Florida primary suit has new life

[Sancho]

Source: St. Petersburg Times

Democrats may be focused on the upcoming Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries to get a better idea of who their presidential nominee may be.

But a federal appeals court in Atlanta is giving them one more reason to keep at least a wandering eye on Florida.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear oral arguments from a Tampa man seeking to have Florida's Jan. 29 Democratic presidential preference primary votes count

-snip-

Now the appeals court is saying: Not so fast. It wants to hear more, after reading the written arguments in the case. Each side will get 30 minutes to argue its case on March 17.

Read more: http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/28/State/Florida_primary_suit_.shtml

---

Some of the "academics" (Susan Mc Manus) are predicting that the suit will eventually have merit. Stay tuned and see what happens.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. I say count the votes, who's with me?

This is not a partisan statement, by the way, it is simple respect for those who voted. It's also the right thing to do.

[theHandpuppet]

2. All votes should count

No one should be disenfranchised.

[RantinRavin]

3. Sure, but do we have another vote

To allow those that didn't vote the first time because they thought their votes wouldn't count anyways ?

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. Absolutely, if at all possible

However either way, those who voted should have their votes count.

[Zhade]

35. No, not "either way". That would be Clinton cheating.

They agreed to the rules. They don't get to change them mid-contest.

[Cronus Protagonist]

39. Your argument is to not count the votes

That's the GOP playbook circa election 2000. Sad to hear so many Democratics playing by Rove's playbook.

I say count all the votes.

[Zhade]

60. Utter BULLSHIT, of course.

Fuck your smear job idiocy. The FACT remains that to count them now WOULD BE CHEATING. You don't change the rules in the middle of the contest.

[Zachstar]

46. New vote or it is cheating.

Look at the bad Clinton supporters already here to defend the flawed existing results.

Anything to get Clinton in eh?

If these rouge states decide to throw out the old results and have a new vote AT THE END (Cheat and you get pushed to the end) then I agree and I think even Obama will be quite supportive of such a new vote.

The bad clinton supporters want to steal the election away from possible other supporters who did not vote because their state cheated. They want the existing delegates awarded even tho it will likely mean a republican win later because of the outcry from supporters of people other than Clinton.

But anything to get Clinton in eh?

[Orsino]

50. Yep. Clinton isn't going to give up on what could be an easy win.

I suspect that a lot of DUers have suddenly rediscovered "count every vote" as a rallying cry. I do sympathize; Florida and Michigan should never have been allowed to hold tainted primaries.

Let's agree that "count every vote" should include "for every candidate."

[1monster]

9. No. The vote stands. Those who didn't bother going to the polls during the primary didn't

care enough to vote on a property tax issue that will deeply effect everyone living in the state.

The Amendment, for better or for worse, has already started taking a toll, as classes are being slashed for next years courses in my son's high school, local governments are deciding whether to and how much to charge for "user fees" for necessary things like fire and police services. User fees would be required payments added to property tax bill, but would not be tax deductible as they would be non advalorum taxes.

The Amenedment will raise homestead exemptions, but the intent of the Amendment was to lower tax burdens.

It was a very important issue. If some Floridians chose not to vote because they were not sure their vote would count, then I'm not sure I believe that they would have voted in any case.

FWIW: I'm not supporting Obama or Clinton. I don't like either of them. I will simply vote for which ever one gaines the nomination.

[liberalnurse]

15. Correct;

Also it would cost a mimimum of 9 million dollars which is not an option.

[papau]

34. I agree - If Obama can't win without pulling Mich and FL victories from Clinton he's too weak

[The Croquist]

58. So you'd rather have someone who can't win without cheating?

That's what Clinton is doing.

[The Croquist]

59. Sure; tell everybody the rules and then change them after the fact

Then announce that their say shouldn't count because you told them it wouldn't and they were dumb enough to believe you.

