You know this FL and MI thing is going to be decided by the SCOTUS.

[boston bean]

How do you think they will rule? Will they even take the case?

Anyone have any ideas?

[easy_b94]

1. Not good

[leftofcool]

2. Links?

Has there been mention of taking this to SCOTUS? Not doubting, just asking

[boston bean]

5. Well the FL was just shot down in the FL Supreme Court, I am sure it is on appeal

do you think the Supreme court will take it up.

[leftofcool]

7. I don't know

It all depends on what the federal laws say about voters. I am not familair enough with voting laws to make a guess.

[Tellurian]

19. The SCOTUS Ruled in the Bush v Gore case

In a presidential election everyone has the right to vote, however, it does not say every vote has to be counted.

[wileedog]

27. That's a Federal election - the GE

There is nothing in the Constitution about Primaries. The individual parties can make any rules they want.

[formernaderite]

82. a primary is NOT an election

it's a nomination. Parties could actually decide to have NO ONE vote...and allow the state parties to nominate someone. That's why there are soooo many zany rules and differences between the states in the nomination process.

[Hepburn]

69. A state primary is NOT a federal issue.

[wileedog]

9. I'm not sure why they would

FL has no case. The FL Dems are on tape supporting the move, there is ample evidence the DNC told them of the consequences of their actions.

While certainly everyone has the right to vote, there is nothing in the Constitution about primaries - they are the sole jurisdiction of the parties.

Maybe a lawyer has more insight than I do, but what leg exactly does FL have to stand on here to bring it all the way to the SC?

[boston bean]

11. yes, and the FL democratic party wants the votes counted and delegates seated. nt

[wileedog]

12. And the DNC

Who has the final legal authority on whether the votes get counted in their own party, does not want them seated at this time as punishment for breaking the parties own rules.

This has nothing to do with the Federal Government or the Constitution, so why would the SC be involved?

[boston bean]

13. Well, voting rights falls under federal jusridiction, right?

I am not saying they will take the case, but it will be appealed to them, I think that is certain.

If they don't take the case, it has an impact, if they do take it, I wonder how they will rule.

[wileedog]

15. Only for the GE

Political parties are free to make whatever voting rules they like, and people are free to be a part of that party or not.

The DNC could technically say "Only people who are blue and like to eat pickles for Sunday breakfast can vote in our primary" and there is nothing the Supreme Court could or would do about it. Your choice as a voter is to find another party.

[boston bean]

16. but they have decided to disenfranchise a whole group of people.

I am not saying you are right, or that you are wrong. I think either way, if they take it or don't it has an effect on the election.

[wileedog]

21. Define "They"

Seems to me the Florida Democratic leaders decided to 'disenfranchise' a whole group of people.

They were amply warned of the consequences of their actions, but voted to move the primary anyway. THEY made the decision that FL wouldn't count, arrogantly thinking the DNC would eventually back down I am sure.

Again, there is no legal leg to stand on for FL that I can see. The DNC is well within their rights to deny FLs votes in a primary - its their party they can nominate who they want to run pretty much however they want to do it.

In fact I can't think of a process more un-democratic and more 'disenfranchising' than Superdelegates. Everyone in the whole country votes and then 800 people decide the election how they want anyway?

I'm just speculating like you are, but I don't see why the SC would get involved.

[boston bean]

22. The Democratic National Committee made the rule. Don't states have

a right to run elections they way they want to?

[wileedog]

25. Not necessarily

Obviously states can decide how they vote - electonic, paper, mail-in, caucus, etc.

But it has to be approved by the DNC, the head of the party. They have the final say on how delegates are distributed, and have final right of refusal if they don't approve.

[boston bean]

29. They may not take the case, but they might. Either way it has an effect.

[ThatBozGuy]

32. By the way the DNC committe that made the rules had 15 of Ms Clintons current camaign or surrogates.

15 out of 40 and all 40 were chosen and nominated by Terry McAuliffe as a Clinton supporter you do know who Terry McAuliffe is right?

[boston bean]

35. Did you know that NH was not authorized by the DNC to be second this year,

but NH moved up their primary date to be second and nothing happened to NH. Maybe that can be Obama's next move, disenfranchise the voters of NH because they broke the rules too.

