigation takes aim at three essential issues: 1. The DNC broke its own rules by not investigating the events that led to Florida's ealy vote before punishing the state. 2. Even though Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the same party rules by moving up their primaries, they were not sanctioned as Florida was, but were instead granted a waiver by the DNC from any such penalties. 3. As the controversy unfolded, the DNC maintained that Florida should have held a post-primary Caucus. Doing so, Geller argued, likely would have resulted in only about 100,000 votes being counted, a tiny fraction of the 1.75 million voters who turned out in January, while at the same time, completely disenfranchising Florida Democrats in our country’s military serving outside of Florida.

Points 1 and 2 are non-starters as legal issues imo. The courts have no jurisdiction over those issues. Point 3 is where the Voting Rights Act MIGHT come into play. But my first impression is this is a sideshow. No court is going to do anything in time to matter. I'll try and take a better look later.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< More On the Malign Acceptance of Sexism | How to Thwart Hillary's "Evil" Plan On FL/MI >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FL Delegates Sue DNC Over Delegate Strip | 139 comments (139 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I've been battling this all day (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    Everyone over at another unnamed blog, who we both used to post at, when they saw this were like "Clinton's at it again!" despite the fact that the person bringing it is uncommitted, and it includes an Obama delegate.

    I agree with you that this is largely a fools errand, though.

    Swords Crossed? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:07:54 PM EST


    Parent
    na (none / 0) (#7)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    the so-called Obama blog

    Parent
    Same attitude at Orange re Nevada suit (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM EST
    when I researched it carefully and came to the conclusion that the custodians and teachers had a darn good point about having to staff the caucus school buildings that kept them from getting to their own caucus sites.  And there were other good points made in that suit -- which was in the works long before the last-minute union endorsement in Nevada that the Orangeboyz said was the cause for the Clintons to support voters wanting to vote.

    More evidence of how poorly the Orangeboyz have acquitted themselves since early days in this campaign.  I knew then that any remnants of its claim to being progressive, to getting out the vote and counting the votes, were gone.  So, so was I.

    Parent

    americablog? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    A is outdoing himself today.  it worth a look just to see how low they can go.

    Parent
    no no no lol (none / 0) (#17)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:16:04 PM EST
    Though I haven't been there for a while because he got obnoxious.  I mean I voted for Obama, but largely because that was my whim for that day.  I could have voted for either candidate on any given day through this entire process.

    i mean kos (i guess i should just say it instead of being cute and wasting more comment space, heh)

    Parent

    you really need to check out the other (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:18:27 PM EST
    it is a case study today of everything BTD has been talking about.

    Parent
    Capt.- that used to be my fav blog, (none / 0) (#130)
    by kenosharick on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:18:39 PM EST
    until I was chased off. I check in occasionally and think they have serious mental issues. If you knew nothing of American politics and read thatblog only, you would think Hillary is worse than hitler,bin laden, and stalin all rolled into one. It would be funny if it was not so pathetic and sad. I fear what these people might do when Obama loses in Nov.

    Parent
    Cheetoh Central? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    Gawd I wish they had a different color scheme. Not much of a Cheetoh eater, but many of my faves come in that color and even mere seconds of the association is wrecking my fun.

    Thanks for the FL updates, BTD. I'm experiencing Toob silence today. I didn't think it was possible for voting Floridians to be MORE PO'd than '00 but this has achieved it.

    Were I invested in a Dem win, I'd urge nothing less than full seating of MI and FL or the GE blowback will be fierce should the coronation take place as pre-planned.

    (BO's GE-mode campaign shift is starting with kissing a LOT of injured @ss. It's not a flattering posture for him other than in the verbal sense but the upside is, he's taking a recognizable position on something.)

    Parent

    That was funny (none / 0) (#12)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:38 PM EST
    I agree with you. Points 1 and 2 are nonstarters. Point 3 is valid only if a court is willing to say that all caucuses are outlawed. But the point Geller makes there, interestingly enough, is precisely the same point I've been making all along here -- that counting the number of caucus participants as equal in standing to the number of voters in states that hold primaries is intellectually dishonest. That's why, among other reasons, the popular vote is so silly an argument.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#58)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:44:44 PM EST
    Point 3 can be valid without invalidating other caucuses.  Florida has a primary system and people voted in it.  To sub in a caucus is to take away votes already cast.  Other states provide for caucuses (or both primary and) from the get-go.  The issue is whether a caucus in Florida vs a primary in Florida violates the law.

    Parent
    If the DNC forced FL (none / 0) (#101)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    to caucus, and prohibited another primary, that would be a different case. So far as I can tell, Florida wasn't prohibited from proposing and holding another primary.

    Parent
    Voting Machines (none / 0) (#117)
    by solon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:14:45 PM EST
    They could not hold another primary because some of the counties in Florida got rid of their voting machines. Those counties will be getting new machines for the fall election but not sooner.

    According to CNN,  the Florida bill to move up the primary to January also contained a provision to swap out voting machines in 15 counties, nullifying any chance of a revote with voting machines.

    Parent

    That doesn't equate with the DNC (none / 0) (#119)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    prohibiting a revote. In legal parlance that would be called bootstrapping yourself into a claim.

    Parent
    The point was not to equate.... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by solon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:35:55 PM EST
    Just that certain revotes were not possible because of practical considerations.

    Parent
    But consider this: there is no (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    obvious bias towards Obama in the distribution of caucus states, and yet he fared far better in those than in the primary states. If Obama were actually the choice of the majority of Democratic voters, than ought to show up in the primary vote totals. It doesn't, which means Clinton's claim has some legitimacy.


    Parent
    I wouldn't be so sure (none / 0) (#94)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    about #1. If there are rules by contract that both parties must abide by the then plaintiffs could have a case. Obviously the DNC carried out it's rights according to the rules by contract and also must abide by what rules they must abide by.

