Aren't we the party that wants all the votes counted? we'll lose our moral authority over FL and MI

[gauguin57]

Aren't we the party that's concerned about voting irregularities, hacked machines, etc. etc. Aren't we the party that stands up for the disenfranchised voter?

Than what in the HELL is our party thinking re: Michigan and Florida?

I don't buy all this "rules are rules" BS ... the VOTERS of FLA and MI aren't the ones who broke the rules. Their party leadership did. Who suffers? THE VOTERS, who just want to do their civic duty. And our party won't let them.

Democratic leadership, there is NO EXCUSE for not allowing the voters of two states to be completely disenfranchised. If they are ... our party can never hold the MORAL HIGH GROUND on the election-fraud issue again!

[Texas Hill Country]

1. agreed.

[zabet]

2. We are supposed to be but,

unless the majority of those
votes count for Obama, don't
expect much support on DU for
counting them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. something that could discussed at the Convention?

parties do make rules but they can be ammended formally at the convention not ad hoc?

[scheming daemons]

4. The aren't disenfranchised, because they voted with FULL knowledge that their vote was meaningless..

....voters in FL and MI had no expectation that their vote was anything other than a beauty contest, since the DNC made it perfectly clear BEFOREHAND that there would be no delegates coming out of those two states.


Voters went to the polls in MI and FL with absolutely no expectation that they were selecting a slate of delegates.

As such... they haven't been disenfranchised.



Secondly... the Supreme Court has ruled REPEATEDLY that political parties may choose their nominees in any manner they deem appropriate. The Constitutional right of voting does not apply to individual party's nomination processes.


The DNC, if they so chose, could select a nominee without any input from voters of any states at all if they so wish. In fact, with having about 800 un-voted for superdelegates, they've kind of done just that.

The DNC is the SOLE arbiter of how their nominee is chosen.... and they set up the rules in advance, and they were known to ALL parties BEFOREHAND.

There is no actionable lawsuit that either candidate can bring against the DNC for not seating FL and MI delegates. Howard Dean and the DNC have the law on their side.


The DNC sets the rules of the game for selecting their nominee. It has nothing to do with "voting rights".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Did The Voters Of Michigan And Florida Have Their Votes Count?

~

[1620rock]

12. Heh, these votes must not count unless they favor Obama eh? Well this is

is a do-over. What are Obama supporters afraid of?

[stillcool]

18. Valid Elections. Who cares?

Why don't we let Florida and The Supreme Court decide it?

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”
.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has suggested seating the Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention, even though the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stripped them of their status. The DNC originally set itself up for trouble by denying these influential states a place at the convention as punishment for scheduling their primaries too early in the year. However, the fact remains that, since each and every Democratic presidential candidate pledged not to campaign in these states and to abide by the DNC’s decision, these delegates should not be seated at the convention.

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[goclark]

42. We aren't afraid of anything

Seems like Queen Billary wanted it her way or the highway.

That is her daily way of doing business.

She is one controlling piece of work.

[Ganja Ninja]

20. If your vote isn't counted then your disenfranchised.

It's really that simple. But I agree with the concept that the rules were laid down and we can't go back on them now.

[RichGirl]

47. I think it needs to be said that...

this was a really stupid rule. The people who were punished (the voters and candidates) had no say over the situation. If Howard Dean wanted to enact a punishment, it should have been directed at those who made the decision. They could have been suspended, whatever. All the public has is their vote...that should not have been used as a bargaining tool to get his way.

The bottomline is this...and election is about the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Michigan and Florida are not small states. This is a lot of people. Even if their votes are not counted...they should at least be considered within the contest of the will of the people.

Why is it that the same people who are so intent on following Dean's ill-conceived rule....are very quick to disregard rules that apply to superdelegates. Isn't it their job to make a judgement if the elections don't have a clear winner. When they make that judgement, should they not consider the will of ALL the people. Is there any reason in the world why they would not consider the will of the people in Michigan and Florida. They have already lost their vote. That doesn't mean that the superdelegates should pretend that they don't exist.

[Ganja Ninja]

55. I agree 100%

They should have found some other way to handle this.

[dansolo]

61. Howard Dean did NOT enact the punishment

Get your facts straight. The punishment was made by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, not Howard Dean. Why don't you direct your ire at Harold Ickes, who is a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and also part of Hillary's campaign?