[ThatBozGuy]

38. Have you read the rule, do you understand that they did not break the rule by moving.

Because the rule was about them and the move NH made was in SUPPORT of the rule.

You would know this if you read the rules instead of just echoed someone else's talking point

[boston bean]

40. That is not true, they moved their primary to be second, it was not scheduled that way.

they moved it without DNC approval, but it was ok anyways.

[ThatBozGuy]

57. Again, NH move was in SUPPORT of the rule not breaking it. I rrespect you have a point but don't let

a little thing like facts get in the way.

The rules that Florida and Michigan broke were not JUST about rescheduling but in context of maintaining Iowa AND New Hampshire in the first spots.

Specifically the rules were drawn up with the following goals:

The Commission is mindful and respectful of the valuable roles the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have traditionally played and, in particular, the personal engagement and involvement of the voters who participate in these contests. At the same time, the Commission heard serious concerns about the disproportionate influence of these traditionally early contests, and the need, early in process, to include states that would be more fully representative of the Party's rich diversity.

Accordingly, the Commission recommends:

* Preserving the first-in-the-nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire but adding other states in the pre-window period.
* Adding 1 or 2 new first-tier caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, and 1 or 2 new primaries between New Hampshire and the
opening of the window for all other states on February 5, 2008.
* Having the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee determine which states should be added, using the following criteria: racial and
ethnic diversity; geographic diversity; and economic diversity including union density.

The front-loading of states at the beginning of the calendar has also limited broader participation in the process. The trend toward bunching up on the first day of the window, or in the first month, does not enhance the role of any state or group of states. To be effective and to receive attention from candidates and the press, states must spread out the dates of their contests and restore a more deliberate pacing to the process.

You can find all you need to know here
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/nominating

Now for the last time, New Hampshire wasn't punished for moving up because New Hampshire's move was because of and in SUPPORT of the rule, versus Michigan and Florida intentionally breaking the rule.

CAN YOU EVER ADMIT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG, it is much healthier if you can and will help you adjust to reality much easier.

[MaineDem]

48. What you posted is not true

They were always scheduled to be the first primary.

They didn't break any rules.

[boston bean]

52. no they were not. nt

[MaineDem]

61. I'm afraid you're wrong.

Please provide some sort of proof.

[ThatBozGuy]

62. See #57, It is you Massdem that is wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5207072&mesg_id=5208198

Now for the last time, New Hampshire wasn't punished for moving up because New Hampshire's move was because of and in SUPPORT of the rule, versus Michigan and Florida intentionally breaking the rule.

CAN YOU EVER ADMIT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG, it is much healthier if you can and will help you adjust to reality much easier.

[boston bean]

85. I am not wrong, MI did not move their primary until NH did, look down thread! nt

[ThatBozGuy]

92. I wish you well.

[yewberry]

99. MI moved its primary in Sept; NH moved its primary in Nov.

You're mistaken.

[Hawkeye-X]

31. the wisconsin precedent

Scotus won't take the case because of the wisconsin precedent. It has been posted on one of mf's posts, and I suggest you look at it.

[DearAbby]

23. The constitutional right to vote

is for the General election, not the primaries. Primaries are within the Party. The party thereby gets to frame the rules, and also get to frame the punishment for violation of those rules.

[Hepburn]

73. And they agreed to actions that would make this an impossibility.

Where exactly is the case in that? You cannot intentionally fuck up and damage yourself and then expect any court to fix it for you. It's called "assumption of the risk." You do an action and you are on notice of the concequences or the danger...don't come and expect the judicial system to fix your boo-boo, OK?

[DearAbby]

3. They have decided to take the case?

Do you have a link?

[boston bean]

6. No that is part of the question, I guess, if they do take it up or if not, it will be

a decider on this election.

[DearAbby]

8. I dont know,

If they don't take the case, I believe the DNC will try to figure out a way to make sure the delegates are seated where it is fair for everyone.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. There is no "fair for everyone".

What's fair for Hillary is unfair for Barack. etc.

So, the nomination could be decided by a Republican Supreme Court? Great.