    I saw Terry" McAuliffe on TV not so long ago also saying that the rules dictated that the DNC could only penalize each offending state 50% of it's delegates, not all. If that is true I wonder why that is not being included in the law suit. Unless the plantiffs don't want to open the door to that being the remedy.

    Parent

    they're (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:33:11 PM EST
    running everybody off with that stuff.

    Parent
    Since I didn't get to comment (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:06:13 PM EST
    on the previous thread...thanks for being one of the few male bloggers who talks about sexism in an honest way.

    As for this lawsuit, well...it may be of dubious legal merit, but maybe, just maybe, it will help the DNC get the point?

    I don't know if anything will, but I remain hopeful.

    Exactly. Whether parts are dismissed (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:32 PM EST
    is not the point.  Voters are having to sue their party to get their votes to count.  That is the appalling low to which Dean and Prima Donna Brazile and the rest of the fools have brought down, for the sake of a foolish agenda, the Democratic Party.  Good for those behind this suit in helping to exposed the inner machinations to push a protege of the Chicago machine and the Kerry/Kennedy machine -- together again ala 1960.

    Good for those behind this suit for standing up for our military overseas to be able to participate in the processes of democracy for which they fight and die -- and I hope that there are amicus curiae briefs to come from groups for the disabled, the elderly (hey, AARP, get on it), and many others whose votes are suppressed by caucuses.

    This is the way to truly push the powers-that-be in the Dem party to start even discussing really changing its processes that have proved that it does not live up to its principles in many ways.

    Parent

    at least they tried... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    Why even try to do anything if a kool blogger will just call it a sideshow?

    Rachel Maddow just lied on TV (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:07:32 PM EST
    She said that the Clinton campaign agreed to seat half the delegates in FL and MI.

    I say lie because I KNOW Rachel Maddow knows that is false. She is an embarrassment.

    Gawd... (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    there's another pundit type I thought was exceptional, who turned out to be just another careerist.

    Parent
    she h as set the bar (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:15:02 PM EST
    extremely low.  her and Aravosis.  a tossup.


    Parent
    ahh rachael, you so want to be a kool kid. snark! (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:25:38 PM EST
    it won't happen. you see, your cross your legs dear and you don't do football, etc with the boys. to be blunt, you aren't one of the boys and therein lies your failure. but you bravely show up at obamacentral everynight with your caustic comments all ready to go. you want to play with the rest of the kids. i know how it is. hillary could fill you in if only you'd stop talking and listen.

    Parent
    If you're selling out doing it for MSNBC is sad (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:41:41 PM EST
    Gawd, is MSNBC really what Maddow would trash her own talent and integrity for?

    OTOH, since no one watches it maybe the method behind the madness is the same as big stars doing a stupid commercial in Japan that will be contained to Asia.

    Rachel Maddow for Super Fun Wow Lie-News Pocky Yes!

    Parent

    i can't and won't watch her. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:51:16 PM EST
    whatever cred she had is gone. that is what so many of the marvelous exponents of cool fail to see. cool doesn't work well except in the movies. karma comes knocking and if being rude to hillary is all you've got, that won't pay the mortgage for long.

    Parent
    When Maddow's interchangeable with Gloria Borger (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:59:07 PM EST
    ... you know these are strange days indeed.

    Well her little gig (and I do mean ...) will stink through her CV before long.

    My toobs (which have been down all day) just powered up long enough to catch Glo(ria)Bo(rger) in action on the Sitch with Wolfe.

    She was on a panel and clearly on the periphery of the conversaton; had to keep jumping to try to get in on it.

    One on one Maddow gets to put in her few cents but eventually it'll be her being "tolerated" by the panel of guys.

    Parent

    Toss in Randi Rhodes (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:52 PM EST
    for good measure. Another kool kid ego maniac who is not above spreading falsehoods.

    Parent
    Just FYI re Maddow: (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by chancellor on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:05:50 PM EST
    budhydharma is running around the blogosphere trying to get bloggers to sign a petition for Maddow to have her own show on MSNBC. Calls her a great progressive voice. Seems many are being suckered in; a few are not.

    Parent
    rachel will never get a show. (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST
    she couldn't bring in the numbers desired.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#8)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:12:28 PM EST
    I won't be surprised if the Clinton campaign ultimately agreed on this, but I would be surprised if they said so publicly before the meeting on the 31st.

    Parent
    I know they did not (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:29:40 PM EST
    I criticized them for it.

    Parent
    What was their logic? (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    For not accepting 50%?

    I don't really get that since it's pretty clear that in order to get the DNC to go along with it there will have to be some kind of penalty attatched.

    If you posted about it before, I'm sorry, I guess I missed it.

    Parent

    Well, personally my theory is (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:36:00 PM EST
    Even if they're willing to accept 50% you don't necessarily start compromising before even getting to the negotiating table.

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:39:03 PM EST
    But I was under the impression by BTD's post that they rejected it flat out.  Maybe I am mistaken there.  It doesn't seem to me like you should flat-out reject something you may later compromise on.

    Parent
    Sure you do (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:24:55 PM EST
    Rejecting an offer is rule 'A' of Negotiating 101. One can always change their mind.

    Parent
    The y flat out rejectedd the MI deal (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:50:36 PM EST
    The FLorida deal is only now being offered by Obama.

    Parent
    Rumor had it (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:52:37 PM EST
    split Michigan 50-50, and give 1/2 delegates to Florida. That would have been crazy.  

    Look, the DNC kept ignoring this problem hoping that it would go away.  That someone will clinch the nomination and the issue would be moot.

    Meanwhile, the Obama campaign kept stalling.  They kept FL and MI off the table, and in doing so, them and their friends in media kept telling Hillary to get out.  