[DrDan]

22. you are disenfranchised if not allowed to vote or if your vote does not count

lets not get coy or play with semantics.

The OP is absolutely correct.

Punish the state legislators. Do not punish the voters - it was beyond their control.

Do not suggest to vote the legislators our of office. No time for that prior to the GE.

This is a miscarriage of justice.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Pfft. DUers don't care about facts - they're not nearly as fun as breathless falsehoods.

[PassingFair]

30. And they LOVE to say "disenfranchise".

They absolutely LOVE it!

4 whole syllables! In ONE word!

[BlooInBloo]

33. Of course. Anything that used to apply largely to black folks that can be co-opted for white folks..

... will be taken. Reverse RACISM, disenfranchised, etc. That's one big way they try to pretend that there is no racism - by making it apply or "apply" to everyone.

[Romulox]

66. Ummm, no black people live in Michigan. None.

:eyes:

[gauguin57]

36. how about two syllables in two words?

Bite me.

Seriously ... look up "disenfranchised" in the dictionary, and you'll see the Michigan and Florida voters' photos used as the illustration!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PassingFair]

45. Two syllables, one word.

C-A-U-C-U-S

...let's have one.

It's cheap, it's do-able,
and the republicans can
have nothing to say about
it.

[Rydz777]

5. We'll not only lose our moral authority, but we'll lose

the electoral votes of both Florida and Michigan in November. This is an unbelievable screw-up at a time when we can little afford screw-ups.

[PassingFair]

56. Our votes will still count in November.

What do you mean?

[stillcool]

6. It depends...

Votes in a invalid election count, where votes in a legitimate election don't.

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”
.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has suggested seating the Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention, even though the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stripped them of their status. The DNC originally set itself up for trouble by denying these influential states a place at the convention as punishment for scheduling their primaries too early in the year. However, the fact remains that, since each and every Democratic presidential candidate pledged not to campaign in these states and to abide by the DNC’s decision, these delegates should not be seated at the convention.

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

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 proudmDemocrats, 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.

[Umbram]

8. I thought we were the party that didn't change the rules whenever we felt like it. (nt)

[Ganja Ninja]

9. I thought it was stupid to disenfranchise FL & MI voters but ...

what's done is done. Those primary results aren't fair or accurate. We can't allow the Democratic nominee to be decided by those primaries.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. All The Obscurantist Tactics In The World Can Not Hide The Fact That I Was Disenfranchised Through

No Fault Of My Own...

[DrDan]

26. Bingo - I feel exactly the same way

[Ganja Ninja]

28. So was I and I resent it.

And after this is over the leaders of the Democratic party that decided to handle things this way should answer for this mess.

[leftofcool]

10. Not any more

[2rth2pwr]

11. The votes all get counted only if it benefits Obama.

[1620rock]

15. Yes, he may be inexperienced, but he is learning dirty politics real fast.

[blm]

27. Dirty politics is CHANGING the rules as Bushies do. Obama says he'll follow the rules whatever

is decided about those rules after the DNC officially agrees to what they will be.

BTW - how did TeamClinton concern itself with Ohio voters on election night, again?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

Oh yeah....Carville made the phonecall to WH to sabotage Ohio Dem voters.

[Ganja Ninja]

31. And the rules only get changed if it benefits Hillary.

[MethuenProgressive]

13. The Democratic Party, yes. The Obamacrats? Not so much...

The Obama camp doesn't want MI and FL to re-vote after Pastor-gate for one reason, qand one reason only. Fear.

[sabbat hunter]

16. sure we can

there was no fraud involved. The people of those states knew that their primaries were little more than "beauty contests". Especially in Michigan where Hillary was the only one on the ballot.

The voters of those states should inundate their state leaders phones, email boxes demanding that they schedule re votes.

[DrDan]

17. absolutely on target!

I have been shocked here at the number of DUers who are willing to let the DNC strip fellow-Democrats of their vote.

It is unconscienable.

The rule should never have been allowed to stand. I fault Dean for that.

[BlooInBloo]

19. That's just stupid. The states disenfranshised themselves.

[madfloridian]

21. The DNC has BEGGED them to have a revote. They turned it down.

Stop the spin.