:thumbsdown:

[DearAbby]

20. Well what is just and legal....n/t

[UALRBSofL]

4. MassDemm I do not know

However, It will make much headline news on the MSM, at least I think it will.

[suston96]

10. The SCOTUS will decide? That is not very comforting......

They will decide that it is a political party matter and that in a primary, party members have no voting rights.

[DearAbby]

24. The SCOTUS may not even take the case.

It is within the party rules to sanction those who violate the rules.

[Bonobo]

17. Good god don't even think that.

[OzarkDem]

18. This will hurt Dems in the GE

Such a mess. These voters will resent Dems if their votes don't count. They'll pay for it in November.

[DearAbby]

26. Why do they blame the Party as a whole?

Why not blame the idiots who, even warned, voted to move the primary 115 to 1? Place the blame where it belongs.

Sound like kids pouting, when they are sent to their rooms for "timeout". "

I dont wanna! It's not fair!"

[boston bean]

28. because the fair and moral thing, never mind the rules, is that votes should be counted.

[DearAbby]

30. Again...why blame the entire party

They were warned of the consequences...They went ahead, believing the party would relent and allow those votes. Why have rules?

Like a parent, who keeps saying...Stop that or I will make you sit in the corner for timeout...and yet never follow through. What has been learned? Why have rules if you dont intend to stand by them? Why bother having a party?

[boston bean]

36. Did you know NH broke the rules too? They moved their primary date up to continue to be second.

Maybe O should fight to stick by the rules for them too. It would be par for the course.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boston bean]

42. They were not scheduled 2nd, they moved it anyhow with out permission from the DNC.

that is the facts.

[madfloridian]

44. No, it is not the facts.

But then silly things like facts never mattered much here at DU

[boston bean]

47. yes it is and it is one of the reasons FL and MI moved theirs, because NH was not punished. nt

[MaineDem]

50. That is so far from the truth it's almost funny. n/t

What are you using as the basis for this rant?

[boston bean]

54. you may want to educate yourself. you are wrong. nt

[madfloridian]

66. Maine Dem is not someone to take lightly on party matters.

You are really unfair.

[madfloridian]

55. Michigan moved first, NH moved to regain their position after MI took it.

Michigan's Levin despises NH so much that he took the initiative in moving up. Facts do matter.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1930

"Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) threatened "to hold Michigan’s presidential nominating contest on the same day as the New Hampshire primary in order to end New Hampshire’s 'cockamamie' first-in-the nation role," The Politico reports.

"While Michigan recently passed a law saying it would hold its primary on Jan. 15 -- causing New Hampshire to say it would go no later than Jan. 8 -- Levin said Michigan Democrats now could hold a caucus and move up to the same day as New Hampshire."

Meanwhile, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner continues to say he is "prepared to keep New Hampshire first and once again raised the possibility he could hold the primary in December of this year... Gardner has the ability to beat other states to the punch because, over the years, he has learned how to hold his primaries very quickly."

[boston bean]

58. uh no, they did not move it, NH did to make sure they were second even though

they were not second.

NH did not have the DNC permission to move the primary date. End of story.

[MaineDem]

71. Umm, as I said, NH had permission to be the first primary state

I'm sorry if you don't believe that but I observed the R&B meeting when that ruling took place.

I urge you to refute that if you can.

[boston bean]

93. They have a state law that says so, but they still would have been.

you need to get your facts straight look at post 84.

[MaineDem]

108. Sorry, ma'am, I don't need a letter from very partial writers to obtain my "facts"

I have better sources.

You said I was wrong that NH had permission to be the first primary. With that statement alone you've shown your ignorance.


And with that, I leave you to your misguided understanding of the rules and the process. I wish you well.

[MaineDem]

49. That is not "the facts"

That is completely false.

[boston bean]

56. YES IT IS THE FACTS! nt

[ThatBozGuy]

80. See #57, It is you Massdem that is wrong

[ThatBozGuy]

79. See #57,

[boston bean]

43. And now, state law means something above the DNC rules, get your story straight mad. nt

[calicat]

59. Mad doesn't know something as basic as NH moving their primary up.

And thinks calling it a lie will change the fact they did.