    If Michigan solution was fair (as opposed to stupid political and bankrupt idea of 50-50), I think Hillary would have taken a half delegate solution in January/February, even in early March.  Most of the uncommitted are for Obama anyhow.  

    If Dean had a clue, he would have used his megaphone to push a solution, and gotten the two campaigns to accept it. But perhaps, there was too much manauvering behind the scence.  I don't think there any objective person left at DNC.

    After all the obstructions, now it's only fair to seat all the delegates.  Obama camp is now floating the half-solution (with their logic, it would reduce Hillary's margin to about single digits), so that it doesn't threaten their position.  

     

    Parent

    It was actually 69-59 (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    Not 50-50. so Rachel's lie was not even correct in the basis  of what was turned down.

    Parent
    It's possible she might have heard (none / 0) (#19)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    something that you haven't, isn't it?

    Parent
    It was a possibility (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:25:52 PM EST
    That was considered for the last time when they were pulling stuff out of their tush about how Clinton might be responsible for the Obama passport breach.

    Well.  They have no credibility now.  Who knows what's true?

    Parent

    "out of their tush" (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    ha!
    great minds edgar.
    see below

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:28:41 PM EST
    Not on this issue.

    I know the Clinton position and statements better than she ever could.

    Parent

    You know what you heard on the conference (none / 0) (#74)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:51:28 PM EST
    call this morning. But didn't Wolfson refuse to discuss Clinton's submission to the DNC? Aren't these conference calls really just a means to get talking points out primarily?

    How do you know that nobody inside the Clinton campaign leaked information to Rachel? I mean, I've seen where a campaign insider admitted that the campaign was over in February. You certainly aren't going to hear Wolfson or Ickes say that during a conference call!

    Parent

    Would someone please post the settlement (none / 0) (#26)
    by Christy1947 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:25:29 PM EST
    history on MI and FLA. Some of us who have not followed this are getting confused. Who offered what in which order? And who was prepared to accept which one.  Please.

    Parent
    I little history (none / 0) (#43)
    by nellre on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    Clinton Makes a Play for Florida's Democrats
    Jan 28 2008

    "Florida will once again be a battleground state, and I want the voters in Florida to know that I hear them. Hundreds of thousands of Floridians have already voted, so clearly they are taking this seriously, and they believe their voices are going to be heard and should be counted, and I agree with them," Clinton said.

    but the "journalist" opines as her conclusion

    Right now, Clinton is fighting hard for every advantage she can get -- even in a state that awards no delegates at all. She is hoping that she can spin her showing in Florida as a victory -- something that will take the sting out of her big loss in South Carolina and give her, at least, the perception of momentum going into the big Feb. 5 contests -- where nearly 1,700 real delegates will be elected.

    emphasis mine.

    Here is the pledge they all signed
    Responses to the Four State Pledge Letter 2008
    Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina
    August 31, 2007

    The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

    "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

    And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

    Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."



    Parent
    It started before that late January article (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:42:38 PM EST
    with Hillary Clinton having ALWAYS believed the votes should count in FL and MI.

    Earlier thread today had a good link to the information. Maybe search for it.

    Parent

    It was in (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    a Salon article on Jan. 15, 2008. I believe.  (War Room?)

    Parent
    Are you sure (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:34:59 PM EST
    you are in the right party? I'm beginning to wonder if I've made some huge mistakes in the past.

    Parent
    The ROOLZ do state that an investigation (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    is to be conducted and they just refused to do it. I have wondered why they were allowed to get away with that. And wasn't their refusal to re-vote via caucus what sent DB into a rage at that meeting where they stripped all delegates? The way FL has been dealt with is a travesty.

    The rules also said the penalty was to be 50% of (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jawbone on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    delegate votes instead of 100%, but the DNC chose to make up new ad hoc Roolz.

    What was up with that?

    Parent

    Roolz also said if investigation showed that (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:35:15 PM EST
    the FL Dems acted in good faith to comply, there would be ZERO penalty. Guess that's why they wouldn't investigate! Maddening!!!!!

    Parent
    Roolz also state no TV ads but IOKIYBO (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:12:46 PM EST
    Can you imagine the outcry if Hillary had aired TV ads??


    Parent
    Careful, this is confusing (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:25:51 PM EST
    DNC rules with the four state parties' pledge.  The pledge discusses advertising -- yes, Obama ought to be penalized, plus for the press conference also delineated in the pledge -- but the DNC rules do not.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:43:41 PM EST
    the DNC rules most certainly do discuss advertising.

    I quoted them to Kid Oakland the other day who was blatantly lying that Obama had not campaigned in Florida according to the rules.

    Parent

    Relevant to this poster's point above? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:03:12 PM EST
    I realized belatedly that, yes, DNC rules discuss advertising -- but not in the terms that the pledge does, correct?  (If not, do correct me -- as I looked at them a while back and didn't see advertising discussed in this pledge's terms.)

    Parent
    I will quote the rules (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:12:50 PM EST
    A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state.

    Accordingly, if you take the rules literally - and I'm not pretending that they would necessarily be enforced as written in all cases - even without a pledge, Obama would be automatically barred from getting any FL delegates because of his ads that were carried on TV in Florida.  The fact that it was a national ad buy, and not targeted at Florida, is rendered meaningless by the language of the rule itself.

    Parent

    Aha, great find -- (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:31:09 AM EST
    that looks like a DNC rule that provided the wording adapted to the several states' pledge.

    I do think, therefore, that the DNC ought to penalize the candidate who not only advertised in Florida (national buy is no excuse; then do regional or local buys) but also held a press conference in Florida, only a day after he signed the pledge.  I kept waiting for the stock excuse that his staff must have signed the pledge for him.

    I would like to see the Florida appeal amended to include this penalty.  Good bargaining point.