[Lucky 13]

24. If that's what she truly believes, then why did she sign the pledge?

Because she doesn't give a damn about what's RIGHT. She only cares about what's right for HER.

[madfloridian]

25. This will destroy our party...these two arrogant states.

It is almost too late to put it back together now because of all the lies.

[Oilwellian]

29. Just what IS "moral authority?"

I hear the right wing lay claim to it quite a bit...this is the first I've seen a Democrat use that phrase. People see the republican party finally losing credibility on that claim due in part to their inability to follow rules, laws, & pledges to their constituents. How is it we gain the "moral authority" if we choose to ignore rules and pledges as well?

Hillary initially agreed and pledged to not participate in the MI primary because they broke DNC rules. She can't have it both ways. You should be angry with your state party leaders, and instead of whining about it on a message board, you should be writing and expressing your disappointment in THEM for taking you out of the primary season. Also remember, there were 14 states in the 2004 primary that had no say in whether Kerry should be the nominee. MI & FL tantrums do not reflect well as members of a nationwide party.

[DrDan]

32. save your sermon . . .

you can call it a tantrum if you like - but millions of voters lost their voice - and they are pissed. I know - I am one.

And yes - I blame Dean as well as the state legislators.

First - the rule should never have been allowed to stand. That is Dean's fault. You should not take away a person's right to vote due to something beyond their control. That is a cornerstone of this party.

Dean should have enlisted the help of a real leader - a senior party leader who could have brokered a solution. He is certainly unable.

We now have a situation where D's have had the vote stripped. But - we also have these ridiculous super-delegates. They can voice their choice at their convenience. Where is the artificial date boundary for them?

Finally - why not let the states determine their own primary dates. What purpose does this rule serve? If a state wants to become irrelevant with a primary two years before a GE - then let them decide. This fear of a loss of control of the primaries is simply a fear tactic - not unlike that of the right-wing when they argue against same sex marriage because it will lead to marriages between people and their pets. Simply playing to fear.
There will be a fallour from this.

[PassingFair]

34. Dean IS a REAL leader.

"Dean should have enlisted the help of a real leader - a senior party leader who could have brokered a solution. He is certainly unable."


The DNC IS the party, not Howard Dean.
He enforced the rules, the OTHER STATES
followed them.

I blame the party leaders and legislators of Michigan and Florida.

Any re-do should be a CAUCUS, it is MUCH CHEAPER,
and the party can take steps to make sure the
REPUKES can't fuck with it.

[DrDan]

35. hehehe - sure he is

so you blame the party leaders and legislators and support the disenfranchisement of the voters . . .

makes a lot of sense . . . .

[PassingFair]

49. They knew the rules and they knew what the consequences were.

They did it anyway, AGAINST the sentiments
of ordinary Michigan voters who DIDN'T CARE
TO BREAK THE RULES.

I blame the party leaders because I SAW and
HEARD what they were doing.

[DrDan]

51. I do also.

So punish the party of the party leaders. Not the voters! Let their votes be heard.

[PassingFair]

53. Caucus.

Just like 04.

Let's do it.

[DrDan]

50. I do as well (blame the party leaders - so punish them

not the voters

that is what Dean should have done. Now he is in a pickle. And I can tell you the voters of Florida are pissed.

[gauguin57]

39. But the voters -- the ones being harmed here -- had NOTHING to do with the rule-breaking.

They just want their voices heard. They want their votes counted. As Americans, they have the RIGHT to have their votes counted. I don't care who they vote for ... I really don't. I'm not a Hillaryite or an Obamaite (I'll probably write in John Edwards on the PA primary ballot). I'm a Democratic voter, who wants other Democratic voters to be able to exercise their rights as citizens.

We still have the moral authority on the subject of voter fraud ... WE DEMOCRATS, as represented by Al Gore and John Kerry, were screwed over by corrupt state officials exercising authority over a corrupt electoral system and hacked voting machines. WE asked for the votes to be counted, and we were answered by the Supreme Court selecting a Chimpanzee as our Commander in Chief. Our country has gone farther downhill every minute since.

But, because we were the ones calling for the election system to be set right, we still have the moral authority on that subject. Or we did, till we disenfranchised (OH YES, DARLINGS, DISENFRANCHISED) two whole states filled with Democratic citizens!!!!1

[ORDem]

60. Their legislative representatives didn't get appointed you know. n/t

[EFerrari]

37. When did the Democratic party show concern over a hacked vote?

lol

That must be some other Democratic Party.