[madfloridian]

65. Michigan moved first....more pesky facts for you.

MI butted NH, MI moved first. Facts are pesky little things. Go and argue with the WP.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/04/michigan_makes_primary_move_of.html

"Michigan Makes Primary Move Official
The calendar chaos continued today, with Michigan's governor, Jennifer Granholm, signing the legislation to officially move her state's primary to Jan. 15.

In a statement, Granholm said the early primary will "lead to greater emphasis on issues that matter to all Americans." It will also no doubt bring a greater emphasis on Michigan, which is exactly what she wanted.

But the ramifications are likely to be huge: Michigan is now officially a week before the New Hampshire primary -- a fact that the Granite state officials cannot, by law, abide. Their primary will soon be moved."

[boston bean]

72. so state law is ok for NH but no MI of FL. The DNC did not give permission for NH to move its

primary date.

You cannot have it both ways.

[madfloridian]

75. I don't think you even know what you are asking now.

And I sure do not.

If you can't see after two articles that MI butted and started it, then I don't know what to say.

[ThatBozGuy]

78. See #57,

[madfloridian]

83. Heh Heh...those pesky facts in #57

Thanks for the post. :hi:

[boston bean]

91. Yeah look at those pesky facts in post 84. you can't answer that can you. go away with your tail

between your legs, mr. I know everything about this. you don't know shit.

[ThatBozGuy]

94. You mean these "facts'

Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, write that New Hampshire's ostensible decision to move its primary before Jan. 19 -- the day the DNC currently schedules the primary -- violates the same rules that Michigan has run afoul of.

Just to be clear are these the facts that you are talking about?

[boston bean]

95. That was part of an article describing a part of the situation re NH, not the course of events that

actually took place. Good try though.

try reading:

On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention as follows:

• at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
• at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
• at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
• at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.

The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries to select their delegates after the opening of the “window” on February 5, 2008.


Michigan Democrats, while disappointed our state was not selected as one of the four “pre-window” states, announced we would abide by the DNC calendar, unless New Hampshire or another state decided to ignore the rule establishing that sequence and that calendar.

On August 9, New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, with the support of the state’s Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the DNC rules. This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that they would hold their GOP primary on January 19.

One of New Hampshire’s purposes was to push the New Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC’s rule had scheduled for January 19. New Hampshire’s transparent action reflected its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar.

Those of us who fought hard to loosen the stranglehold of New Hampshire on the process saw you stand by silently.

[ThatBozGuy]

96. Just for the record the reason I asked you about that was pretty specific,

Im not sure what you meant by good try, while you have all of the other information doesn't it all boil down to that being the crux of the your point summed up by those individuals.

Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, write that New Hampshire's ostensible decision to move its primary before Jan. 19 -- the day the DNC currently schedules the primary -- violates the same rules that Michigan has run afoul of.

Isn't the point of all your "facts" to sum up and backup the statement above that NH violated the same rules that Michigan did?

[Little Star]

98. Yes, that is what she mean, you agree? nt

[ThatBozGuy]

100. Id like to be clear from Massdemm, so we are on the same page

[boston bean]

101. The point I make is very clear, what is your point? nt

[ThatBozGuy]

112. They were disingenious and were hoping people were too ignorant to look at the rules,that THEY wrote

Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, write that New Hampshire's ostensible decision to move its primary before Jan. 19 -- the day the DNC currently schedules the primary -- violates the same rules that Michigan has run afoul of.

We have agreed that this is the heart of your point, that these two individuals from the DNC have demonstrated in this letter the points that New Hampshire also was not held to the same rules.

We have looked at the recommendations and now know that the framing of these rules were drawn up in the understanding that:

Preserving the first-in-the-nation status of Iowa and New Hampshire but adding other states in the pre-window period.

We should put a few notes of context Sen Carl Levin is from Michigan and Debbie Dingell is married to Congressman John D. Dingell of Michigan.

Both Sen. Levin and Debbie Dingell were on the DNC Committee that wrote the rules that Michigan violated.

Both Sen. Levin and Sen John Dingell voted to move the Michigan Primary to the time that put it in violation.

Following are the rules that THEY WROTE That they VOTED to break and that Michigan and Florida were measured and found guilty of not being in compliance of.