    Parent

    will this do? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    1/21/2008
    Statement By The Clinton Campaign On Senator Obama's Violation Of The Early State Pledge

    excerpt -
    The early state pledge was crystal clear in its prohibition against any kind of campaign activity (outside of fundraising) in states that do not adhere to the DNC calendar. There is no ambiguity. Among the list of prohibited activities are "electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state." (According to Nielsen, there are 6,6 million TV households in Florida that receive CNN through either local cable systems or satellite dishes. This represents 92% of all Florida TV households.) The Obama campaign knows this, but has chosen to violate the pledge regardless.
    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5374

    Parent

    Exactly -- state pledge, not DNC rule (nt) (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:27:44 AM EST


    Parent
    sue them and then sue them again. (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    the more the other side yelps the better. get on camera and tell your side over and over and over. that's what the media does to us. hand meet arm.

    Is it too late to get that investigation (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    completed? Why would they not do one unless they were part of the plan to convert those two states to caucus votes for Obama?

    Parent
    whatever they have done or planned, the (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:39:55 PM EST
    sure don't want the court of public opinion to weigh in.

    Parent
    If they won't be honest about this (none / 0) (#57)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:44:29 PM EST
    they end up not only with "the court of public opinion" weighing in, but weighing in on whatever scenario they can imagine as logical.


    Parent
    exactly! let the people get a real good look (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:46:47 PM EST
    at what we policial junkies see and discuss everyday. won't their eyebrows go up?

    Parent
    I think new effort is mostly to get MCM attention (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jawbone on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    It's made the ABC online site; whether it will get air time is quite another thing.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:38:25 PM EST
    that's probably the point and in that case it's working. MI and FL have made the Dean led DNC to look like a bunch of pikers.

    Parent
    VRA not raised in the complaint (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:33:18 PM EST
    Here is a link to the actual complaint.  The violations are based on equal protection (as in favoring one state over the other, when both are similarly situated) and due process, not VRA so not limited to race and ethnicity/language at all.  VRA is rather irrelevant to the suit.

    http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/gellersuit.pdf

    Further, I see great potential in objecting to any caucuses in FL becuase of the substantial elderly population.  Caucuses are inherently discriminatory against older voters.  As we have seen nationwide, they heavily favor the much younger segment of the population.  Also, they are discriminatory against disabled people.

    This is my first post but have been reading here for some time.  I am a definite Hillary supporter and am just beside myself.  I also lived in FL and practiced law there. I cannot believe that the DNC actually did this, full well knowing how the early date was driven by the FL Republican legislature.  That is well documented.  

    Actually (none / 0) (#111)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:48:22 PM EST
    Paragraphs 109-140 discuss the VRA.

    Parent
    iirc (none / 0) (#120)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:35:00 PM EST
    wasn't there some hoopla maybe in 2004(?) about some elderly Floridians voting twice in FL & NY.
    Of course nothing is mentioned about the potential for students voting/caucusing in college precincts and again in their home states.


    Parent
    VRA is not dispostive (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:06:55 PM EST
    I reviewed the complaint filed and the allegations are constitutionally based on equal protection and due process, NOT really VRA so not so limited.  VRA is mentioned more as a procedural hurdle to sudden change to caucus procedure recommended by the DNC.

    I see a real problem with caucuses in FL in that they are inherently discriminatory against the elderly.  FL has a substantial elderly population and a grueling day at a caucus is not something most elderly can or will do.  As we have seen nationally, caucuses are heavily attended by young people precisely because of this.  Also, elderly often access absentee ballots.  No absentee ballots are available for causuces.  I see no mention of this in the complaint. Caucuses also are discriminatory toward disabled individuals for the same reasons.  All this supports an equal protection violation beside the precise one asserted in the complaint for the substantive allegation.    

    I really don't see how the (none / 0) (#131)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:13 PM EST
    caucus can be an issue as to Florida since none was ever held.  

    In the absence of a VRA claim, I don't see any meritorious claim here.  I don't do Constitutional work but an Equal Protection claim would at a minimum require evidence of a disproportionate impact on a suspect class.  Here, the impact was universal.

    Of course that didn't stop SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore.

    Parent

    I really don't see how (none / 0) (#132)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:41 PM EST
    The caucus would be relevant since it appears that the DNC gave that as FL's only option to remedy being stripped of all votes.  If that option is not fair and really disenfranchises the substantial elderly population of Florida, then FL's refusal to use the caucus is reasonable and the DNC's recommendation is not.

    Parent
    And doesn't federal law protect (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:36:13 AM EST
    the right of military to vote?

    And the ADA re the disabled?  (Many caucus sites were not accessible, I read in accounts in several states.)

    As for what you have here re the elderly, I really appreciate your reading of it.  I think it shows where the thinking of those behind the suit may go -- and good for them.  Caucuses discriminate, and they are part of the presidential selection process. I really hope that some court recognizes that, over the rulings that say that the government can't tell parties what to do.  I can think of many parallels in processes in which the courts have inserted themselves.  Some judge has to get the gumption.  

    Parent

    Yeah.. Sue the DNC... (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by EddieInCA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:11:11 PM EST
    1. Court has no jurisdiction.

    2. Court has no jurisdiction.

    3. Can't show a how anyone was actually harmed. Everyone will get to vote in November.  Party rules are just that - PARTY rules.  You don't like the rules? Work to change them form the inside, or quit the party.  

    Getting the courts involved is NOT a good idea.

    Whether it's true or not, Clinton will be perceived to be behind this.  

    Not a good move.

    Wether it's true or not (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    Dean and Brazille are perceived to be behind Obama getting all the benefits of this situation.


    Parent
    What benefits would those be? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    The benefits that come from following the rules and not trying to change them in the middle of a contest? How dare he!

    Parent
    changing the rulz (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:17:22 PM EST
    you mean like trying to say the supers have to vote for the person with the most elected delegates?

    Parent
    Are you attributing that to me? (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    Do you have a citation?

