MI Uncommitted delegates must go Uncommitted (if they go at all). RBC can't convert them from Uncommitted to Obama, any more than they could convert a Biden delegate to Kucinich. (The Credentials Committee would have broader - and more dangerous - authority.)

This is a defect in the proposed Michigan (69-59) plan ... and it's an unnecessary reach, as the (barred) MI delegation as currently constituted is heavily Obama-centric.

This also puts the onus on Obama individually and on his Team to own their actions. They've had every opportunity and option presented to them and IMO imperiously waved -- as opposed to waived :-) -- each one away when it's not up to one individual to decide whether voters' rights are acceptable.

Nor is it Obama's right to demand that voters that didn't vote for him be shuffled into his corner for his own strategic political choice.

IANAL but his actions in this will have blowback in the general election, when states that have little chance of going Dem did count for him being ahead in this race.

On the Clinton Letter.

Cutting through the verbiage of the Clinton Letter, what is left is this - Rule 20(C)(7) allows the RBC to forgive rulebreaking states (the Clinton campaign concedes that Florida and Michigan broke the DNC rules) when a state party take positive provable steps and acted in good faith to bring the state into compliance with the DNC's selection rules. the Clinton campaign argues that the attempts to organize rev-votes constitutes the necessary steps to qualify for the RBC's reinstating the Florida and Michigan delegation. Does this argument hold water? Let's review the relevant provisions. Rule 20(C)(7) states:

In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to
bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to
comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state's delegation shall not be reduced.

Where have we heard this argument before? Oh I know, by Florida, at the August 25, 2007 RBC when the RBC decided to INCREASE the penalty against Florida. Now it is argued that Florida's after the fact attempts will be sufficient. Good luck with that one.

Guess what else the rule says:

The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state
law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.

(Emphasis supplied.) First, the Florida Democratic Party did NOT try to achieve legislative changes to achieve a revote. Of course such efforts would have been futile but they did not attempt. Second, the rule still requires that Florida attempted to prevent the legislation that put Florida out of compliance. that is the argument that was already rejected. To wit, for the Clinton  argument to even work, they needed to reject the August 25, 2007 determination by the RBC. The Clinton campaign does not do that here. Third, the Florida Democratic Party did not even present a submission trying to provide "clear and convincing evidence" that they did what the Clinton letter says they did. and if you want to be honest about it, a lot of Florida Congressional leader RESISTED revotes. this argument simply does not fly.

As for Michigan, they can not even come close on the requirement that they tried to prevent the legislative change. Heck, they Democratic legislature and Democratic Governor approved the law that put Michigan out of compliance. While it is true that it later produced proposed legislation that would have provided for a revote, that legislation was killed by Obama supporters. And again, the Michigan Democratic Party has not submitted "clear and convincing evidence" on these points.

In my mind, the Clinton camp has already lost the 100% seating argument before the RBC. And for no good reason. they did not have to concede any violation by Florida and could have argued that Michigan was entitled to a "waiver" as granted to New Hampshire and South Carolina. I do not understand the choices made by the Clinton camp on these issues.

"Well," I told her, "at least you didn't vote for Buchanan this time."

The revote can be modeled after the Oregon process, and the DNC and both states could utilize the equipment and other infrastructure we already have in place.  That is, ballots would be printed with the same contracting companies we use, and mailed by the two states (or the DNC).  They would then be counted using our equipment, with the DNC footing the bill.  

What we as voters get from this could be:

1. A proven workable solution to election issues that can be proposed in courts across the nation where and when elections are challenged.
   
2. A path for a federal elections bill to demand full audit accountability with paper ballots, based on this successful solution to the FL & MI problem.
   
3. DNC control of the Dem primary, in the sense that future Repub-led changes to states' primary dates wouldn't disrupt our nominating process.
   
4. The Oregon model would become a standard across the nation, and would get the press time it deserves.
   
5. Lane and other struggling counties could receive a substantial input of funding by contracting to do the actual counting and verifying of ballots.

If Clinton does not challenge the August 25 RBC ruling, then it is impossible for them to invoke 20c7 as the positive provable steps MUST include actions to prevent the enactment of legislation that breaks the DNC rules.

Florida's argument on 8/25 was rejected and either that decision must be rescinded, in which case further  20c7 is irrelevant as Florida qualifies already, or this argument AUTOMATICALLY LOSES.

For Michigan it is even worse, as they enacted the legislation and the Democrats were behind it. Michigan can not even fall into this argument.

Unlike Jeralyn I find these arguments not only NOT excellent, I find them laughably bad. For those unfamiliar with Rule @0 c 7 it states:

The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in
good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state
law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.

The word is AND, NOT OR. They needed to try and prevent the legislation AND then overturn it AFTER it became law according to 20c7.

The Clinton campaign should NEVER EVER have conceded that Florida broke the rules. that has doomed them in my view.

They still aren't using NH, IA, and SC as an argument to seat Fl and MI.

Yesterday, I wrote:

[DNC officials] are afraid that if a full-size delegation shows up, there would be protests/demands that everyone gets a full vote.

But if a half-size delegation shows up, nobody is going to protest that everyone in the half-size delegation should get 2 votes.

here is rule 11...

No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

now, either "provided' mean that other states couldn't break the first tuesday rule as long as IA, NH, SC, and NV stayed within the rules (in which case, MI is off the hook entirely) or "provided" is there to provide the four states the right to hold their contests on of after the listed dates...

I see no "rule" concerning a "window" -- the word "window" does not appear in the rules, and nothing that I can find says that there is a specific "window" that these four states could move around in at whim...."