Heres the rule, due the day math yourself

Section 11 Subsection A

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

New Hampshire, Michigan and Florida's move ALSO triggered a review of state compliance under the following rules.

Section 20 Subsection C Proviso 7

In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to
2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention
comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.

New Hampshire met the burden of "Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance and there fore was absolved.

Florida and Michigan did not meet that burden and were rightfully sanctioned.


The people that wrote the rules, broke the rules and then they and several others tried to cover it up by sending a letter of talking points that did not reflect the "TRUTH OF BURDEN" that the rules apply to and they are counting on the public being, by the omission of the full truth, too ignorant to know the difference and thus getting a groundswell of voice to dismiss the use of rules that they broke.

The rules are there, you were wrong for listening to the partisan spin as facts. Everyone can be wrong but it takes a bigger person to admit it.

All of the information you need is in the rulesets that you can see here, not in some partisan letter or even my interpretation or spin.

Good day. I wish you well.



Source:http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

[MaineDem]

105. Levin and Dingell wouldn't have a reason to mis-state the facts now would they?

:sarcasm:

However, we know the DNC didn't share their views.

[madfloridian]

109. I am not a mr. please stop calling me that.

.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

60. Read this:

Michigan's Levin despises NH so much that he took the initiative in moving up. Facts do matter.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1930

"Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) threatened "to hold Michigan’s presidential nominating contest on the same day as the New Hampshire primary in order to end New Hampshire’s 'cockamamie' first-in-the nation role," The Politico reports.

"While Michigan recently passed a law saying it would hold its primary on Jan. 15 -- causing New Hampshire to say it would go no later than Jan. 8 -- Levin said Michigan Democrats now could hold a caucus and move up to the same day as New Hampshire."

Meanwhile, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner continues to say he is "prepared to keep New Hampshire first and once again raised the possibility he could hold the primary in December of this year... Gardner has the ability to beat other states to the punch because, over the years, he has learned how to hold his primaries very quickly."

[calicat]

63. Nothing in you link refutes NH jumping

They did, sorry.

[madfloridian]

64. MI made the first move. Caused NH to jump. I have more facts for you.

MI butted NH, MI moved first. Facts are pesky little things. Go and argue with the WP.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/04/michigan_makes_primary_move_of.html

"Michigan Makes Primary Move Official
The calendar chaos continued today, with Michigan's governor, Jennifer Granholm, signing the legislation to officially move her state's primary to Jan. 15.

In a statement, Granholm said the early primary will "lead to greater emphasis on issues that matter to all Americans." It will also no doubt bring a greater emphasis on Michigan, which is exactly what she wanted.

But the ramifications are likely to be huge: Michigan is now officially a week before the New Hampshire primary -- a fact that the Granite state officials cannot, by law, abide. Their primary will soon be moved."

[boston bean]

68. DNC gave no permission for NH to jump. Jesus Christ mad is that so hard to understand. nt

[MaineDem]

74. Yes, the R&B Committee gave them permission in December of 2007

I saw the meeting. Ray Buckley sat in front of the committee and explained why they were asking to move. The committee granted them permission.

[madfloridian]

81. Why bother our heads with facts?

:shrug:

[boston bean]

84. yeah why BOTHER, cause you might learn something new. take a look:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/michigan_democrats_blast_dnc.php

Two top Michigan Democrats, anticipating that the Democratic National Committee will strip them of all their convention delegates now that the state has scheduled its primary for Jan. 15, sent a letter to DNC chairman Howard Dean protesting the party's "selective enforcement" of its calendar rules.

Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, write that New Hampshire's ostensible decision to move its primary before Jan. 19 -- the day the DNC currently schedules the primary -- violates the same rules that Michigan has run afoul of.

"Someone has to take on New Hampshire’s transparent effort to violate the DNC rules and to maintain its privileged position. Hopefully the DNC will, and you will, promptly urge our candidates to stop campaigning in New Hampshire because of the New Hampshire’s expressed intent to violate the DNC rules," the two write.

It's widely assumed that New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner will schedule the new Hampshire primary on or about Jan. 19. The DNC has indicated that it will allow New Hampshire to make the change -- and will allow Iowa to move up its primary date as well.

