No Re-Vote In Michigan, Ever?

The state party says the idea is dead...

spokeswoman for the Michigan Democratic Party said the ruling essentially ends any chance of a Democratic do-over election in the state because the judge prohibited the Michigan secretary of state from giving the lists to the parties.

"We need those lists to prevent people who voted in the Republican primary from voting in the Democratic do-over. Those are DNC rules," said spokeswoman Liz Kerr, referring to the Democratic National Committee. "This is basically the final straw in preventing us from having a do-over election."

Actually, the DNC rules don't say that.

Comments

Perhaps not, but Clinton rules do. Who was more likely to vote in the Republican primary, the person whose favored candidate's name was on the Democratic ballot or the person whose favored candidate's name was not? And which candidate gets more support from independents and Republicans generally?

Posted by TH | March 26, 2008 8:23 PM

Was it just Michigan law that would have kept the Republican primary voters from participating, then? I remember reading something about this.

Posted by Anonymous | March 26, 2008 8:31 PM

If the original vote doesn't count, awarded no delegates, is being scrapped, AND is considered unconstitutional, I don't understand why people who participated in it should be barred from voting in a new one. Individuals who voted in the one primary have their votes wiped out of existence; why shouldn't it be considered the same for both primaries?

Still, I'd really like to see a revote in Michigan, and I hope Sen. Obama finds a way to not only support that but pushes to make it happen. The state screwed up earlier (royally), but the party and leaders in the state have been trying their hardest of late to get that corrected and to have a more fair election. That opportunity deserves to happen and Obama should support it.

Posted by jbryan | March 26, 2008 8:41 PM

Correct, the DNC rules dop not say that. And since the judge basically said that the initial primary was invalid, then the voting pattern in that primary is also invalid.

I am sure that Obama would be more than happy to have another primary (it isn't even really a re-vote as the first vote basically didn't happen), particularly if it was open to everyone.

And Clinton shouldn't mind either. I am sure she will get a lot of Limbaugh Republicans coming over.

Of course, since she only wanted a revote after the Wright flap hit the news, and now the Tuzla flap has hit, I can understand why she might be afraid of doing it.

Posted by john m | March 26, 2008 8:50 PM

FYI, here is a link to the DNC Delegate Selection rules.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

Rule 2.e. states:

"No person shall participate or vote in the nominating process for a Democratic presidential
candidate who also participates in the nominating processes of any other party for the
corresponding elections."

Posted by Brian | March 26, 2008 8:58 PM

I am glad that this revote will not happen. It just wouldn't be practical. It's very difficult to organize a just and fair and efficient vote; it's not like it's trivial.

Too often people talk about a revote like it's simply a matter of snapping one's fingers and presto! you have a microwave election.

This primary season already is dragging on too long. MI broke the rules. Their delegates will still be seated once a nominee is arrived at.

In the general election this will not matter one bit. I live in FL and no one...and I mean no one...I know or come across is even the slightest bit upset over the similar situation in FL.

People are too worried about the economy, their homes, gas prices, jobs, getting their loved ones home from Iraq, etc...to worry about this political insider stuff.

Posted by cm | March 26, 2008 9:03 PM

jbryan said, "The state screwed up earlier (royally), but the party and leaders in the state have been trying their hardest of late to get that corrected and to have a more fair election."

And Michigan's Democratic Party continues to screw up. There were three options available for a Do-Over of some sort: Caucus, Mail-in Primary, and "Regular" Primary using state assets. They chose the latter, the one with the most obstacles, the biggest of which being approval in both houses of the state legislature. Based on parliamentary rules, in order to get what is called "immediate effect" so that the primary could be held by the June deadline, the Do-Over bill would have to be passed by two-thirds majority. Not a chance. Most Dems didn't want it. And the Republicans (who also control the Senate) were not about to do the Democrats any favors. Not to mention the hassle for county clerks in printing ballots. And there was no clear way of assuring that the private money would be on hand so that not a dime of state money would have to finance a Primary for a private organization, the Democratic party.

Our party leaders knew all of this...yet they chose it anyway. A caucus would have had the least number of obstacles, but we know that Clinton doesn't like caucuses because she doesn't do well in them. A proposal for a Mail-in caucus or primary was detailed here, but rejected by the Obama campaign as not being "secure." So instead of choosing to negotiate around one of the two more feasible options, state Dem leaders chose the option with the most problems. Which leads me to believe they never intended for a Do-Over to occur. They're still yammering on and on and on about having our delegation seated, despite the fact they broke the DNC rules. They like to call it and act of "civil disobedience" yet they are wholly unwilling to suffer the penalty for their "cause."

Posted by Rich | March 26, 2008 9:41 PM

Brian,

Because of today's decision, no one in Michigan voted in any presidential nominating process. Therefore no need to prevent against any cross-over voting. You simply ask people to sign an affidavit stating that they are "Democrats" and you have them vote.

Posted by dry_fish | March 26, 2008 9:56 PM

Actually, Marc, you're a fat version of Ben Smith.

Go suck on the Clinton teet some more.

Posted by Sally | March 26, 2008 9:57 PM

Marc, I'm an Obama supporter and I renounce and reject Sally's comment. (Sorry Sally, but I don't think Senator Obama would really dig your comment either).

Posted by Beth in VA | March 26, 2008 10:06 PM

I'm going to join Beth in VA. That was a ridiculous comment by Sally. Fortunately, I've heard a rumor that Marc doesn't read the comments, but there is a threshold for common decency, even on the Internet, and that was just way too far.

Posted by Meng Bomin | March 26, 2008 10:39 PM

Again, elections in both Florida and Michigan are subject to approval by the DOJ voter rights division. And yes, primaries are subject to voter rights laws.

