« Obama The Musical | Main | Florida DNC Member: Superdelegates In FL To Count »

Would Bush's Justice Department Have To OK New Florida, Michigan Mail Primaries?

12 Mar 2008 02:29 pm

In order to get them in and have 'em count by June 10, lawyers for Barack Obama say the answer, unequivocally, is yes.

Here's the reasoning: while a federal judge last year upheld the DNC's right to interpret the rules of its own primary -- even if those rules meant the technical disenfranchisement of an entire state of voters -- the ruling did not touch on the form of the election itself.

When a party decides to change its rules in midstream, five counties in Florida and two counties in Michigan must ask the Department of Justice's Voting Section to make sure that the new rules do not violate the rights of any aggreived minorities. Alternatively, they can ask a federal judge to bless the new rules, but that would take, at the very least, six months.

According to the Obama campaign, voting rights act provisions that govern pre-clearance requirements apply to primaries. So the Florida Democratic Party and the Michigan Democratic Party would be required to submit to the Justice Department their vote-by-mail procedures for close inspection.

The politics are oh-so-iffy. The Civil Rights Division of DoJ does not have a gleaming reputation among Democrats. Recall that Hans Von Spakovsky, whose confirmation to the FEC the Democrats are holding up because of his record at the Justice Department, very much set the tone for the type of enforcement that the division has become known for over the fast few years.

"They don't want to have to go to Michael Mukasey and ask him, ask Hans van Spakovsky's voting rights section to make a decision on pre-clearance that could have an enormous ramification for the presidential nomination for the other party," one of Obama's lawyers said. "The party doesn't also want to recognize that the DoJ has any formal regulatory authority."

If the party decides to forgo pre-clearance and decides to take off without permission, well, lawsuits would block its path -- from minority groups worried that the vote-by-mail process would disenfranchise African Americans.

There is political gamesmanship in play as well. New primaries of any sort will undoubtedly decrease the popular vote margin between Obama and Clinton, the superdelegate margin between Obama and Clinton, and the elected delegate margin between the two -- the latter, probably very narrowly. And if the primaries are scheduled in early June, they'll give Clinton the final push of momentum.

A spokesperson for the DNC said the party was aware of the pre-clearance objection and was looking into it.

Aides to Hillary Clinton are, at my request, having lawyers look at the law and when they get back to me, I will get back to you.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/21704

Comments (33)

There is a real easy way to solve this problem.

Refer the case to Judge Colt and his jury of 6.

Get the delegates from both(or more) sides together, give them Colt 45s and do an old fashioned duel.

Let's see whose delegates run off first!

What is wrong with your RSS feed and why is yours the only one at The Atlantic that duplicates its feeds every single day? It'd be great if you would fix this annoyance.

"L[]awsuits would block its path -- from minority groups worried that the vote-by-mail process would disenfranchise African Americans."

Is this just an assertion or do you have any evidence of this? I don't mean to sound accusatory. I'm just thinking this is where your logic may break down.

"New primaries of any sort will undoubtedly decrease the popular vote margin between Obama and Clinton..."

Huh? This possibility is TOTALLY in doubt.

In Florida:
Obama 576,214
Clinton 870,986
Clinton +294,772

That's Obama's floor. He will likely get at least 100,000 more votes. Will Clinton get 150,000 or more to "decrease the popular vote margin"? Unlikely.

In Michigan:
Obama 0
Clinton 328,309
Clinton +328,309

That's Obama's, um, floor. He will likely get at least 400,000 more votes. Will Clinton get 100,000 or more to "decrease the popular vote margin"? Unlikely.

Marc:

You may want to ask why Obama cosponsored a bill mandating state give voters the opportunity to use mail in voting in 2007, because to do otherwise DISENFRANCHISES voters, and now discovers that using the traditional absentee ballot mail in system now threatens chaos.

Link.

I think this is more about an end-run by Clinton of seating the FL and MI 'superdelegates' than it is about ensuring voter rights.

Look at the numbers from 'along' above. Best case scenario for her, we'll have a OH/TX stlye split where she nets another 5-6 delegates which can't bridge the 100+ gap between her and Obama. It's not about the popular vote either, because it will split most of the same way and not enough to save her.

She either wants:
1) to get her unfair landslides from the earlier contests [seating those MI delegates based on a one candidate contest should be unconstitutional on its own]

2) to seat some cronies from FL and MI who were the ones in charge of breaking the rules in the first place

But, sure... it's about the poor 'voters' (200,000 of whom didn't choose a presidential candidate, but did vote on a property tax issue, since they all knew it wasn't counting anyway).

Good grief, prior comment writers! Can't you see that this is a ruse, a simple delaying tactic by the Obama campaign to keep a re-vote from happening?