Here is the letter from MI Dem Party to Howard Dean which lays it all out there for you:




September 4, 2007

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Chairman, Democratic National Committee
Democratic Party Headquarters
430 South Capitol St., SE
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Governor Dean,

America has many strengths. Two of its greatest are our strong democratic traditions, and the rich diversity of our people. We Democrats take pride in the fact that, of the two major parties, we best represent this diversity.

It is therefore hard to understand how one of our most important democratic processes -- the nomination of our candidates for the presidency -- has been unduly dominated by two states, neither of which is particularly reflective of this diversity.

New Hampshire and Iowa have had a hugely disproportionate impact on our presidential nominating process, with more access to candidates and visits from candidates than probably all the other states combined during the primary and caucus season. Other states, including Michigan, have issues critically important to them. These states would like candidates seeking their support to understand and address these issues, and urged the DNC to make the process more democratic and thereby more reflective of our diversity.

The DNC approached this issue cautiously and with due diligence. A Commission representing diverse party constituents was appointed to make recommendations. The Commission then held a series of comprehensive public hearings. Ultimately, the Commission recommended a modest change in the traditional schedule, which New Hampshire opposed. It recommended that two caucuses be held, then two primaries, and then the “window” for the rest of the states would open.

On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention as follows:

• at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
• at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
• at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
• at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.

The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries to select their delegates after the opening of the “window” on February 5, 2008.


Michigan Democrats, while disappointed our state was not selected as one of the four “pre-window” states, announced we would abide by the DNC calendar, unless New Hampshire or another state decided to ignore the rule establishing that sequence and that calendar.

On August 9, New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, with the support of the state’s Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the DNC rules. This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that they would hold their GOP primary on January 19.

One of New Hampshire’s purposes was to push the New Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC’s rule had scheduled for January 19. New Hampshire’s transparent action reflected its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar.

Those of us who fought hard to loosen the stranglehold of New Hampshire on the process saw you stand by silently.

But when the Florida legislature changed the date of the Florida primary to a date before the window opened, you promptly determined to punish Florida Democrats by threatening to not seat their delegates if they abided by their legislature’s decision. You still maintained public silence about the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s decision to violate the DNC rules, a decision, again, which was supported by New Hampshire Democrats.

In the past, New Hampshire maintained its discriminatory privilege and dominating role because our party would not take them on and because of the gun that New Hampshire holds to candidates’ heads, insisting that they pledge not to campaign in any state that encroaches on their primary.

Our national party began the process of taking that gun away from the heads of our candidates when we changed the sequence and put New Hampshire third instead of second in the period prior to the opening of the window. The battle that we fought was over the sequence of the primaries and caucuses. New Hampshire either pushing ahead of its assigned position or increasing the distance between its primary and the opening of the window for the rest of the states violates the purpose of the rule.

It was a hard won, albeit partial, victory, allowing our party to better reflect the diversity of America and to begin to inject some fairness in a process for states whose role had been diminished election after election by the dominance of two states.

Michigan Democrats are determined to fight to maintain that victory. We object to your continued silence in the face of New Hampshire’s stated intent to violate the DNC rules. As Chairman of the Democratic Party, you had the obligation to state your intent to apply the rule to New Hampshire Democrats when its Secretary of State announced his intention to move the New Hampshire primary prior to January 19. Selective enforcement of our rules undermines the progress achieved -- to open the process potentially for all states.

We have not seen any public statement from the DNC following New Hampshire’s announcement on August 9 that they would move their primary before January 19 in clear violation of the DNC rules. Your silence in the face of New Hampshire’s action is a stunning contrast to the DNC’s reaction to Florida.

In the face of New Hampshire’s decision to violate the DNC rules and your silence concerning that decision, and given our strong feelings about the need to reform our nominating process to make it fairer, Michigan’s Democratic leadership decided to elect our delegates on January 15, 2008, the date the Michigan legislature set for the Michigan primary. (See attached statement.)

Someone has to take on New Hampshire’s transparent effort to violate the DNC rules and to maintain its privileged position. Hopefully the DNC will, and you will, promptly urge our candidates to stop campaigning in New Hampshire because of the New Hampshire’s expressed intent to violate the DNC rules.

New Hampshire’s gun remains at our candidates’ heads and they fear the repercussions to their campaigns in New Hampshire if they don’t sign the New Hampshire pledge -- dramatic proof, if any more were needed, of the disproportionate impact of the New Hampshire primary.

Maybe Florida will join us if we have to take our case for the seating of our delegates to the Democratic convention in Denver. And maybe Nevada will insist on maintaining the number two position assigned to it. Maybe one or more of our Democratic candidates will join us. In any event, there cannot be one set of rules for New Hampshire and one set for every other state. We are determined that Michigan not be bound by rules that are not effectively enforced against other states.

[madfloridian]

88. MI did move ahead before NH....what is wrong with you.

They did it to goad NH into moving ahead of them.

I leave to others, I am done.

Good by.

[boston bean]

89. Yeah you're done cause you know you are WRONG! you said MI started it they did not

they were going to abide by the schedule until NH decided they didn't want to go after NV.

So just admit you are wrong, wrong, wrong, it's not that hard mad.

[yewberry]

97. You should look at your dates.

Remember that NH didn't move its primary until mid-November and that Michigan's move was in September.

You cannot claim that MI or FL moved their primaries in response to a NH move because NH moved its primary months after they did.

[boston bean]

102. That's funny how come Levin knew well before then?

you folks have got a problem here and rules for some, no rules for others. In actuality all of them broke the rules.

[yewberry]

104. Are you joking?

MI had legislation in the works re: moving their primary ahead of NH's tentative date to Jan 15th in the summer of 2007, and it was signed in September.

For months, there was talk about whether or not NH would move its primary in response to MI. That was why Levin & co sent their letter claiming that NH should be punished even though hadn't moved their primary yet.

In Nov 2007, NH announced that it would move its primary.

[MaineDem]

107. I'm so sick of trying to explain to those who won't pay attention

But I bet you know that feeling.

Cheers!

[madfloridian]

76. I am saying MI started it. I do know the DNC was in touch with NH

but I don't know what was going on in private conversations. NH was not sanctioned for moving ahead of the state who butted them.

[boston bean]

87. Actually no, NH wanted second and moved up their primary date first, then MI

was like, why doesn't NH have to follow the rules. Look up thread for the complete proof of your befuddled mindnumbing wrongness.

[ThatBozGuy]

77. See #57,

[boston bean]

86. NO, see post 84. you are wrong, wrong, wrong, about MI and NH. nt

[MaineDem]

106. MassDem, you're using the Levin/Dingell letter to obtain your facts?

They have as much credibility as Florida's Karen Thurman when it comes to interpreting the rules.

Edited for typo.

[madfloridian]

110. You are so right. They can SAY whatever they want...just like Thurman

but facts still matter.

[calicat]

113. MadFlo despises other Florida Democrats

Why, I'm not sure.

[madfloridian]

114. Well, I see you are pretty new here to make such a rude assessment.

What's the matter, are some Florida leaders feeling discomfort?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

103. As a Floridian - I blame both partys for not being able to work it out....

The state and the federal. The Repubs had this worked out a long time ago - and there is no issue there.

[ProSense]

33. What are they going to decide: that Hillary loses?

Summary of tables (recalculated with new delegate counts) show Obama's delegate lead in every scenario:

Total Delegates: 4048 ** W/o FL & MI - Current Status ** Needed: 2024.5
Pledged Delegates Obama 1415, Clinton 1245
Superdelegates Obama 213, Clinton 248

Total Delegates: 4415 ** With FL & MI included - Results upheld** Needed: 2208
Pledged Delegates Obama 1482, Clinton 1423
Superdelegates Obama 218, Clinton 263

Total Delegates:4415 ** With FL & MI (Obama gets MI 55) ** Needed: 2208
Pledged Delegates Obama 1537, Clinton 1423
Superdelegates Obama 218, Clinton 263

Total Delegates: 4415 ** With MI & FL 50/50 ** Needed: 2208
Pledged Delegates Obama 1565, Clinton 1395
Superdelegates Obama 218, Clinton 263

Total Delegates: 4309.5 ** MI 50/50 FL 1/2 Vote ** Needed: 2155
Pledged Delegates Obama 1415, Clinton 1245
Superdelegates Obama 213, Clinton 248

