tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post4742056129055767414..comments2023-11-02T05:00:36.315-04:00Comments on Democratic Convention Watch: DNC Lawyers: Can't fully seat FL and MIMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02126730290750804530noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-30537442211130215002008-05-30T15:56:00.000-04:002008-05-30T15:56:00.000-04:00Thanks Dink... I changed the link.Thanks Dink... <BR/>I changed the link.Oreohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12605488381872007551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-23284806965177813122008-05-30T15:49:00.000-04:002008-05-30T15:49:00.000-04:00Matt:Could you please replace the link to the full...Matt:<BR/><BR/>Could you please replace the link to the full memo with this one at <A HREF="http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/DNC2008/RBCMeetingMaterials.pdf" REL="nofollow">C-SPAN</A><BR/><BR/>It's the same document, but with the addresses and telephone numbers of individuals redacted.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Dink Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15138406589320184402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-90005578732016449642008-05-29T14:56:00.000-04:002008-05-29T14:56:00.000-04:00Just posted some new info hereLetter from 4 MI Dem...Just posted some new info <A HREF="http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/michigan-democratic-leaders-ask-for.html" REL="nofollow">here</A><BR/><BR/>Letter from 4 MI Dem Leaders to RBC co-chairs asking for full seating of the MI delegationOreohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12605488381872007551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-5220193077571024812008-05-29T11:56:00.000-04:002008-05-29T11:56:00.000-04:00For whatever it is worth, as this lawyer sees it, ...For whatever it is worth, as this lawyer sees it, the DNC lawyers had their marching orders to justify a compromise solution that would end this thing, which the memo does. After the dust settles on Saturday, the RBC will blame the lawyers and the rules for some form of a ½ solution and Obama will have clinched the majority of the pledged delegates. Pelosi and the other fence sitters will then have political cover to end this thing in a forceful (significant numbers of SD endorsements) way. If I got it right, I hope everyone will tell nice lawyer jokes for a week.Robert in MNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01782674157462914584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-14534550560452383672008-05-29T10:32:00.000-04:002008-05-29T10:32:00.000-04:00THuff, I have added links to our previous RBC an...THuff,<BR/> I have added links to our previous RBC and MI/FL stories to the post.<BR/>You'll find a list of the RBC members there.<BR/><BR/>ThanksOreohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12605488381872007551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-19094416616227190252008-05-29T09:59:00.000-04:002008-05-29T09:59:00.000-04:00Thanks for this discussion. It has me glued to thi...Thanks for this discussion. It has me glued to this blog for all the intelligent assessment without the bluster.<BR/><BR/>Is there a link available to the list of members of the RBC? I would like to contact any member who may be representing my local Democratic party, but their homepage doesn't provide that information.<BR/><BR/>thanks.THuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15042713139168988482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-29944387594096693912008-05-28T23:48:00.000-04:002008-05-28T23:48:00.000-04:00Paul, I would take credit for the analogy but that...Paul, I would take credit for the analogy but that is pretty much the essence of the Florida argument. I also think most judges and lawyers would disagree with the theory that statutes can limit constitutional rights, instead they would merely note that the rights are not absolute and the constitutional provisions permit reasonable regulations of those rights. Essentially, that type of analysis is the one being used by the DNC lawyers in arguing for why the rules could limit the right of DNC members to be delegates -- namely that the right is conditional on a proper delegate selection process which Florida and Michigan are currently lacking.tmess2https://www.blogger.com/profile/06331751179859344009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-2015410295726250242008-05-28T22:26:00.000-04:002008-05-28T22:26:00.000-04:00Paul:Excellent analysis! Thanks.Paul:<BR/><BR/>Excellent analysis! Thanks.Dink Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15138406589320184402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-21939508390847174062008-05-28T22:24:00.000-04:002008-05-28T22:24:00.000-04:00Jeremy:You have summarized the second Florida chal...Jeremy:<BR/><BR/>You have summarized the second Florida challenge well. It is worth noting that the staff analysis rejected the argument, concluding "it seems clear that the RBC had authority to further reduce the pledged delegation of the Florida Democratic Party which had already become subject to the automatic sanctions of Rule 20(C)(1)."<BR/><BR/>If the RBC decides to revert the Florida penalty to 50% of the pledged and 100% of the unpledged PLEO delegates (but not the unpledged add-ons), the staff asserts "In this case, it can be argued, there is no basis for ensuring 'fair reflection' of presidential preference other than to use the results of the January 29 primary." The offer no alternative argument. Since Rule 11 requires that any replacement primary or caucus would have to be held on or before June 10, it is obvious that there is no way to implement a "do-over" now in either Florida or Michigan.Dink Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15138406589320184402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-37640102572389126312008-05-28T22:23:00.000-04:002008-05-28T22:23:00.000-04:00Added a link to a full PDF of the meeting material...Added a link to a full PDF of the meeting materials.