Superdelegates From Florida, Michigan May Be Seated

I've been reporter-skeptical of the fits and starts and floated "compromises" to seat half delegations and half superdelegations, and seat one Dingell and not the other and half the UAW and not the NEA or whatever... but there is one rules challenge in particular that may well, by the middle of next month, lead to the acceptance of Florida and Michigan superdelegates no matter what happens with regard a primary re-vote in either state.

Last week, DNC member Jon Ausman filed a petition with the party's rules and bylaws committee pointing out that the charter of the DNC uses the verb "shall" when describing the relationship between superdelegates and the convention, as in -- superdelegates "shall" be seated. The argument, basically, is that the charter supercedes any penalty imposed by the RBC. The counterarguement is that the verb "shall" is later qualified.

The 28 members of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws committee may well decide that the challenge has validity and may well decide to seat the superdelegates from Florida, and then, should there be a similar petition from Michigan, the superdelegates from Michigan.

There are Obama supporters on the RBC (Carol Khare Fowler) and there are Clinton supporters on the RBC (Harold Ickes), but the members of the committee have a reputation for looking at these things with a clear tablet.

What This Isn't

This ISN'T a compromise sanctioned by or floated by a campaign. Ausman was a Kucinich supporter. This DOESN't resolve the question of the earned or pledged delegates. The RBC might well decide that the challenge is NOT valid. And even a valid challenge can be appealed to the credentials committee in July.

Comments

So it's a matter of what the definition of "shall" is?

Hilarious.

Posted by AKBY | March 17, 2008 1:58 PM

After extensive research and much in depth consultation with officials from all three sides of the fence, I believe I have come up with the one clear, pure, true,and "beautiful" (as those eggheads love to say) solution.

I have dubbed it THE FINAL SOLUTION.

It involves taking the Short, Stuttering, Sputtering, Screeching, Screaming, Chairman of the DNC, putting him in A BURLAP SACK, securing it tightly, finding A HIGH BRIDGE over a SWIFT FLOWING BODY OF WATER, then heaving his FAT STUPID ASS into eternity.

Posted by robert ethan | March 17, 2008 1:59 PM

and then again, they may well NOT. It will not go unremarked that the very people responsible for both FL and MI flouting the DNC rules are... wait for it... the SUPERDELEGATES themselves. Don't you imagine that fact SHALL weigh heavily in the deliberations?

Posted by along | March 17, 2008 2:34 PM

If the DNC validates Ausman's interpretation of the charter, and seats the Florida and Michigan superdelegates, wouldn't those states become entitled to voting representation on the credentials committee -- which would affect the balance of power there, and make it more likely the credentials committee could eventually be pushed into seating the rest of the FL and MI delegates, to the benefit of Clinton? So the idea that this challenge is nominee-agnostic is not quite right.

Posted by TKD | March 17, 2008 2:43 PM

why spend tens of millions in costs of running two new primaries and also in over the top campaigning costs? This money can be better used in the general. After all is said and done all this money will net someone 10 delegates. Why not just seat the delegations and split them 50/50. Then let the superdelegates vote as well....per current endorsements this would net Hillary more than a 20 vote gain in supers. This makes sense and would be a fine gesture on the part of Senator Obama.

Posted by itsgary | March 17, 2008 2:57 PM

It would have been nice if Jon Ausman had thought of this back in 2007.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | March 17, 2008 3:21 PM

All this talk of 50-50 splits reminds me of when people used to think the resolution for Florida in 2000 was for Gore and Bush to sit down and hash it out. Like then, any solution to today's problem that does not respect the voters of those states is bad practice for the democratic party and will hurt the legitimacy of the eventual victor.

Regardless of what the (leadership-challenged) DNC chairman eventually adopts (or is pushed into), it should show that the candidate is more than just the person that convinced enough Iowa delegates to change their minds in the third stage of the caucus process.

Posted by Richard | March 17, 2008 8:47 PM

Harold Ickes will undoubtedly vote against the petition, explaining that there are pledged delegates and automatic delegates; there is no such thing as a superdelegates and it is therefore a moot point!

Posted by B Mozaffari | March 17, 2008 10:14 PM

Well, let's see...

1. I voted
2. According to democracy my vote counts.
3. People should have realized that note voted meant keeping your mouth shut and not being able to complain. Instead of saying "it doesn't count" and staying home, they should have taken 30 minutes to drive to a polling place and cast their opinion. They should have researched the candidate they were interested in before voting too.
4. Thank God for the superdelegates, hopefully they will realize Obama is in conjunction with Nation of Islam. He's embraced them. They're on his campaign staff. Look out.
5. I hope voters pay attention and realize this when they vote in the future primaries.
6. All voting should be primaries and not anything else. A caucus isn't really fair.
7. If we used winner take all, like the GOP nomination AND THE GENERAL ELECTION, Hillary would be so far ahead Obama would be a passing thought in the rear view.

That's how it is. Sorry if Obama supporters don't like it, but that's how it is.