Total Delegates: 4415 ** FL & MI will Re-Vote ** Needed: 2208
Pledged Delegates Obama 1415, Clinton 1245
Superdelegates Obama 218, Clinton 263

Source: Total and needed delegates

Popular Vote Total
13,281,132 (49.5%)
12,577,409 (46.9%)
Obama +703,523 (+2.6%)

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
13,615,217 49.5%
12,801,470 46.6%
Obama +813,747 (+2.9%)

Popular Vote (w/FL)
13,857,346 (48.5%)
13,448,395 (47.1%)
Obama +408,951 (+1.4%)

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
14,191,431 (48.5%)
13,672,256 46.8%
Obama +519,175 (+1.8%)

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)**
13,857,346 (47.5%)
13,776,704 (47.3%)
Obama +80,642 (+0.2%)

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
14,191,431 (47.6%)
14,000,565 (46.9%)
Obama +190,866 (+0.6)

link



Hillary can't win

[Ravy]

34. Personally, it will hurt Clinton, win or lose, if they rule.

Realistically, she has more to lose from the backlash by superdelegates than she has to gain in pledged delegates from including the two contests...as they stand or with a revote.

Superdelegates know how much support she has in Florida and in Michigan, and are probably considering that in their personal deliberations as to which candidate to support. With a forced revote by the SC, there will be a lot of voters who are outraged at the expense of a second election, hurting her margin of victory in those two states, and perhaps turning them into a loss.

Clinton has a better chance getting the current results in, via the rules committee, or by persuading Superdelegates that even though the delegates are not being seated, that the race is much closer, or even in her favor if the true will of the people is considered.

[IDemo]

37. If it could be said they have "decided" by refusing the case, maybe

I see no reason to believe they would view this case any differently from previous ones, which have repeatedly upheld the right of political parties to make and enforce their own rules as protected by the Freedom of Association in the First Amendment.

-- example:

Although the Supreme Court has not explicitly said that only the party proper, and not individual members of the party, may challenge a state's regulation of a political party's primary, the case law points toward such a result. In Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107, 101 S.Ct. 1010, 67 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981), the Supreme Court upheld a challenge by the national Democratic Party to Wisconsin's election laws. The election laws at issue essentially forced the Democratic Party to seat at their conventions delegates chosen in state selection processes that did not conform to the party's national charter limiting participation in choosing Democratic delegates to members of the Democratic Party. Id. at 109-11, 101 S.Ct. at 1012-14. The Supreme Court held that the Wisconsin election laws unconstitutionally infringed on the Democratic Party's right "to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in the processes leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention." Id. at 122, 101 S.Ct. at 1019.

[madfloridian]

39. Dimaio is starting over. He is amending his suit and heading back to lower court

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dems22mar22,1,977618.story

He wants to get to pick the nominee.

He sure must be rich. :shrug:

[IDemo]

45. madfl, please see the above post.

I'm not concerned about a reversal of Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin, which is essentially what would be required.

[MaineDem]

46. I don't think the USSC will take the case, if it gets that far

They have already ruled that the Parties make the rules regarding primaries.

That being said, I don't have any faith in this Court so anything can happen.

[IDemo]

53. There may be another factor to consider: SCOTUS doesn't want to touch it

From "The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court", by Jeffrey Toobin: the criticism of Bush v. Gore left some of the justices shell-shocked. It was one thing to be called wrong, or even reactionary and right-wing – that was routine – but this time critics went after the justices’ motives and their integrity. The decision was called a sham, a political fix, a putsch.

[Hepburn]

67. What is the basis for SCOTUS to grant cert on either of these cases?

Care to let all of us know?

[Dinger]

70. Well, If Obama Has The Ball Rolling Like "Everybody Says," Then Obama

should say, "O.K., go for it!"

[Poll_Blind]

90. The SCOTUS would NEVER take this case. Primaries have nothing...

..to do with the general election. I can't imagine on what other grounds they'd view the case. Then again, it's early and my coffee hasn't kicked in yet so maybe I'm missing something.

PB

[tammywammy]

111. They wouldn't take the case

Parties have the right to run their primaries as they want.