In addition, the Florida delegation must be reinstated in full as it qualifies for the safe harbor exception provided in Rule 21 of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provides:
21. STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
A. Subject to Rule 18.C. of these Rules, wherever any part of any section contained in these rules conflicts with existing state laws, the state party shall take provable positive steps to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the provisions of these rules.
B. Provable positive steps shall be taken in a timely fashion and shall include: the drafting of
corrective legislation; public endorsement by the state party of such legislation; efforts to educate the public on the need for such legislation; active support for the legislation by the state party lobbying state legislators, other public officials, Party officials and Party members; and encouraging consideration of the legislation by the appropriate legislative committees and bodies.
C. A state party may be required by a vote of the DNC Executive Committee upon a recommendation of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to adopt and implement an alternative Party-run delegate selection system which does not conflict with these rules, regardless of any provable positive steps the state may have taken.
The Florida Democratic Party complied with sections A and B of Rule 21. The DNC did NOT invoke Rule 21C and thus, Florida is entitled to the safe harbor provided by Rule 21. Its entire delegation should be seated.
However, should the DNC not accept the safe harbor argument, then Rule 20c.1.b comes into play. Rule 20c.1.b provides:
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.
. . . “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; . . . The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.
It appears that Senator Barack Obama inadvertently violated this rule by running cable advertising that "reache[d] a significant amount of the voters" and by making a "public appearance" before the primary date. Accordingly, he must lose all of his delegates from Florida, should the DNC rule that Florida does not fall within the safe harbor.
To recapitulate, a strict interpretation of the DNC Rules that follows the reasoning of the DNC Memo circulated today would require the following results:
A. The stripping of 50% of the delegates of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan.
B. The full seating of the Florida delegation.
C. Should the DNC RBC reject the safe harbor provision for Florida, then Florida would have 50% of its delegations stripped, but Barack Obama would be entitled to no delegates from Florida due to his violation of Rule 20c.1.b.
The upshot of strictly applying the rules as described above would be:
A. In Iowa, Obama, Clinton and Edwards would lose one half of their delegates. My understanding is that this would result in a net loss for Obama of 6 in his pledged delegate margin over Clinton.
B. In New Hampshire, the three candidates would lose one half of their delegates with no net change in the delegate margin between Clinton and Obama.
C. In South Carolina, the three candidates would lose one half of their delegates with a net loss in Obama's delegate margin of 9.
D. In Michigan, Clinton would gain 37 delegates. In addition there would be 28 uncommitted delegates. A net gain of 37 delegates for Clinton.
E.In Florida, if the entire delegation is seated, Clinton gains 93 delegates Obama 55, and Edwards 13. A net gain of 38 delegates for Clinton.
If instead the safe harbor provision is deemed not to apply, then Clinton gains 47 delegates, Obama 0 (due to his violation of Rule 20) and Edwards 7. A net gain of 47 for Clinton over Obama.
By my math, a strict interpretation of the DNC rules would result in a net gain of 80 or 89 pledged delegates for Clinton. I am unsure of what the result would be regarding super delegates. For example, if the Florida and Michigan Super Delegates are stripped or halved, then the same result would apply to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I am unsure of what the result of such an action would be.
Speaking for me only
Comments closed.