Obama certainly doesn't want the original votes to count in either state, nor does he want this. The alternatives? Caucuses, which tend to bring out greater numbers of Obama supporters, or nothing at all, which leaves great numbers of Democrats left out of the process.

And ignored in all this is the possible level of non-enthusiasm among voters in these states if they feel they get screwed through no fault of their own (no voter should be punished for the deeds of state or national party leaders). Does the Democratic Party, regardless of who ends up as its nominee, really want to piss off voters in states like Michigan or (shudder!) Florida?

"New primaries of any sort will undoubtedly decrease the popular vote margin between Obama and Clinton, the superdelegate margin between Obama and Clinton, and the elected delegate margin between the two -- the latter, probably very narrowly."

What in the world do you base that on? Why do you keep typing that in? I realize this is your blog and you can type any old crap you want but shouldn't there be some reasoning to what you post? Just asking.

And isn't the real question: Why does obama want to disenfranchise millions of dem voters

You may want to ask why Obama cosponsored a bill mandating state give voters the opportunity to use mail in voting in 2007, because to do otherwise DISENFRANCHISES voters, and now discovers that using the traditional absentee ballot mail in system now threatens chaos.

Just a guess, but it might have something to do with rushing to implement vote-by-mail systems into place in particular states with long histories of electoral misconduct on a six-week timetable. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Does the Democratic Party, regardless of who ends up as its nominee, really want to piss off voters in states like Michigan or (shudder!) Florida?

Dems probably can't win without Michigan -- and fortunately it sounds like a resolution may soon be at hand there. Florida would be nice to have, but I don't think it's going to happen with or without a revote.

So, the candidate from Chicago condemns the BUSH administration, and their tactics ; but isn't above using them for his own political gamesmanshhip ...~~ MEET THE OLD BOSS SAME AS THE OLD BOSS ~~
or is it too late for some people ?? He is not above disenfranchising voters in these two states... when will it be someone else turn ?? if he can do it to them he can do it to YOU .

Just a guess, but it might have something to do with rushing to implement vote-by-mail systems into place in particular states with long histories of electoral misconduct on a six-week timetable. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Just a guess on my part as well , but I would venture that the real reason had more to do with the fact that he lost so badly there ...because the original election in Florida was completely legal.
~~MEET THE NEW BOSS " OBAMA" SAME AS THE OLD BOSS ~~ is also the original and just as true

Hope cannot be engaged or sustained without truth, it can only be feigned

Clinton folks love to claim hypocrisy or a lack of consistency, two pretty low level forms of argumentation, and they get there by oversimplifying the argument and then countering it with another oversimplified version.

You can see that above with the "but Obama wanted vote by mail in federal law so he's a jerk now for not wanting it in Florida." As another commenter pointed out, it's a very different thing to adopt vote by mail in a careful and deliberate way and another to rush it into place in a state that has had, let us say, serious problems with implementing fair voting systems.

Of course pointing this out will do nothing to stop this commenter or others of his or her ilk from repeating the same absurd argument.

If the democratic party doesn’t understand why votes count, in Florida no less, then we are truly, truly lost. Do we need Jimmy Carter to come and oversee elections in THIS country now? What the hell!?!

I don’t care what Florida’s republican politicians did to tick off the DNC. I don't care what any politicians did to tick off the DNC. Voters deserve to have their votes counted. That's the cornerstone of democracy. And what a pathetic way to rationalize giving Obama an advantage - not counting votes in Florida. Where have I heard this before?!?

I wish Al Gore would jump in and take charge of this issue. He may be the only person with the credibility and neutrality to resolve this situation.

Besides, do you think voters in Florida and Michigan are going to be fine with being disenfranchised and vote for either democrat? Can we PLEASE stop shooting ourselves in the foot and savaging our own party and principles?!?

I’m starting to think McCain deserves to win if Democrats are this hopelessly stupid and lost.

Just a guess on my part as well , but I would venture that the real reason had more to do with the fact that he lost so badly there ...because the original election in Florida was completely legal.

Completely legal, maybe, but still against party rules.

However, interspersing Who lyrics surrounded by tildes is totally a legit, effective internet debating tactic, and I shall start using it promptly. ~~~~~WON't GET FOOLED AGAIN YAHHHHHHHHH!!!!~~~~~

Jeff: 1, Everyone Else: 0.

The DNC is to blame for how they dish out justice, if you call it that!

You don't throw all of a companies employees in jail for something the executives did wrong and let the executives off without nothing.

That's some kind of messed up justice!

So, at your request Clinton's people are looking into this issue. So... do you work for her or are you just pro-Clinton. Sure sounds like a lot of bias coming through in what you wrote. Let's take the facts and present them so they sound like Obama is trying to disenfranchise voters. Not especially subtle there.