    Parent
    I am telling you (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    that "changing the rules" is a statement that depends on whos ox is being gored.
    do you admit that the Obama campaign and the MSM has done everything they could possibly do the "change the rules" so that the supers feel threatened and intimidated into voting for him for fear of some kind of undefined backlash.  and if Hillary is allowed to "take the nomination" away from him (btw that means she wins) it would go "against the will of the people" when they totally pulled that stuff out of their butts?

    Parent
    No, I don't admit that (none / 0) (#47)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:35:26 PM EST
    I think the Obama campaign and some parts of the media make and accept the argument that there is some moral weight to be attached to the results of caucuses and primaries. Although Heath Schuler found that factor alone dispositive when in NC he decided to endorse Hillary despite the state's overwhelming vote for Obama, most people I have seen raise the point do not speak of it as dispositive in and of itself. I certainly never have.

    What I do believe, however, is that the wider the pledged delegate margin becomes, the more compelling the argument for PLEOs to vote against the pledged delegates must be. But my point, and the point of the Obama campaign and the media, isn't some set of institutional rules, such as those of the DNC governing when elections may take place. Rather, they are mere arguments that may persuade some number of PLEOs.

    Parent

    glad to know that the media (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by english teacher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    and the obama campaign are on the same page.  not that anyone needed you to tell them that, but the admission is welcome.  


    Parent
    Bingo! (none / 0) (#123)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    >>>>What I do believe, however, is that the wider the pledged delegate margin becomes, the more compelling the argument for PLEOs to vote against the pledged delegates must be

    Most likely the decision reached on May 31 won't be any different than it would have been if they'd met 3 months ago or last week.
    The Committee and Obama's position on FL & MI has been to run out the clock until Obama could declare himself the nominee.
    imho


    Parent

    The benefits (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    Of not having to campaign in states where he was at a disadvantage.

    D'uh!!!!

    Parent

    And, trying to turn a primary vote into a caucus (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:25:56 PM EST
    where he can get his army of bullies to help him achieve a winning outcome.


    Parent
    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM EST
    Obama was behind in the polls of nearly every state before the actual campaigning started. Clinton was the presumptive nominee, remember? Why do you have any reason to believe that Obama would not have relished the opportunity to campaign in MI and FL? He's ahead of Clinton in the MI polls now, or he was anyway, last time I looked.

    In every contest where Obama started out with a large disadvantage, when he campaigned in the state diligently, he did no worse than halving the disadvantage. I think the evidence of his performances in every other state provide sufficient support for the argument that he'd have done the same, at least, in MI and FL. If the MI race were held without Edwards, I would not be surprised to see Obama win it.

    But we'll never know, will we, since MI and FL couldn't be persuaded to follow the DNC rules. Note that I spell "rules" correctly.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    Wasn't there a time when Revotes were a possibility, Obama had a whole bunch of events scheduled in MI and FL and then something happened and then suddenly revotes weren't a good idea?

    What is it that you think happened?

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:48:45 PM EST
    For your very reasons that you said he should have gone, why didn't he do his magic in WV & Kentucky. Look, I watched everyday the very first one of Obama's national ads, a very good one to that beamed into my living room everyday for 2 weeks. Flordia got the very same national ad. Lets be fair he campained in FL and no one has harped about that now have they.

    Parent
    so - you're saying (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:10 PM EST
    Obama would have done worse in FL if he hadn't violated DNC rules and aired TV ads.
    Obama has received the media's red carpet treatment especially by concealing damaging info about him. Similar to media treatment of Bush in 2000.

    Parent
    Why is anyone polling MI (none / 0) (#33)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:28:17 PM EST
    in an Obama - Clinton matchup now? There's no vote coming between the two of them.

    Parent
    He certainly seems to have acted (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    In such a way that FL and MI voting would be a bad thing for his campaign.

    I'm sure if the states were caucus states with huge AA populations, he would have been such a rule follower, eh?

    If you think he would have won those states, great.

    We can disagree with that.

    Obama's behavior leads to two different conclusion.

    He's a truly amazing politician willing to follow rules to the point of self-flagellation, or someone who agrees with me on this point and not you.


    Parent

    I'll take door number three, Monty (none / 0) (#62)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:46:47 PM EST
    He probably thought he could close the gap and be competitive in both states, and perhaps even won Michigan after Edwards dropped out, but since the two states were essentially neutralized in the delegate selection process, why run the risk of giving any advantage to the Clinton campaign, especially since she would probably defeat him soundly in Florida?

    Some people seem incapable of thinking in any way other than bimodal.

    Parent

    Shhh (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:48:28 PM EST
    Don't tell Josh Marshall that Obama acted politically. He'll be crushed.

    Parent
    That's an example of what I was talking about (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:56:19 PM EST
    before. When Josh criticized Clinton for taking diametrically opposite positions on FL and MI, he wasn't merely talking about her acting as a politician. He was talking about how blatant and self-serving her proclamations about the good of democracy, the civil rights movement, slavery and Zimbabwe and cloaking herself therein was. That is a fair point, I think.

    If there's a post where Josh denies that Obama is a politician, please point me to it.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:10:29 PM EST
    your contention is that Obaa ISN'T being blatant and self serving when he suggests seating the delegates at half or when their campaign suggests they get not only all the uncommitted but some of Clinton Delegates by splitting?

    Okey dokey.

    Parent

    Thank you for conceding that Hillary (1.00 / 0) (#95)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    is being blatantly self-serving. Her official position, at least as reported by BTD after the campaign talking-point call today, is that the Clinton campaign will not compromise in any respect regarding the seating of delegates.

    Obama, on the other hand, has suggested that the original penalty of 50% be settled upon. Is that blatantly self-serving Obama in the primary? No.