This isn't just up to DNC, state parties, Obama or Clinton to decide. The solution has to pass muster with the aggregate of voting rights laws that have been passed. Obama's camp keeps pointing this out (Obama taught voter rights law at UofC) and Clinton's people keep accusing him of stalling or trying to block this every time he brings it up. Voter rights laws *must* be taken into account here. Note:

"(c)(1) The terms "vote" or "voting" shall include all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election, including, but not limited to, registration, listing pursuant to this Act, or other action required by law prerequisite to voting, casting a ballot, and having such ballot counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to candidates for public or party office and propositions for which votes are received in an election."

What is being proposed in both MI and FL is invalidating a subset of *voters* since there was a GOP election on the same day that people chose to participate in and voters were prevented from participating in both. That's a MASSIVE problem that people keep glossing over.

Posted by Martin | March 26, 2008 11:46 PM

We ran a primary in Utah once where our measure to prevent participation in both parties contests was requiring each voter to sign an affidavit promising not to be elected a state delegate at the Republican caucus. They held caucuses that year after we ran the primary.

Posted by Brian Watkins | March 27, 2008 12:18 AM

Here's what Brian said:

Rule 2.e. states:

"No person shall participate or vote in the nominating process for a Democratic presidential
candidate who also participates in the nominating processes of any other party for the
corresponding elections."

I checked his link, and the quote is accurate and is not taken out of context. So let me explain it as it pertains here.

This rule does not require any state to implement any specified process to assure that persons may not vote in both nominating processes, such as by consulting a list. Read it: it applies only to "persons," not to "states." If Michigan makes its best effort to comply with this DNC rule, for example by making people sign a statement saying they didn't vote in the GOP primary, there's no reason under the sun that this rule would bar them from conducting a primary that is fully compliant with DNC rules.

Posted by Trickster | March 27, 2008 12:46 AM

I hope all the Obama supporters realizes how his campaign's antics are alienating Clinton supporters. We Democrats need new primaries in Florida and Michigan. We can't afford to alienate the voters of these two crucial swing states and John McCain will likely be a formidable candidate in both states.

I have a newsflash for Obama supporters: he will not expand the electoral map. The polls and common sense/past history show he won't be able to win states like Kansas, Idaho, Nebraska and the Deep South. No Democrat will. Without Florida and (especially) Michigan, it is impossible for a Democrat to win in November. Therefore, it is vital that we let Michigan and Florida have their say and count the votes of millions of state Democrats.

Posted by Marc | March 27, 2008 1:03 AM

cm said it. There's a reason rules are decided on and agreed to and made public well in advance and fairness requires that everyone be made to stick to them. And as a practical matter, changing the rules and trying to organize elections last minute is a recipe for disaster. Seating the delegates after the nomination is decided is the only solution that is both fair (to everyone) and practical.

Posted by Joseph | March 27, 2008 4:22 AM

I think it's hilarious that Obama supporters keep suggesting that Hillary doesn't want revotes when she keeps asking for them and it's Obama that keeps saying no.

Posted by myiq2xu | March 27, 2008 6:56 AM

Obama has said, repeatedly, "I want the Michigan delegation and the Florida delegation to be seated. And however the Democratic National Committee determines we can get that done, I'm happy to abide by those rules." This is a quote from his interview with Anderson Cooper.

Why should he go out of his way to circumvent the DNC decision that Clinton herself signed onto? The whole affair has been fabricated by Clinton, and it is just another manifestation of her manipulative and deceitful ways. I honestly cannot believe anyone wants another four years of the Clintons, and their maneuverings. The best that can be said of them is that they are unworthy people.

Posted by RCPrice | March 27, 2008 9:42 AM

In a democracy voters should be denied the vote only in very extraordinary circumstances. The Democratic primaries serve more than just the ends of the DNC, they are also part of a public process to elect the President. This is especially true when the party primaries are funded and run by the state government.
"Rules are rules", but boneheaded, anti-democratic rules can be changed and in this case should be changed. Revotes should take place in both Fl and MI.
Is Karl Rove secretly advising the DNC?

Posted by efw | March 27, 2008 10:09 AM

The great irony is MI and FL pulled up their primaries because they didn't want to be left out.

With 6 weeks between the last primaries and PA think how much attention MI and FL would be getting if they had orginally scheduled their primaries for say April 6th.

Posted by Eric k | March 27, 2008 1:12 PM

Obama won't lose Michigan because of this. He'll need to spend more money there than he otherwise would, but no way Michigan goes to the GOP in this year of economic cataclysm. He may not win Florida, but he doesn't really need to. There are a number of other 2004 red states that are ripe for picking by the Democrats, Ohio most prominent of them.

The bottom line is Hillary had her chance, failed to take it, and now the party establishment is in the early stages of shutting this thing down. The Florida and Michigan decisions are a manifestation of this. There's simply no enthusiasm out there for taking actions to preserve Clinton's chances.

All that said, President Obama's first action should be to fire Howard Dean. He's been a disaster.

Posted by Maximom | March 27, 2008 1:52 PM

ALL of the party hack EVIL MORONS in the Michigan regime have failed to pay ANY attention to the "secrecy of the ballot" language in Mich Const Art. II, Sec. 4 --- which makes NO distinction between primary elections and general elections.

I.E. the ENTIRE Michigan 2007 Public Act 52 setting up the 15 Jan 2008 Prez primary is/was blatantly unconstitutional.

ONLY *open* primaries are allowed in Michigan regardless of any national party rules.

Abolish ALL party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions ---

Proportional Representation for all legislative body elections.

NONPARTISAN Approval Voting for all executive / judicial offices.

Way too difficult for party hacks to understand who ONLY play with their party hack rig- the- results machinations.

Posted by Demo Rep | March 28, 2008 2:21 PM