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126730290750804530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-3063808116419051422008-05-28T22:14:00.000-04:002008-05-28T22:14:00.000-04:00tmess2 -I find your analogy of the DNC Charter == ...tmess2 -<BR/><BR/>I find your analogy of the DNC Charter == to the Constitution, and the DNC Delegate Selection Plan == to statutes very interesting.<BR/><BR/>On purely a legal analysis side of things, statutes LIMIT constitutional rights all the time. Often the statues are the ruling authority over the strict wording of the Constitution. It is only when a statute is in violation of the Constitution that the Constitution is the ruling authority.<BR/><BR/>For example, the Constitution talks about the right to vote, bear arms, etc. But it has been held Constitutional that criminals who violate the law can have their right to vote and bear arms taken away from them by state statutes.<BR/><BR/>So a thief can lose his/her Constitutional right to vote because she/he broke the state statutes.<BR/><BR/>In the same way, so can a state's superdelegates can lose their DNC Charter right to vote because the state broke the Delegate Selection Plan rules.<BR/><BR/>(corrected for glaring statue typos)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419164252825038928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-58200925661071894562008-05-28T22:10:00.000-04:002008-05-28T22:10:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09419164252825038928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-46227045108337243172008-05-28T22:06:00.000-04:002008-05-28T22:06:00.000-04:00Based on the staff analysis I think it looks like ...Based on the staff analysis I think it looks like MI/FL getting half their number of pledged delegates (based on their primaries) and no unpledged delegates. The "candidate approval" rights of the uncommitted delegates is given to Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden. (As Edwards and Richardson are supporting Obama, this gives effective control to Obama). This solution allows MI/FL to have seated delegations. It allows the voter preferences to be reflected (as much as possible). However, it causes the least amount of goalpost movement. It has the added advantage of being exactly what the Republicans have done not just to MI and FL but also to a couple of other states (WY, NH). This blunts the argument that the DNC is being unfair to MI/FL which somehow disadvantages the Democrats chances there. <BR/><BR/>The biggest question is the details of how such a plan would be implemented. It seems the staff would prefer a new delegate selection plan based on the primary results. This might take awhile. (The state parties have to meet, approve a plan, submit it to the RBC, etc.) I wonder if it is possible to let them choose their delegates according to the current plan, but then allow the candidates (and effectively Obama for the uncommitted) choose which half of their pledged delegates get seated. This would allow a quick resolution and allow Obama to choose those delegates from MI and FL that seem most committed to him (remember that otherwise even in FL there is some question since the candidates did not review the proposed pledged delegates). Whatever they decide (other than status quo) seems to have headaches in the actual implementation.Galoishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16807507181529206061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-28563195340014630582008-05-28T20:17:00.000-04:002008-05-28T20:17:00.000-04:00Actually read both challenges and the full staff m...Actually read both challenges and the full staff memo in response. <BR/><BR/>The seat the automatic unpledged delegates in full argument is based on the Charter of the Democratic Party (think of it as the Constitution). The Delegate Selection Plan would be the equivalent of a statute. The staff analysis gives reasons to interpret the Charter as being absolute (in the way that Florida suggests) and also reasons why the Charter is not that absolute.<BR/><BR/>As to the pledged being seated at 50%, the Florida argument is based on reading the various provisions of Rule 20C. Subdivision 1 of rule 20C is the minimum timing penalty of 50%. Subdivision 5 authorizes additional penalties but referes to subdivision 6. Subdivision 6 in talking about penalties cross-references back to subdivision 1 in a way that Florida claims precludes additional penalties if the only violation is "timing."<BR/><BR/>Michigan's challenge is mostly a political argument rather than a legal argument (essentially we have been punished enough by the candidates not being allowed to campaign here and we are too important to sanction).<BR/><BR/>The essence of the memo in full leaves the ball in the court of Obama and to a lesser extent Edwards, Richardson, and Biden. If Obama waives any right to a new selection process for Florida and all four candidates waive any right to a new selection for the Michigan 36 and can agree on a process for reviewing the last 19, the road is clear to go back to a 50% penalty.tmess2https://www.blogger.com/profile/06331751179859344009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-71251639989381219472008-05-28T19:47:00.000-04:002008-05-28T19:47:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04113337779311427045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-83887468989289256492008-05-28T19:36:00.000-04:002008-05-28T19:36:00.000-04:00Dave it is a typo, I was really surprised to find ...Dave it is a typo, I was really surprised to find it too, and posted about it here a few weeks ago. But typos do not make "law" (or whatever this is) when the meaning as a whole is clear. Then the 5 Add-on superdelegates should *not* be removed.kitchinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16901874993204770614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-5631485271196695112008-05-28T18:10:00.000-04:002008-05-28T18:10:00.000-04:00Hollywood Mark:Here's how Obama gets to 2118 in sh...Hollywood Mark:<BR/><BR/>Here's how Obama gets to 2118 in short order.