    Parent

    Hello? (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:25:16 PM EST
    They're politicians competing for a position. They BOTH are trying to get terms that are advantageuous to their cause. Which is why he suggested spliting MI even though Clinton won well over 50% of the vote.

    What I find astounding is how only ONE candidate is being called out for it and being portrayed as somehow acting in such a manner. The pogressive blogosphere USED TO be thew reality based community. Now? Not so much.

    You ca try to pretend you won th argument by denying reality all you like if it makes you feel better. No skin off my teeth.

    Parent

    What surprises me (1.00 / 0) (#108)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:40:59 PM EST
    is that some people cannot find any way to distinguish between Obama's behavior and Clinton's.    Virtually nobody in the MSM or outside the cloistered world of the Clinton blogs believes that it is fair to seat Florida and MI as is. The reasons for this are simply too obvious to belabor.

    Parent
    I don't distnguish (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:47:39 PM EST
    because there is NO DIFFERENCE. They ae both trying to win a competition.

    How sad is it that you are going to use the same MSM that hs failed us time and time again to prop up your position? Real sad.

    Obama chose to take himself off the ballot in MI to score political points in IA(which he succeeded in doing. Congrats to him). Hillary chose to keep her name on(to her detriment in IA). Why is it that Hillary is the only one who should have to pay for her political calculation is Hillary?

    The only thing that is obvious is how some of you wish to gift wrap the primary and hand it to Obama by giving him votes he hasn't earned(including votes that Hillary earned).

    Parent

    Oh it was the fact it was blatant that bothered (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    If the pandering hasd been a bit more subtle that would have been ok.

    Nice principle there.

    You need to stop digging.

    Parent

    I think Josh called it (1.00 / 0) (#97)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:19:40 PM EST
    "breathtaking cynicism." That seems appropriate, given the history.

    Parent
    So he benefits (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    Then from being in a position not to give any advantages to the Clinton campaign.

    Who put him in that position?  Dean and Brazille.


    Parent

    So did all 12 members of the Rules Committee (1.00 / 0) (#76)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:53:01 PM EST
    who support Clinton and who voted for the stripping of all delegates. It's not just Dean and Brazile, Edgar. It's everybody on the committee, except for one lone Obama supporter, who voted against it.

    Parent
    I think we've already established (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    It's not whether it's true or not, it's what it will look like.


    Parent
    There's little evidence suggesting that (1.00 / 0) (#81)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:58:10 PM EST
    what it looks like to you, or to me, is guaranteed to be a fair reflection of the perceptions of the masses.

    Parent
    No one knows (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:00:35 PM EST
    How it will look a week from now, or even a year from now.

    All we know is the first African American to win a primary battle for a presidential nomination won in an abbreviated process corrupted by mitigating circumstances.

    We can set aside my conspiracy theories for the time being.


    Parent

    august 2007 (none / 0) (#122)
    by vrusimov on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:37:02 PM EST
    it seems to me that the concern for disenfranchisement, corruption and an abbreviated process went unnoticed, particularly by Howard Ickes and the eleven other Clinton supporters who voted [at their discretion according to DNC rules] to strip Florida at 100%, above and beyond the nominal 50% penalty...it was decided in the interest of fairness that Michigan would also be stripped at 100% for moving up it's primary...

    These states played poker but the DNC called their bluff after repeated warnings that they faced a delegate penalty of 50% or more...Florida was given 30 days to comply but did nothing.

    Clinton stating on New Hampshire Public Radio that Michigan "would'nt count for anything" is'nt an arguable fact...she said this...and after pledging on Sept 1. 2007 to not "campaign or PARTICIPATE in the Michigan primary", she contradicts herself on Mar. 13, 2008 stating that all candidates had a CHOICE to participate in the Michigan primary...this is both dishonest and morally bankrupt if you have more than a cursory knowledge of the situation...

    Nothing Obama did legitimizes the Florida election...everyone knew the score on Florida at the end of August 2007...Ickes and her other supporters voted for the stripping of the Florida delegates...it is disingenious of her to feign ignorance of the situation at that time...this just does'nt come clean no matter how many times you wash it...

    Once these two states were recognized as illegitimate by RBC vote, nothing that follows can legitimize them...it does'nt matter who campaigned where or who turned down what proposal...this is mitigation designed to distract...it is argumentative AFTER the fact and is irrelevant, considering the important question of why Clinton did'nt voice her opinions when it mattered and when she had the leverage to influence the decision...this is the reason Biden denounced her for leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan and throwing the process into disarray...

    i won't posit the reasons why but her national polling was quite strong at that time and it's hard to imagine that her campaign did'nt forsee Feb. 5th as the end of the contest, thereby dismissing FL and MI, which would've voted afterward as little more than window dressing...

    Parent

    Votes matter more (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    When they can represent the margin of victory.

    It's regrettable but they do.

    No one worries about voting irregularities in California.  Why do you think that is?  Is it because people don't care about voting irregularities?  Is it because there are no irregularities in California?

    Parent

    Digusted by the selective quoting (none / 0) (#140)
    by desert dawg on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:01:17 AM EST
    How many times are you Obama supporters going to keep quoting only part of the New Hampshire Public Radio Interview? Clinton stating on New Hampshire Public Radio that Michigan "would'nt count for anything" is'nt an arguable fact...she said this...

    Here's the whole interview:

    (caller Q)

    HRC: I signed the DNC pledge not to campaign, not to spend money, in any of the states that were not in compliance with the rules established by the DNC that certainly strongly maintains NH's status.  I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot...(remarks about people of NH & IA wanting to win GE)...But if you look at some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow, and it wasn't in my view meaningful, but I'm not going to say that there's absolutely a total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we're not careful about it.