[harmonicon]

4. no way

Being a Michigan voter, I also don't want those votes counted. I didn't vote in that sham primary and feel slighted. I'll feel even more slighted if delegates are appointed based on that primary.

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. I'm sorry you were not more active before the election

Perhaps you could have stopped your state from the disenfranchisement, but here we are now, and anyone who did vote should have their votes counted. You should have written in your candidate and voted anyway, if it were at all possible. And if that wasn't possible, you could be pushing for a re-do right now because as time passes, it gets harder and harder to have a new election. Unless, of course, you don't care about your fellow people's votes being disenfranchised...

[JTFrog]

11. If you argue against disenfranchisement then you cannot

be in favor of keeping tainted votes as they stand. There was not a democratic process in place in which all of the voters of Florida and Michigan were assured that their votes would be considered in the nomination process.

[Cronus Protagonist]

14. The votes are not "tainted", they are legitimate votes

The election may be tainted, but the votes are golden.

[Dr.Phool]

18. Here's a different take.

It's a letter a friend of mine wrote to the St. Pete Times yesterday. She's a long time party activist, donor, and a former Vice-Chair of the Hernando County DEC. She gave me permission to post it in it's entirety here. And I'll re-post it in a separate thread.

_________________________________________________________________________

I have sent this letter today to the editor of the St. Pete Times. It is time to set the record straight on this matter and prevent an election being "rigged" by, not the Republicans, but by perhaps our own DINOS..Democrats in name only(s). Democrats are supposed to stand for truth and obeyance to the laws and rules of our party and our country. I want my Party back! How about you? Fran




LETTER TO THE EDITOR: FLORIDA’S DELEGATES TO CONVENTION

February 27, 2008

Dear Sir:

I am beginning to see more and more letters asking that Florida’s delegates be seated at the National Democratic Convention and that their votes be counted. To clarify this matter, once and for all and, as a member of Hernando County Democratic Executive Committee and an elected Precinct Committeewoman, here are the true facts.

The rules governing the date(s) of our primary are in writing and very clearly written. It is so easy to place blame on Howard Dean, the head of our National Party, but why? Governor Dean has followed the rules to the letter and that is as it should be. When the Republican dominated State Legislature overwhelmingly voted to change/move up the primary date, our Florida State Chairwoman, Karen Thurman, was offered financial assistance by Governor Dean so that the Democrats could hold a caucus and thereby escape any penalties. This offer of assistance was turned down by our state party leader(s). Why? This would have left all our delegates intact and eligible to cast their votes at the Convention.

For many months, at many events she attended, Karen Thurman spoke of Hillary Clinton as our “next President”, a clear violation of the bylaws which state that we may not promote one candidate over another prior to the selection of our party’s nominee. At the State Convention, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz announced from the platform, “..our next President, Hillary Rodham Clinton” much to the dismay of many attendees who were supporting other candidates. Literally a hundred or more signs for Hillary went up around the room….thought the candidates had agreed not to campaign in Florida (I was turned down by Edwards campaign staff when I attempted to pay for signs for John Edwards because they said it would violate the “no campaigning” agreement). Yet here was definite campaigning for Hillary at our State Convention. Is she a woman of her word or not?

The result of all this, including the so fortunate fundraiser for Clinton held in Florida on Primary Day, was that most of our citizens knew little about the other candidates and the Clinton name recognition just about guaranteed a win for Hillary, which I personally believe, was the intent of our State Chairwoman who has consistently promoted ONLY Beltway insiders as opposed to Progressive Democrats seeking to take back our country from the corrupt administration under which we have suffered for seven long, long years. As for Michigan, I thought all candidates had agreed not to be on the ballot there, but there was Hillary…can you count this as a “win” when the only competition was Kucinich? I think not and find this a statement we should pay attention to regarding Hillary Clinton’s word and her character.

So please citizens of the could be great state of Florida, stop vilifying the guy(s) who play by the rules. We have had seven years of watching our Constitution and our laws violated over and over again by those currently in power. Do we now blame those among true Democrats who follow the rules and obey the laws? Following the Judas Goat leads to only one place, the slaughterhouse!