<BR/><BR/>Right now, he has 1980 total delegates.<BR/><BR/>He will get approximately 40 more pledged delegates from PR, SD, and MT.<BR/><BR/>Assume that the RBC decides to apply the 50% penalty to FL and MI (and to give Obama all the uncommitteds from MI). That gives Obama another 61 pledged delegates, and 5 supers.<BR/><BR/>Add all this up: 1980 + 40 + 61 + 5 = 2086. In other words, he will be just 32 supers short of the 2118 magic number. Can Obama muster up 32 supers in the next seven days? You bet.<BR/><BR/>And my analysis does not even factor in the Edwards delegates from FL.Dan Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05350022065383130551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-81919766721647923502008-05-28T17:44:00.000-04:002008-05-28T17:44:00.000-04:00I read the full MI memo.The lawyers say:1 - RBC ca...I read the full MI memo.<BR/>The lawyers say:<BR/>1 - RBC can not efectively restore the delegations to full voting power. 50% is the maximum allowed. Only Credential Committee can rule otherwise<BR/>2 - Lawyers have no clear opinion if Jan 15 results are fair representation of the voters preferences thought they hint 'NO'<BR/>3 - There is legal way for Obama to gain control of the uncommitted slate<BR/>4 - 'halve the numbers and allocate' is more legal than 'allocate and halve the votes' but both are applicable<BR/>5 - the process of chosing the CD delegates must be repeated so they can be vetted<BR/>6 - supers can and must be stripped according to the Rules and cannot according to the Call, and it is not clear which is the strongest<BR/><BR/>Summary: 59/69 can be applied but with 50% for the pledged delegates. If Obama makes agreement with Edwards and the other withdrawed form the ballot candidates, he can take all uncommitted and replace some of the chosen if he wants to. Supers can be restored to full power but CC will have to verify it probably.<BR/><BR/>The decision will be final only if Clinton's campaign agree. But they will not, of course!Amothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14842726780505390305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-34929607459852278912008-05-28T16:49:00.000-04:002008-05-28T16:49:00.000-04:00Dan: I am a little confused, how does Obama get to...Dan: I am a little confused, how does Obama get to 2118 by June 7th exactly?Hollywood Dodger Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03328200347008137083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-68515281997439747992008-05-28T16:48:00.001-04:002008-05-28T16:48:00.001-04:00I found more of the RBC staff analysis here.The an...I found more of the RBC staff analysis <A HREF="http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/_democratic_national_committee.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>The analysis of the first Florida challenge (DNC Unpledged Delegates) gives plenty of room to justify a rejection of the challenge. For example "it can be argued that taken as a whole, the language of the Charter cannot fairly be read to require that any category of delegates actually be seated at the Convention if that category is chosen under a Delegate Selection Plan which itself violates the Delegate Selection Rules."<BR/><BR/>In discussing Florida delegate selection if half the Pledged Delegates are to be seated the staff points out that "reportedly the Obama campaign did not participate at all in the selection process, including the candidate right of approval process, because the campaign did not recognize the legitimacy of the primary." and suggest the Delegates would have to be selected again.<BR/><BR/>Dan:<BR/>I agree with you, but so far I find little reason to hope the Clinton camp will be reasonable. When everyone (including the DNC chair) was telling Jerry Brown to get out in 1992, he went all the way to the convention and somehow Bill Clinton has decided this is payback.Dink Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15138406589320184402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-45606131757144378472008-05-28T16:48:00.000-04:002008-05-28T16:48:00.000-04:00I have no doubt that Hillary has every intention o...I have no doubt that Hillary has every intention of undertaking a floor fight. <BR/><BR/>So, instead of thinking about what the DNC can do, let's think about what WE can do to circumvent that.<BR/><BR/>First -- this is not 2004 or any year before that -- we have the progressive left wing blogosphere, and we are strong, and communicative.<BR/><BR/>We must learn to operate instead of nameless, faceless, strangers with similar opinions as a true force of action.<BR/><BR/>CALL and WRITE your local DNC reps, CALL and WRITE your Congressional Reps and Senators (if they're Dems) and explain that allowing a floor fight can spell the end of the Democratic Party. The splintering would be irrevocable.<BR/><BR/>Include a note or two to Howard, Nancy, Harry and the other so-called leaders to GET OFF THE POT. <BR/><BR/>Tell them you VOTE and you CONTRIBUTE and they need to get behind our candidate.<BR/><BR/>The SOLE AND ONLY thing that prevents a successful floor fight in August is if the Obama count is so high as to prevent Hillary from approaching it. And then, when she says "but people can change their minds", the pledged and super delegates all say "But we shall not -- we are standing with our party."