    ( Host Q re: then why not just take your name off)

    HRC: I personally did not think it made any difference, uh, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything, but I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever and then after the nomination you know we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win in Michigan in November 2008.  I'm not going to campaign there before the deadline of the February 5th window, I'm not going to spend any money there, but I did not believe it was fair to , you know, just say, "Goodbye, Michigan" and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January, 2009.

    (Host Q re: do you think it was a tactical mistake by Mssrs Obama and Edwards to take their names off?

    HRC: Well, they have to speak for themselves.

    As for your second point,  all candidates had a CHOICE to participate in the MI primary by leaving their names on the ballot.  That does not constitute violation of the pledge as you imply.

    Parent

    Point 3 for you fails (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:44 PM EST
    Everyone gets to vote in November is NOT a defense to a VRA violation in a primary.

    Bob Bauer taught me that. He was right.

    Parent

    BTD - Can you please... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by EddieInCA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:22:17 PM EST
    ... educate me on what the Voting Rights Act violation might be?

    I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely curious as to the legal argumet to claim a VRA violation during a primary when discussing intra-party rules, and not an open election for an elected office.

    Parent

    Anyone...? (none / 0) (#96)
    by EddieInCA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:18:30 PM EST
    ...Bueller?

    Parent
    Hillary's speech the other day was amazing. (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:01:48 PM EST
    She said that in a two party system, depriving voters of their vote in the primary election IS disenfrachisement.  

    She is right.  DNC may like to pretend that it's no more than a sports club setting its own rules, but Hillary tore through that argument.  

    Parent

    Not really. They have to comply with (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:24:58 PM EST
    State and Federal law. Maybe these items won't go anywhere but the party can't just do whatever it wants to. The legal system is supposed to be for ajudication of grievances, right? We'll see.

    Parent
    clinton is perceived that those with ugly (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    attitudes in a negative light no matter what. and so what's to lose besides the election. i say hit back at those who lie, pander and try to steal our birth right.

    Parent
    WV exit polls only gave her a 36% (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:49:17 PM EST
    negative rating, where Obama got 51% on the same topic.

    That was the state he didn't personally tour with his "Hillary is being negative" stump speech.

    Parent

    i think that is why she is still in and maybe (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:54:37 PM EST
    going to the convention. who wants on their grave stone, she gave up five minutes before the miracle. (dramatic license here)

    Parent
    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:14:39 PM EST
    I'm sure she never intended to get out.

    The improvement in her positive image poll in WV was because Obama didn't go in there an trash her like he and the media have been doing everywhere else. As long as Obama wasn't giving sound bites to the media, they had nothing to share with the people of WV.

    I am so glad she stayed in. #1 she belongs in the race until it is over, and #2 the longer she stays in the more sinister revelations about what the DNC and Obama campaign have been doing find their way to the surface.

    Parent

    It's good politics, for people who (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:50:24 PM EST
    care about voting rights.
    The lawsuit makes the DNC look bad.

    Parent
    Look bad? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:53:17 PM EST
    They look disorganized and petty and have been exposed doing all the nasty politcking.

    Lovely.

    Parent

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#90)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:12:52 PM EST
    While I agree court intervention isn't the best move, party rules are not strictly party rules.

    Political parties are subject to laws as much as any group. I know there are some election laws involving them in Florida. And like churches who take a tax exempt status, political parties who enjoy state favors (state paid primaries and special ballot placement/qualifying of candidates) must comply with election laws from the state and federal election laws if applicable. Of course that doesn't mean it is applicable here, just as a general rule.

    Parent

    Oh yeah? (none / 0) (#127)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:42:21 PM EST
    No one harmed huh?  

    See the day AFTER the elections if Obama is the nominee.  See at McCain's inauguration.

    Parent

    Dumb suit (1.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:04:40 PM EST
    What a waste of lawyers this will be. If we go this route McCain will walk into the White House.

    Judge Hinkle already dismissed the VRA claims (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jorsh on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:29:05 PM EST
    In the Ben Nelson suit.

    Key quote.

    It seems unlikely that either the DNC delegate selection rules or the DNC's decisions whether to seat or exclude delegates are subject to the Act at all. Cf. LaRouche v. Fowler, 77 F.Supp.2d 80 (D.D.C.1999) (three-judge court) (holding that national party's internal rules need not be precleared under Voting Rights Act § 5). And if the Act applied at all, it of course would be constrained by the party's First Amendment association rights.

    [5]  But the applicability of the Act need not be decided here, because the DNC has not violated the Act, even if applicable. Nothing in this record suggests that the DNC's approved schedule was intended to have, or in fact has had, any adverse effect on members of any race or language minority group. Nothing in this record suggests that the DNC's decision to seat delegates from the other states and territories, while excluding delegates from Florida (or from both Florida and Michigan), was intended to have, or in fact has had, any adverse effect on members of any race or language minority group. To the contrary, the DNC has treated all Florida Democrats exactly alike, regardless of race or language. And while the universe of binding-primary voters from all states combined will have shrunk, and the universe of delegates from all states combined will have shrunk, nothing in this record suggests that the racial and language-minority representation within those shrunken universes will be different from their representation within the larger universes inclusive of Florida voters and delegates.

    Plaintiffs have not asserted the contrary. Instead, they say a higher percentage of Florida African-American voters are Democrats than Republicans, so that the DNC's decision to exclude all delegates, compared to the Republican Party's decision to exclude only a percentage of Florida delegates, works a racial inequality. Nothing in the Voting Rights Act, however, requires the Democratic Party to match its rules with those of the Republican Party, just because the parties have different percentages of African-American voters. The Act requires a covered entity-for example, a state-not to discriminate among its own voters based on race or language minority, but the Act does not require one entity (for example, Georgia) to conform its rules to those of another entity (for example, Alabama). And this is true even if the two entities have different percentages of African-American or language-minority voters. Thus even if the national Democratic Party is a covered entity-not at all obvious-this means only that it must not discriminate among its own voters, not that it must treat its voters the same as the Republican Party treats Republican voters.