Posted by Brian C. | March 18, 2008 10:19 AM

Good for you Brian C. There are obviously millions of us out here that agree. Democracy means we vote and say what goes on, not a bunch of over inflated egoistic blowharts. We vote, it counts,and everybody lives with the results. If the DNC hadn't played around with delegates and districts it would still stand that the person who won the state gets the delegates. This totally unfair stysem of black districts get more delegates is totally unamerican. They want equality then lets treat them equally for a change. Your also right about caucauses. They do not represent the will of the whole state. There again the blowharts are the ones that don't think it's worth funding a primary so this is what the idiots came up with. And besides there have been unbelievable complaints from people who were at cacuses and said the cheating was unrelentless. Complaints of no one checking ID's to no one knowing how many times people filled in the paperwork to reports of Obama people hauling in homeless people and offer them a meal if they vote for him. People claim they complained and were told by people running the caucuses that they didn't want to be there all night so this is how they were going to conduct it. You do know that first to show up can run the show if they want. There is no organization at all. So why has no one questioned or checked into why he wins all caucuses?

Posted by Janice Cooper | March 20, 2008 1:52 PM

The end of the Democratic Party altogether if they refuse to respect the voters of Florida.... No credible candidate can come from and any institution that does not respect the will of the electorate.

Posted by Renee Norton | March 22, 2008 1:16 PM

Brian C and Janice Cooper:

You say you voted and that your vote should count. You then go on to say that caucuses are unfair and that all votes should be in primaries.

But then you support superdelegates. One delegate reflects the view of hundreds or thousands of voters. A superdelegate reflects the view of one person. So 400 superdelegates sitting in a room can negate the votes of the entire California primary. But that's fair in BrianWorld.

The general election does NOT use "winner take all". Have you ever heard of the "faithless electors"? The Electoral College determines the vote of a state, and they are not legally bound to vote foir the winner in their state.

Hillary has played by the same rules that Biden, Dodd, Edwards, and Obama did. Hillary knew that there would be primaries as well as caucuses. She was just simply unable to win enough caucuses and primaries. The rules of the Democratic Party were set up and are known well in advance. Obama apparently did his homework, organized early, won most of the contests and has the most delegates today after roughly 40 states have voted. The person with the most delegates at the end of all the voting is the winner. Tomorrow, who knows who that might be? Today, that person is Barack Obama.

Maybe caucuses are unfair. Maybe the system should be changed. But the rules in 2008 are what they are, and Obama is ahead under those rules.

If Clinton supporters do not like this, they may petition to get the rules changed for 2012 or 2016. They can organize better next time around, prepare better next time around, actually know the rules of the contests they engage in. It is pretty embarrassing to win in places like Nevada and Texas, and fall behind in the delegate count because of a failure to follow-up or understand the rules. Obama actually took more delegates out of Texas and out of Nevada then Clinton, despite trailing in both voting contests.
Obama tends to win the caucuses because his forces are better-organized, better-trained, more motivated, and KNOW THE RULES better than the Clinton people.

I am not aware of black districts getting more delegates than other districts, but I'm sure that explains the Obama victories in Iowa, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Delaware. I guess we have to give credit to those sneaky, conniving Black people in Kansas and Nebraska and Montana and Utah too.

Clinton supporters may have some valid gripes about the election process. Many Democrats, including Obama supporters, will likely agree with her. But it is too late for Clinton in 2008; she has lost. Your options are to support the Democratic nominee who will NOT be Hillary Clinton, vote McCain, vote third party, or stay home.

I'm not a Democrat, and am not likely to vote for either Democrat, but Hillary Clinton and her team were just plain out-hustled, out-witted, out-worked, out-funded, and out-smarted by Barack Obama and his team. THAT'S how it is.

Posted by Dave the Libertarian | March 28, 2008 1:14 PM

GOD DAMN FLORIDA!

They would never vote Democratic anyway.

Posted by Jeremiah Wright | March 28, 2008 1:16 PM

Relative to Michigan and Florida being stripped of delegates, I think it's important to know what happened, and that every voter in Michigan and Florida should be outraged. Back in 2005 the DNC set-up a commission to review our nominating process because Iowa and New Hampshire are no longer representative of our diverse population. The DNC looked to push NH back to a third place status instead of its usual second. On August 19, 2006, the DNC presented this calendar:

• 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 afterward beginning February 5,2008.

Michigan and other states agreed to honor this new calendar as long as New Hampshire or any other state didn't violate the order. New Hampshire has a stronghold on their number two position and is unwilling to relinquish it. So on August 9, 2007, NH's Secy. of State along with the approval of NH Democrats announced its primary date to be January 19th, edging Nevada out of that position to maintain NH's number two spot. The DNC did absolutely nothing.

All bets were off so Florida announced its primary before February 5th. The DNC immediately threatened to strip their delegates. This is pretty lopsided justice. Michigan’s Democratic leadership then decided to elect our delegates on January 15, 2008, the date the Michigan legislature set for the Michigan primary. Sen. Levin and Debbie Dingell sent a letter to the DNC on September 4, 2007 of our intent to do so and why.

If the DNC didn't confront NH they have no business stripping Michigan or Florida either. As a result of this mess, Senator Nelson (D-FL) has introduced S.2024, a bill that Senator Levin (D-MI) co-sponsored. This legislation groups states into six specific regions, and determines six separate primary election dates, where one state from each region would be assigned to vote. This would be more representative of a random sample of states rather than the influence of the same specific region every election.

What's interesting is NH has the audacity to insist that candidates pledge not to campaign in any state that encroaches on their primary. Clinton didn't cave on that warning, and won NH anyway.

http://www.michigandems.com/Levin-Dingell%20Letter.pdf

Posted by Valeria Rogers | April 25, 2008 6:12 PM