[Mezzo]

38. Yup. nt

[jillan]

40. I also thought we were the party that thinks popular vote is more important than electoral vote.

[gauguin57]

41. Nope. We're the ones who know Gore won both the popular and electoral votes in 2000.

And was robbed.

[Romulox]

63. Too bad--W. Bush won according to the RULES, and rules are more important than democracy.

:sarcasm:

:puke:

[RBInMaine]

43. Chill Out ! They'll be seated. Plenty of time. They'll work it out. RELAX .

[Rex_Goodheart]

44. I'll add this....

The party rules that deny Michigan and Florida the right to name their own primary dates is wrong. I think people have a duty to break bad rules and bad laws.

[Texas Hill Country]

46. I am horrified by this whole fiasco.

[gauguin57]

68. I am horrified, as well. It's chilling, when you think about it.

Two entire states' Democrats, without a voice in the nominating process. Jesus.

[IsItJustMe]

48. You seem to have a unique ability to take a very complex issue and turn it into a bumper sticker.

[dailykoff]

52. They'll vote in the GE. The preference primary is a party function.

Sorry.

[MadHound]

54. Who makes up the party in MI and FL?

Oh, yeah, the voters. Look, I can cut a little slack for MI, this is the first time recently that their party and the leadership has screwed up, but I have no sympathy for FL, not after '00 was a clear signal that they needed to get their shit together. Instead of doing that, the state party leaders, and state party members, continued to kowtow and cave to the 'Pugs, and all except one went along with this assinine scheme to move the primaries up, knowing that they would get punished. No sympathy for Florida, nor the voters or party members, they had eight years to clean up their own mess and still, here they are, still fucking things up for the rest of us.

[dkf]

57. Who is stopping a vote? MI and FL can do whatever they want to do.

[Romulox]

64. Read a newspaper, or any of the dozens of threads on the subject--Obama nixed the revote.

[dkf]

69. He doesn't have the power if everyone else wants it.

[ORDem]

58. The best solution would be re-votes, but it ain't gonna happen, so we need to get over it.

I agree it clouds the nomination somewhat, and it's just a stupid mess that was set in motion a year ago, but there's just not much that can be done now. I don't think it's totally fair to not blame the voters in some part, since it's their elected officials that moved up the primary dates against DNC rules that were in place.

I would hope that out of all this the DNC would seriously think about re-vamping the entire primary process. It is just so absolutely arcane and unwieldy as to make anyone go insane and I don't believe it has any real benefit to the process. I could agree that Obama (whom I support) benefited from the long drawn out primaries, but in the long run I don't think it serves our nation's interests.

:dem:

[KittyWampus]

59. Spoken just like a Hillary supporter. You forgot to throw the word "legitimate" in there.

[GihrenZabi]

65. Yes, you were disenfranchised...

...so what are you going to do about it?

I'm tired of hearing people bitch and whine about something, and then take no corrective action to fix it.

If you people from Florida and Michigan are SO upset about losing your vote in the primary, let me suggest something to you:

Organize campaigns to vote out ANYONE and EVERYONE in your State Legislatures who committed the colossal act of stupidity and arrogance to push the primaries ahead when the DNC CLEARLY set out the rules.

This conversation shouldn't even go to Hillary and Obama. WTF do they have to do with it? She's only asking to seat the delegates because she's desperate, and Obama said he'll go along with re-votes as long as it's fair. End of discussion, stop politicizing this. It doesn't address your problem.

Your problem is your moronic elected officials at the State level, and the idiot governors who agreed to sign the legislation moving the primaries forward.

I am SO sick of the lack of accountability in this country! If you F up, YOU PAY FOR IT.

Unfortunately, in politics, the only way to make people pay for mistakes is to VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE.

So don't waste your time kvetching and moaning about "disenfranchisement" on the DU boards - DO something about the problem. Replace the idiot legislators who created this problem for you.

[doyourealize1]

62. ***Remember 2000...

We obsessed over a few hundred votes.

Who knew we'd obsess over it not for principle, but solely to win Gore the election?

We have a lot of Dems aren't Dems anymore.

[rodeodance]

67. Yes. it is the leaders who screwed up--all voters need to be included.