At Large Precincts In Nevada

I've been following Jon Ralston's subscription-only coverage of the last-minute lawsuit against the concept of at-large precincts in the Nevada caucuses and I don't know how it will end.

When all the candidates (and their supporters in Nevada) weren't sure who'd get the endorsement of the Culinary Workers' union, no one objected to the creation of special at-large worksite precincts for them. Remember: MLK weekend is one of the busiest for Las Vegas and a lot of caucusing Culinary workers will be at their jobs on the strip.

But as soon as the Culinary Workers endorsed Barack Obama, opponents seem to have suddenly recognized that creating special precincts for a small group of Nevadans is undemocratic.

Further, the lawsuit seems to have brought real fissures between the Culinary Workers and other liberal interest groups in Nevada to the fore. The chairman of the Clark County Democratic Party called the head of the CW a "bully." Other unions are complaining about special treatment. Other Democrats are going to out of their way to claim that the Culinary Workers are less powerful than they claim.

Comments

Nevada is shaping up to take a sledgehammer to the Dem field. Edwards nearly tied for first? Will we see three different winners?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 14, 2008 5:41 PM

Hmm.. the rules are the rules.. i actually dislike unions and from what I have read, it seems like this caucus should be called the Culinary Workers Union Caucus, but with that said.. the teachers union and other unions should have known about this when they agreed to the set up. The fact they are crying about it now just makes them look like whiners.

I still don't understand how Caucuses are constitutional, and why primaries aren't mandatory. Indicating your preference in public seems so Stalinesque. .

Posted by michellecasabas | January 14, 2008 6:04 PM

It will end exactly like the Florida suit - the state has no power to compel parties in any way regarding their nomination process.

Posted by Anonymous | January 14, 2008 6:05 PM

Marc, from a Las Vegas educator:

Today a group of about 15 schoolteachers published a letter denouncing their union's lawsuit against the caucus setup.

The teachers' union main argument is that school staff are disadvantaged b/c they can't get to their caucuses on a Saturday, when schools are closed.

My son is a first-grader in a local public school here in Vegas, so I called up the vice principal and asked about it. She said no staff worked on Saturday normally. But our school will be a caucus site, so some staff will be on hand. But they are permitted to attend their own caucus if they wish - with pay - "of course" as she put it.

This lie is so amateurish that nobody here is fooled. The Culinary head is not a "bully" - he is right on target. I really hope this topic comes up tomorrow night at the debate, although I'm sure the Clark County and Nevada Dems will stack the audience with Hillary-bots who will mindlessly boo anyone who criticizes her, as they did last November at the UNLV debate.

I am a Democrat who was perfectly willing to vote for whoever became the nominee, but am now so disgusted with the Clintons that I will not only vote against them, but will actively work for their defeat in the general. And I am far from alone.

BillB

Posted by BillB | January 14, 2008 8:31 PM

LOL, BillBully. You mean to tell us your brother never pushed you around when you guys were growing up? He is just "misunderstood", I bet.

Posted by robert ethan | January 14, 2008 8:37 PM

Marc -

This issue is devastating...the nevada media is covering it pretty heavily (whereas teh national media is ignoring it). IF Obama wins BECAUSE Hillary tried to disenfranchise voters and there was a backlash....then that's a big story coming out of Nevada...Voters reject Clinton slime tactics is the headline...

Posted by Paul | January 14, 2008 9:19 PM

The media will probably be preoccupied with the fact that The Juice is back in the slammer in Vegas. Politics is pretty far down the feeding list in Nevada.

Posted by robert ethan | January 14, 2008 10:05 PM

typicsl clinton supporter comment Robert Ethan

only "YOU" are clever - just like your candidate

People know when they are being "used" -- you'll realize this at some point

Posted by winnie | January 14, 2008 10:54 PM

Marc,

By the way, if you are reading Ralston's blog you should also check out his TV show, "Face to Face". Tonight he had on John Hunt, chair of the Clark County Dems, and proponent of the caucus lawsuit; and, D. Taylor, head of the Culinary 226.

Ralson absolutely barbequed Hunt, IMO, and justifiably so. It was quite a performance. Check it out. There should be a link from Ralston's site.

Bill B.

Posted by BillB | January 14, 2008 11:22 PM

The fix is in by the Culinary Union, say other unions in Nevada. This from the L.A. Times on Monday:

The Nevada State Education Assn., which has not endorsed a candidate, filed suit late Friday, saying the casino caucuses provided an unfair advantage to the Culinary Workers. Officials in other unions, while not joining in the suit, denounced the process -- some in virulent terms.

"The deck is stacked in Vegas. The fix is in," said Rick Sloan, communications director for the International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which has endorsed Clinton. By holding caucuses in hotel casinos, "they specially invite all the casino workers to participate. They didn't mention the workers at McCarren," Las Vegas' airport where the machinists union dominates. "They didn't mention the post office. Or the workers at other sites" where unions have backed Clinton.

Posted by HR | January 15, 2008 5:12 AM

The lawsuit filed by Clinton allies in Nevada against planned "at-large" caucusing Jan. 19 on the Las Vegas Strip is beginning to look a lot like voter suppression. As we know, the plan was drawn up and approved unanimously early last year by the Nevada Democratic Party leadership, with input from the presidential campaigns, to enable caucusing by Strip workers unable to leave work to caucus in their home precincts. Indeed the plan's creators include several of those who are now plaintiffs against it. What changed their minds? Barack Obama's endorsement Jan.9 by the 60,000-member Las Vegas Culinary Workers' Union changed their minds. When the plan was approved, Hillary Clinton was presumed to be the "inevitable" Democratic frontrunner. Iowa changed all that, and Obama's subsequent endorsement by the culinary workers has brought a Clinton win in Nevada into serious question. Since it is largely members of this union who would be caucusing in the casinos, the plan is clearly no longer in Clinton's best interests. Hence the lawsuit against the plan, filed just two days after the Obama endorsement and scarcely a week before the caucus by Clinton allies from the leadership of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), on the grounds that it would be unfair to workers in other areas. Why didn't they think it was unfair earlier? After all, the plan was approved nearly a year ago in the very name of fairness, to enable participation by those who would otherwise be unable to caucus. The answer is simple: Because the lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness, and everything to do with stacking the deck in favor of Hillary Clinton. The Clintons themselves are not official parties to the suit, but both Hillary and Bill Clinton have spoken in support of it despite the fact that their campaign and others were included in the at-large caucus plan from its inception. They, like their friends in the NSEA, have had more than ample time to consider and reconsider the plan, but appear to have deemed it unfair only since the culinary workers endorsed Obama. While the judge in this case obviously has every reason in the world to throw it out of court, I don't expect that even if it prevails the culinary workers will allow it to prevent their members' caucusing. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to see chartered buses from the union shuttling members between the Strip and their home precincts to caucus, a lot of pressure on Strip employers to comply, and a lot of anger at the Clintons and their allies for this seedy attempt to change the rules at the last minute. The whole affair seems likely indeed to do the Clintons far more harm than good in Nevada; and as we know, what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas.

Posted by Mark C. Eades | January 15, 2008 3:12 PM