Respectfully,

Frances Earl

Chair-Democracy for America Tampa Bay North

[Yael]

20. Writeins were not allowed in Michigan.

[Cronus Protagonist]

25. Again, I'm sorry party politics prevented some voters from voting

But the ones that did vote ought to be heard. Period.

[Zhade]

36. Such hypocrisy. You only want the votes YOU want counted.

NT!

[Cronus Protagonist]

38. NO, you made that up yourself

I want ALL votes counted. ALL of them. EVERY ONE. And I'm also FOR repeat elections if possible. You appear to be misunderstanding. I want the votes to count. Why don't you? Why take the same position of the Bush campaign of 2000? Because that benefits you to other people's detriment? I want ALL votes counted because this is a DEMOCRACY, not because it will benefit one or the other candidate. I'm not even sure where any of the candidates stand on delegates mainly because there appears to be no reliable source for it. And it's questionable whether one candidate or the other will benefit from a re-vote or from counting votes already cast.

Once more, I think that when the partisan bickering is not so prevalent, all the votes will be counted. It's as simple as that.

[Zhade]

61. It doesn't benefit ME at all. I don't support either candidate.

The fact is, the state party apparatus AGREED that these would not count before, and now Clinton wants the rules changed in mid-contest. That's called cheating.

But I do admit it would be hilarious to hold a re-vote and see Clinton lose (which she likely would at this point).

[DrDan]

12. absolutely correct

let's hear from the voters . . . we have already heard enough from the party heads - both state and national.

[The Croquist]

19. I completely disagree

The rules were that Florida was to have no delegates. Changing rules after the vote is bull crap. I understand that he started the lawsuit prior to the primary but these things have to be finalized BEFORE the election not after you don't like the results.

Up next is Michigan where Obama and Edwards weren't even on the stinking ballot. I suppose you want to award those delegates to Clinton too. 40% of the Michigan voters who bothered to show up voted for uncommitted. It takes allot of effort to stand in line so that you can vote for no one.

[liberalnurse]

21. All of the votes will count in Florida and Michigan.

They stand as they were voted by the people who went to the polls on election day and/or mailed in their ballot.

Michigan, well Obama and Edwards both covertly canvased the voters by encouraging them to vote uncommitted.............so, es, this is fair and square..........Count all votes.

No one is stupid, everyone knew the dance.

[The Croquist]

32. You're trying to change the rules of the dance not adhere to them...

The rule going into the primary was "there were no delegates". To change the rule now that's it's too late to vote is wrong. I think that the plan was to, after the nominee was chosen, slap the states on the wrist and allow Florida and Michigan to have delegates but it may not work out that way. Keep in mind that these states VIOLATED the rules.
You might as well say that since Al Gore wasn't on the ballot we might as well assign delegates to him too from every other state be deciding how many people would have voted for him if he had stepped up to the plate. After all the voters in those states didn't get a chance to vote for him did they? It doesn't matter if Al didn't bother to run.

Maybe we should change the World Series next year to best of 9 if one team wins the first 4 games. That way the people who bought tickets for game 5 gets to see the game. That would be only fair right?

Question: What do we do about those ticket holders of games 6 and 7?

[Cronus Protagonist]

33. This is not a ball game.

Poor analogy. This is about exercising the most fundamental fulcrum of power in this country of the people, by the people, for the people. The voters were exercising that sacred right in this country of the free.

If a citizen votes, you can't take that away by executive fiat, the party is not the boss of us, it is they who are our underlings. I predict they will count the votes.

[The Croquist]

42. The analogy is about changing the rules in the middle of a contest.

Why don't we change it to every state is winner take all?
Why don't we change it to primaries count twice as much as caucuses
Why don't we give bonus points to contests held on a day that ends in "Y"

Or we could stick to the rules agreed upon at the beginning.

[Cronus Protagonist]

44. Oh, yeah, that right wing chestnut from Election 2000 - This is not a game.

Good luck with that ignorant position. This is not a game.

[The Croquist]

45. You're taking the side of the 2000 theft, not me

They changed the rules just like you are advocating now.

By the way have you seen this gem?

It appears that the rules in Texas need changing too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3203633

I suppose that the rules will keep needing changing until the results come out the "correct way".

[Zachstar]

48. Yes the Dance where you voted for Clinton or else you were nothing.

You bad Clinton supporters make me sick. I cant wait to see you give up posting once Clinton decides to stop this madness.

It aint fair and square you will stop at nothing NO DESTRUCTION IS TOO MUCH for you bad clinton supporters! Is it!

SHAME ON YOU!

[Cronus Protagonist]

24. I want the votes of the voters to count. Sorry to hear you don't.

As for handing delegates to one candidate or the other, I have no idea how that comes into play and I don't care about it either because I won't be handing anyone anything, I simply do not have that power.

I think that a voter votes with the intention that his or her vote will count, and in a democracy that trumps any politic or procedural bullshit. If there's one thing we learned from Florida cira 2000 it's that every vote needs to be counted. I'm sorry that's too hard for you to understand.

[dysfunctional press]

26. i say to go by the rules, or have a re-vote or a caucus.

in NO WAY could it be considered a fair election.

[The Croquist]

54. The rules don't call for a re-vote

I stand by my statement that you have to stick by the rules that were agreed upon.

If you don't like the rules change them before the next election not after the last election.

[damntexdem]

31. It would have been the right thing to do had candidates not been told to not campaign.

The right thing to do now is to hold a make-up, with some time for campaigns to campaign.

[JTFrog]

5. I thought the Nevada case made it clear that the party rules would trump anything else.

The judge ruled that it is "up to the national party and the state party to promulgate these rules and enforce them."

The Democratic National Committee ratified the party rules. If it's ruled that there can be intervention on a federal level, then who will be running the party?

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. The answer to your question is "the people"

As it should be. Votes should be counted. It's as simple as that, local and national political organizations be damned if they try to subvert the will of the people.

[JTFrog]

10. The votes as they stand are tainted. All of the people of Florida and Michigan deserve

a fair process in which to cast their votes and in which they have confidence that vote will be counted.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. I agree the elections were tainted, but good luck on re-doing an election

If it can be done, I'm all for it. And the votes cast ought to be counted or we're no worse than the opposition.

[Zhade]

37. Clinton was the only one on the ballot in MI, and you think the cotes should be counted?

It wasn't a legit election.

[Cronus Protagonist]

40. Once more, if Clintons' support came out and voted despite the "leadership"

They ought to have their votes counted. People don't show up for illegitimate elections and vote in this country. They vote in legitimate elections and if their vote was taken at the polling place, it is golden. This is a fundamental principle of democracy. I'm sorry you don't agree, but I suspect you have a partisan point of view that has nothing to do with fairness at its root.

[Zachstar]

49. Just like in many countries where you can vote..

But the dictator is the only one on the ballot.

Yet those were good elections! let the people's voice be heard!

You are enabling a virtual dictatorship with this support of tainted election results.

STOP CALLING IT A PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY! Tainted results are a full part of a dictatorship!

[Cronus Protagonist]

52. You're comparing a primary election in the US with a dictatorship

I feel sad for you. And the votes will be counted. These votes were cast by people who wanted their votes to count. I'm saddened by how many Obama partisans support voter suppression and claim to have the high road.

[Zachstar]

53. Few buy your voter suppression BS.

Voter suppression happened when the states decided to go rogue. The people in the wrong are them.

If they are allowed to be seated then next time we will have 10 states openly defying and expecting seating later. We will be doing primaries in freaking 2010!

The main group of people supporting the existing delegates to be seated and trying to keep a revote from happening in my view is bad Clinton supporters who want those tainted results like a person addicted to a drug beyond any other care.

Obama will in my be supportive of a revote if these rouge states decide to meet the process half way and agree to a brand new primary with the throwing out of the old results.

I call upon the democratic party to resist pressure to accept the current tainted results. And to fully support a late March to April dual primary day.

[Cronus Protagonist]

55. I'd be happy with a new primary

But then again, I'm not a partisan fuckwit. And the voter wasn't the one who fucked it all up, so why should they be penalized? I say let their votes count and work it out, or have a new election.

All this partisan bickering is merely delaying the inevitable, which is that the votes will be counted one way or another.

[Zhade]

62. Once again, you're wrong - about my "partisanship" (I don't support EITHER candidate)...

...and about democracy. Changing the rules to enfranchise SOME voters but not others is CHEATING.

You sound like Karl Rove.

[stillcool]

16. I'm not surprised...

the Clinton's love to break the rules

http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/a-feisty-bill-clinton-defends-nevada-lawsuit/
CLINTON ALLIES SUPPRESS THE VOTE IN NEVADA...
On Meet the Press on Sunday, Hillary Clinton said her campaign had nothing to do with a lawsuit--written about by Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel--that threatens to prevent thousands of workers from voting in the Nevada caucus on Saturday.
Back in March, the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to set up caucus locations on the Vegas strip for low-income shift workers, many of them members of the state's influential Culinary Union, who commute long distances to work and wouldn't be able to get home in time to caucus. It was an uncontroversial idea until the Culinary Union endorsed Barack Obama and the Nevada State Education Association, whose top officials support Clinton, sued to shut down the caucus sites.
The Clinton camp played dumb until yesterday, when President Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit.
Clinton's comments drew a heated response from D. Taylor, the head of Nevada's Culinary Union, on MSNBC's Hardball. "He is in support of disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of workers, not even just our members," Taylor said of Clinton. "The teachers union is just being used here. We understand that This is the Clinton campaign. They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they're trying to disenfranchise people here in Nevada, who are union members and people of color and women."
Rank-and-file members of Nevada's teachers union also come out against the lawsuit filed by their leadership. "We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what's right for our students, but that's exactly what they're doing," the letter stated. "As teachers, and proud Democrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support."
The lawsuit's opponents make a persuasive point. Creating obstacles to voting is what the GOP does to Democrats, not what Democrats should be doing to other Democrats.

[Cronus Protagonist]

41. Let's see, voter disenfranchisement is OK when it benefits Obama, but not Clinton?

I fail to see any sense of logic or fairness in your complaint. Unlike you, I want there to be NO voter disenfranchisement either way, no matter who benefits or not.

And your source is questionable and relies on hearsay.

[stillcool]

47. What are you talking about?

The rules were agreed to by the Clinton Campaign in Nevada, Florida, and Michigan. We know what happened in Nevada...and if you don't like the NYTimes just read the lawsuit that is included in the post, or here, I'll make it easy for you. The Clinton's obviously don't like to play by the rules.
http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf

[The Croquist]

63. The weather sucks in Ohio today

Do you think that they should hold a re-vote or do you think Clinton will win?

[comtec]

17. IF Everyone was on teh ballot I might agree

HOWEVER ONLY HILARY WAS ON BOTH BALLOTS!
I have a problem with counting ballots where only one person was ON the ballot!
Also because there was no advertising of message, even the handful of people who WERE on the ballot in Florida, were virtual unknowns at that time, except for what was on the news.

In all honesty it was not fair, the ballots were poorly done, the DNC offered to PAY FOR A BETTER TIMED PRIMARY AND WAS TURNED DOWN!!!

The problem was that of the Florida and Mich Dem committee.

It sucks, I'm sorry, but I vote no!

Hold a caucus, or another Primary where everyone in the race gets their names on the ballots or DON'T DO THIS AGAIN!

A punishment with no enforcement, is no punishment.

The money being used to push this through the courts could have instead been used to set up a proper primary!

[nvme]

28. comtec you need to be corrected

Florida did have the candidates on the ballot. I voted for Obama absentee ballot (I like paper trails). Again it has been offered up to have a do over for Florida. I think a caucus was suggested. Michigan allowed the candidates to remove their names. Clinton did not remove her name from the michigan ballot; all the other major candidates removed their names. so you could say michigan was a soviet style ballot (only one candidate). the repost of the tampa letter to the editor spells it out clearly. The party is establishment is very pro-Clinton. I would not be surprised if the individual initiating is a Clinton surrogate.(Nothing surprisesme with regards to fLorida). ALL CANDIDATES AGREED THAT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN WON'T COUNT. Period. The only way is to hold fresh elections or let them be seated but not count. Maybe march 4 will end this mess. and we can get on to the business of winning the GE. in any case good luck to you Clinton supporters.

[comtec]

29. We are in agreement

Because the candidates did agree that Florida and MI would not count, that's pretty much the end of it.
The delegates can't be counted.
It' a damned shame, but there you go.
We forget that parties are NOT in the constitution or any of the amendments for a very good reason.
Washington, bless his soul, warned about political parties when he left office!
now we see very clearly WHY that was.
They broke the rules, MONTHS ahead of time. It was done in Florida by the GOP-LED legislature, true, and IIRC Florida was given the opportunity to hold a separate, paid-by-DNC election for the primary, but they didn't. So in the end it's the fault of the Florida Dems.

[LiberalFighter]

22. If the court orders another election... I'm okay with that --- BUT

if they order the votes from the January primary and delegates seated then NO.

NO because it is a preferential primary run by a political party with their rules not the state.

[smiley_glad_hands]

23. No, its too late. Follow the effing rules already. eom

[Chisox08]

27. I say let both Florida and Mich. revote

First of all not all of the canidates where on the ballot in Mich. and if you wrote someone in your vote wasn't counted. College students in Florida didn't vote because they were tolf that their vote didn't count and most if not all college students are not property owners so they didn't care about the property tax resolution.
Let them revote and force the DNC to pay for it

[Pastiche423]

43. Why should the DNC be forced to pay for a re-vote

when the DNC followed the rules everyone voted on and agreed to? The DNC is not in the wrong. It's the Dem leaders in FL and MI that broke the rules.

Btw, it's "were" not "where". The two words have totally different meanings.

[Dogmudgeon]

30. Ask Howard Dean to resolve it

There's a reason why we have a Chairman; he's supposed to mediate such disputes.

--p!

[Zachstar]

51. Time for a revote.

Yet the bad Clinton supporters want dictatorship like results to be accepted. They do not want a revote because they know that this time the people who will not vote for Hillery will be heard.

Shame on you punks! I feel sorry for the few good Clinton supporters that have to endure your dictatorship like BS. To them I suggest they abandon the effort and find someone else to support because Clinton will not have a chance in 2012 thanks to this. You can thank her stupid actions and the numerous bad supporters that want to tear and destroy everything in their path to get her on top. Where she will be PROMPTLY be defeated in the general with a disgusted populace who rather take their chances with the republican.

REVOTE! If the DNC has to pay for it. SO BE IT! Set the primary to late March and done with it.

[customerserviceguy]

56. My prediction is that the lawsuit will be moot soon

Even if Hillary wins Texas by a few percentage points, and Ohio by a few more, Obama will have weeks to visit every community of any decent size in Pennsylvania, and he'll do well there. With proportionate delegate rules in Ohio and PA, and with rules that seem to favor him in Texas, he's going to wrap this thing up before the judges in the FL case can even get their robes on.

Gawd help us if it doesn't go this way. I cannot imagine what will happen to this party if we spend the next several months fighting the way we have since the Potomac primary.

[toopers]

57. I doubt this will get very far. . .

There is no constitutional guarantee to vote in a Federal election. Now what may be interesting is if the Supreme Court says this is a State issue or not.