    Plaintiffs have not established a violation of Voting Rights Act § 2.
    But the winning argument this time (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:52:10 PM EST
    is different: It's about the military, not a racial or minority group.

    Who wants to be da judge who sez you can fight and you can die for us but you can't vote with us?

    I have been waiting for someone to use this.  It also could be argued that there are violations of the ADA and other acts -- but the military?  The Guard and reserves?  In wartime?  Brilliant -- even if not won in the courts, the Dems will suffer in the court of public opinion.  

    Parent

    Not the Bauer issue (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:47:06 PM EST
    which goes to Justice Dep't pre-clearance.

    Parent
    A flip flop?? (none / 0) (#49)
    by kc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:38:00 PM EST
    Check out this Fl. newspaper article, paragraphs 1 and 10 especially.

    http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

    thanks - I've been looking for this (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:52 PM EST
    >>>Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

    Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

    But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

    Parent

    There's a photo of it, too; I've seen it (nt) (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:53:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:46:07 PM EST
    He made an agreement to seat the FL delegates in that newspaper quote. Let's take him to Court.

    Sheesh, are Clinton supporters gonna be as silly as the Obama supporters on this nonsense?

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#128)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    Clinton supporters could never get that bad.

    Parent
    No merit IMO (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:44:48 PM EST
    You can have a VRA violation in a primary, but only in regards to action by a government body.  If Florida decides to change its procedures for the primary, it needs to get Section 5 preclearance from the DOJ.  But if Florida holds a standard primary, and the only question is whether the DNC decides to award delegates based on that primary, that's an internal DNC issue outside the scope of the VRA.

    I frankly don't understand claim #3 at all.  The DNC encouraged Florida to hold a caucus that would have violated the VRA?  Even if true, how does that state a claim?  Seems to me the DNC could have said "too bad, you're not getting any delegates period" and that would have been the end of it, from a legal standpoint.  Maybe someone needs to explain that last claim to me.

    Don't look at me (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:11:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Am I a supposed troll? (none / 0) (#114)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:55:21 PM EST
    That was my first post and I was deleted?  What is a troll?

    Re Caucuses, how is there a violation if the DNC (none / 0) (#133)
    by Christy1947 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:00:40 AM EST
    suggests it when mail ins are apparently not legal at present under FLA law, and a primary is logistically impossible because of the voting machine problems. If there is a fourth alternative, I don't know what it is for DNC to suggest other than caucuses.
         I am not aware that the FLA party ever came up with a way to rerun to which they all agreed anyway.
         The still unsolved problem with trying to bless the January result is the effect on voters, especially those with no separate interest in the property tax ballot issue, of choosing what to do with the primary when they were told it would not count. There is no way to re-enfranchise  voters who would have voted had it counted, but didn't because it didn't. Each of them has been disenfranchised when told that the premise of the election is changed after the fact from 'it doesn't count' to 'it counts' after they decided what to do based on the information as it stood on election day. At least I don't think so.

    Mail-ins are legal in Florida (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:42:46 AM EST
    i.e., absentee ballots.

    Parent
    mail in's are totally legal in Fla (none / 0) (#139)
    by fly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:53:08 AM EST
    It was in fact suggested and Obama did not agree to it, as i understand it.

    The only way Obama wanted a re-vote, as well as the DNC, was a caucus that would have limited the voters to approx 100,000 voters, in different areas of the state.

    There were discussions among active dems throughout the state , and this was not acceptable to anyone!

    We have the largest block of vets in the nation, many of whom are disabled, they would not be able to travel far distances to participate.

    Many Fla citizens would have had to travel up to 100 miles to caucus.

    I recieved the letter of what was suggested and it was abominable. There was nothing democratic about what was suggested. It was a disgrace.

    Our DRE voting machines become illegal on July 1 2008..many were dismantled after the primary and many were sent out of state, and most rendered useless.

    I will tell you, the citizens who got this bill to the floor of our legislature and fought to get this bill passed ( to ban DRE voting machines that had no possibility of being audited or capable of a recount) just recieved the highest award the ACLU of Florida gives out.

    The citizens of Florida  and mostly democrats fought for this bill to ban these machines. We have had elections stolen by these machines in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006..it was through the work of citizens in Florida that these machines were banned and that bill was taken up in our legislature...had any elected dem legislator voted against it ..they would have been targeted to lose their job! of that I promise you!

    We were not helped by the DNC, the DNC did nothing to bring this bill about or help pay for any of the work by the fine citizens of Florida.

    But this is how we were paid back by Howard Dean and Donna Brazile...they began pushing caucus on Fla almost immediately from the day the bill was signed.

    They must have known how they were going to game the system for Obama..because  the push was on hard to make Florida do a caucus. We did not realize it then..a year ago May..but it is very obvious now ..just look at the results of the caucus's throughout the country..we were gamed folks..gamed by our own party.

    fly

    Parent

    what was announced today in Tampa about the lawsui (none / 0) (#138)
    by fly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:34:39 AM EST
    on local Tampa news today .it was stated the lawsuit is in regard to the DNC rulz that state each state must attempt to come into compliance of a paper trail of some sort..

    since the bill that brought Florida into full compliance and banned the DRE voting machines in 15 of our largest counties, and mandated voter verified paper ballots..it was in compliance with the DNC rules regarding paper trails..this was the same bill that the republican legislature amended and added the date change of the primary.

    So in question in this lawsuit is ..how can Florida dems be punished for following one of the DNC rulz  for attempting to come into compliance for paper trails.. ????????? When that was the very bill that we are now punished for by the DNC.

    At least that is how i heard it today when the news was breaking here in Fla about the lawsuit.

    fly..a former elected delegate from Florida.

    FL Delegates Sue DNC Over Delegate Strip | 139 comments (139 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment