Michigan and Florida Update

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

First, let me introduce myself. My name is Charlie Anthe, and I'm excited to be the newest contributing member to DCW! I've been blogging about both national politics and more regional issues of the Pacific Northwest from my blog The Foghorn, and I've been a long time listener, first time poster of DCW up until today. Please feel free to send me any feedback/ideas, of either my posts here or on my regular blog.

The current situation: Both state delegations remain ineligible to be seated at the national convention. Earlier attempts to broker some kind of "re-do" primary in both states have fallen through, mostly over two main issues: 1. Who would pay for a new election? and 2. Would a state election funded by out-of-state parties even be legal, and how could the results be validated as fair?

In Florida, legislative solutions were dim from the start. Both the Legislature and the Governor's mansion are controlled by Republicans, and they seem more than eager to watch the Democratic mess in their state continue while they sit back and share the popcorn. The Florida House Speaker was pretty emphatic about the issue:

"The state of Florida should not be involved in certifying or mediating intraparty squabbles," said House Speaker Marco Rubio. "The state did what its job is. We held a presidential preferential primary Jan. 29. It was legal, it was accurate, it was fair, it was open."

Further attempts to force the Florida delegation to be seated through the judiciary have also been nixed. Recently a federal appeals court upheld an earlier decision to not get involved.

In Michigan, while Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm had expressed interest in a re-do primary on June 3rd, the Michigan legislature recently adjourned without taking up the issue, making it impossible to implement. Most of the objections revolved around logistical concerns of setting up a new election in such a short period of time, as well as funding when the state is facing a $250 million shortfall it its upcoming FY 2009 budget forecast.

Earlier discussions of holding a caucus to apportion Michigan's delegates seem to be dead as well, or at least not mentioned at all by the governor in her statement after the legislature adjourned without approving the primary:

“I believe Senator Levin, Congresswoman Kilpatrick, National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell and U.A.W. President Ron Gettelfinger identified the fairest way for Michigan voters to have a voice in seating a delegation in Denver. They recommended to the Democratic National Committee (D.N.C.) that Michigan hold a state-run, privately funded primary.

I supported their recommendation, as did the D.N.C., and I am deeply disappointed that it is no longer a possibility. Now that the Legislature has decided not to act, we will turn our attention to other options. There is no road to the White House that does not go through Michigan, so it is essential that Michigan voters have a voice in who will be our party’s nominee and, ultimately, the next president of the United States.”

DNC Chairman Howard Dean has repeatedly stated that any solution would have to come with the agreement of both candidates:

"When you change the rules in the middle of the game, which is what's being proposed here, you've got to do it in a way that both campaigns agree is fair," he said.

Given that a re-do now looks increasingly impossible, the possibility of any negotiated solution also seems unlikely. Several solutions have been proposed by the various candidates, depending on how it favors them:

• Split the delegations 50/50 between Clinton and Obama. This solution is favored by the Obama camp, since it maintains their current delegate lead. As Clinton believes she would gain ground in these states (and based on the results in Florida is probably correct, Michigan is unknown given that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot), she is against this solution.


• Seat the delegations based on the existing primary results. Obviously, the Clinton campaign favors this solution as it would greatly benefit her, and the Obama campaign is heavily against it, stating that to do so would render the DNC rules useless.


• Some other solution as proposed by the state Democratic parties to the DNC Rules Committee (as permitted in the bylaws) that can be approved.

In Michigan, where Obama removed his name from the ballot after the state was stripped of their delegates, Clinton won 80 of 128 potential delegates. "Uncommitted", which Obama supporters encouraged voters to vote for in lieu of Obama's name won 55 delegates, but could support either candidate at the convention.

In Florida, Clinton beat Obama in pledged delegates by 113-71 (with 13 Edwards delegates) of 211 available.

All told, if Michigan and Florida were seated as-is, Clinton would receive a net gain of 122 pledged delegates (with 55 uncommitted and 13 Edwards). Also, each state's superdelegates would come into play, allowing Clinton to push her and Bill's connections through the party to gain more ground.

One other effect of adding both states back into the delegate picture would be to push the total number of delegates back up to 4,415, requiring 2,208 to win the nomination.

So where does this leave everything? Generally in one big royal mess. The do-over option now appears to be DOA in both states. Unless a brokered compromise can be agreed upon between the campaigns and submitted to the DNC in time, there are only a couple more possible options:

• A solution imposed through the judiciary. This is highly unlikely as Supreme Court decisions in the past have granted wide leeway to the parties to determine on their own how to select their own candidates.


• The issue continues up until the convention and lands in the hands of the Convention Credentials Committee. The Committee is the final authority in the seating of delegates and can establish its own solution as it sees fit that fall within the Call to Convention and the Rules and Bylaws of the Democratic Party.


• One of the remaining candidates drops out prior to the convention. In this case, most likely the presumptive nominee will drop their objection to the delegations being seated so the party can unite behind the nominee with all 50 states included.

It's unfortunate that this issue is distracting the party and is being used as a political hot potato between the two candidates' campaigns. (I posted my thoughts on this topic a week ago.) Unless we see a clear nominee prior to the convention, expect this issue to survive and turn up the heat up until August in Denver.