<BR/><BR/>We need to get off the blogosphere, and get on our phones -- tell them WE ELECT THEM, we financially support the party, and WE ARE WATCHING. <BR/><BR/>Use the power of the many, harnessed together. Assume the worst, that Hillary would rather destroy the party than anything else.DocJesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11671370085437127234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-84187022889326048842008-05-28T16:32:00.000-04:002008-05-28T16:32:00.000-04:00I hate to be a pessimist, but the words and action...I hate to be a pessimist, but the words and actions coming out of the Clinton campaign clearly indicate that she will accept only the full seating of delegates according to the non binding MI and FL primaries. Unless her super delegates abandon their support for her, this is going to the convention floor. Next week we will truly know whether she is pursuing the "ALL IN" strategy.<BR/><BR/>I personally do not want this to happen, because I feel it is clear that she lost the delegate race that she and all the candidates agreed upon. It troubles me to think that someone with such poor integrity and management skills could hi-jack the POTUS.edscottwyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14356961158275882133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-31648133472302780482008-05-28T15:57:00.000-04:002008-05-28T15:57:00.000-04:00I think we're all agreed that "hearing at one poin...I think we're all agreed that "hearing at one point that Clinton herself was not inclined to bring this to a floor fight" in no indication of what she'll do.<BR/><BR/>I take solace in knowing that the majority of elected superdels support her, that they do NOT want this to go on to Denver, and that they will do whatever it take to have it done sooner rather than later.<BR/><BR/>I think she'll push her luck further and to the point of even greater embarrassment, but will have to consider maintaining some thread of dignity and promise for a political future. Short of that is career suicide. Not that she wouldn't go there. Just hoping.Barry Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00218269819272449543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-2106285869937892272008-05-28T15:43:00.000-04:002008-05-28T15:43:00.000-04:00Dink said, "My guess is that the RBC will follow t...Dink said, "My guess is that the RBC will follow the staff's advice and the battle will continue to the credentials committee."<BR/><BR/>I do hope you're wrong about this. While the credentials committee can meet in July to consider this, its conclusions would have to be voted on at the convention in August. At that point, we'd be talking about serious, irreparable divisions in the party and massive protests on the streets of Denver. I remember hearing at one point that Clinton herself was not inclined to bring this to a floor fight. I hope that's true, and that she will gracefully exit at the end of next week.Dan Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05350022065383130551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18747118.post-45819460111261555682008-05-28T15:34:00.000-04:002008-05-28T15:34:00.000-04:00I'm not sure what was else was contained in the "3...I'm not sure what was else was contained in the "38-page memo", but analyzing the seven-page RBC "Staff Analysis" for which a link was provided, I am in complete agreement on the first point where they conclude "it seems clear that while the RBC could revoke its additional sanctions, leaving in place the automatic sanctions of Rule 20(C)(1), it does not have the authority to reverse or prevent the imposition of those automatic sanctions." The Delegate Selection Rules are binding and they automatically strip Michigan and Florida of 50% of their pledged delegates and all of their unpledged (super) delegates.<BR/><BR/>Amot says that the automatic penalty can be reduced by the RBC, but neither the staff nor I could find that in the rules.<BR/><BR/>The staff did mention the Ausman challenge based on a provision of party Charter that may not allow the DNC members to be deprived of their Unpledged Delegate status. That question was not raised in the Michigan challenge, but the staff found merit in arguments both for and against Ausman.<BR/><BR/>If the RBC decides to revoke the additional sanction, the question of how to allocate the remaining delegates is very, very difficult. Matt says there are many simple ways to do this, but remember the rules require "Fair Reflection of Presidential Preferences". How can that be achieved in a state that held a questionable primary with only some candidates on the ballot? For example, we know from exit polling that a significant number of primary voters who voted for Clinton would have voted for Obama or Edwards if they had been on the ballot. The staff lists this as an open question, but offers no alternative other than using the January 15 results. <BR/><BR/>If it is decided to allow the results of the primary to stand the staff rejects awarding the Undecided delegates to Obama but has a very interesting suggestion about what to do about the uncommitted delegates: "the RBC could grant to those candidates -- the ones who withdrew their names from the January 15 primary ballot [Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson] -- <I>collectively</I> the right to exercise candidate right of approval with respect to the eligibility of persons to be considered to fill the "Uncommitted" pledged delegate slots."<BR/><BR/>My guess is that the RBC will follow the staff's advice and the battle will continue to the credentials committee.Dink Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15138406589320184402noreply@blogger.com