Obama has said he would abide by what is fair. He isn't coming out to try and pressure the DNC into something that favors him. He isn't trying to manipulate the rules and press for ways to steal the election. Obama is, again, taking the high road. Stating that what is fair should be done.

Accepting the selected slate of pledged delegates is not just unfair, it is also ridiculous. Hilarious, just hillaryous. FL had the lowest democratic voter turnout recorded across all the state's primaries. That is because dems stayed home.

Get your facts straight and your biases in hand. Reporters are turning partison within the democratic party faster than superdelegates.

Divide up and seat the pledged delegates evenly and strip all the superdelegates that caused this mess. That would be fair. Make the cause of this fiasco pay the price.

Democrats leaders from Michigan and Florida had better move fast to come up with a solution that appears somewhat fair. Otherwise, come November they will be about as popular in the party as Ralph Nader is.

Divide the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama. It is outrageous that these two states who were determined to jump the line to gain some advantage over voters in the other 48 states now get to make some critical, high-stakes decision in this race. Give them representatives but make certain it doesn't alter the results.

Frank says: "I think this is more about an end-run by Clinton of seating the FL and MI 'superdelegates' than it is about ensuring voter rights."

There's no question about it. She has gone on record in Nov. or Dec. 2007 to say it was simply a beauty contest and the votes WILL NOT count. Suddenly now that her "inevitability" status has evaporated she's concerned about voter rights.

Hillary has been saying since Jan 25 (four days before the FL primary) that she supports seating the FL delegates. It is Obama who called the Fl primary a 'beauty contest' (and who chose to take his own name off the ballot in MI, and is now complaining that he wasn't on the ballot!).

Obama is beginning to look like Bush 2000 - trying to run out the clock to prevent Florida votes from being counted. This suggests that he thinks he still can't improve his count there, even with the re-do he has been whining for.

The people to blame are Brazile and Dean of the DNC. It was the GOP FL legislature that set the date of the FL primary, over the protests of the FL Dems. Brazile chose to punish the Dems for the GOP action! This will only encourage other GOP legislatures to try similar mischief.

That's Obama's floor. He will likely get at least 100,000 more votes. Will Clinton get 150,000 or more to "decrease the popular vote margin"? Unlikely.

Um, do you have any proof of this, or did you just pull it out of your butt?

Florida is very Latino, very Jewish, and very old. This looks to me like prime Clinton country. Given the highly motivated nature of Obama's shock troops, and the vigorous surrogate campaign in Florida being run on his behalf, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if, proportionally, more natural Obama than Clinton supporters got to the polls in Florida the first time around.

I likes Hillary's chances for a rematch in Florida very much.

It will provide Hillary the perfect momentum booster heading into Denver.

Suddenly now that her "inevitability" status has evaporated she's concerned about voter rights.

And suddenly now that he realizes he's in a knife fight for his political life, Obama's all about vote suppression.

Given the highly motivated nature of Obama's shock troops

Godwin's Law, comments over, everybody loses.

Of course, what Maximom didn't mention was the huge property tax measure on the ballot, so lots and lots of parties -- particularly older demographics with interests in property -- were plenty motivated to turn out for an election that coincided with a primary that didn't matter.

Yeah, Hillary will probably win Florida, but there are plenty of reasons to think that turnout among probama demographics was artificially low last time around.

...but there are plenty of reasons to think that turnout among probama demographics was artificially low last time around.

But naturally you don't list any.

Just for you, friend, here's one: African-Americans make up 16% of the population of Florida, but were only 17% of the Democratic primary electorate. It's quite rare for those two percentages to be so close -- normally African-Americans make up much more of the primary electorate than would be expected from a 1:1 correspondence to the larger population.

But I'm not backing up any more of my arguments until you back up at least one of yours ;)

What I wonder is why we didn't hear the voters of FL and MI crying "FOUL!" when their states originally moved up their primaries? Or when the DNC warned them of the consequences? Or when they gleefully ran to their voting booths ahead of schedule? None of this was a big media deal then to them. It became a big deal when HRC made it a big deal. Why? Because she's losing, desperate, and using every dirty tactic her unorganized campaign staff can spit out in between negative attacks. Obama and HRC BOTH signed an agreement not to campaign there..and acknowledged that those delegates wouldn't be seated.

Can any of you honestly tell me that HRC would still be doing any of this complaining if she was in the lead? She doesn't care about FL and MI..and those states need to stop acting like she does. She's on a power trip that's short-circuited her brain. She needs to accept her loss so the Democratic party can go about healing this country of all the damage Bush and Cheney have done.

1. These states broke the rules so their votes shouldn't count. The voters in those states should take that up with their own elected officials who messed this up.

2. If a revote is to happen, the states that messed up need to pay for it. The legislatures who voted for the earlier beauty contest need to find a way to cover the cost -- not the DNC, not private donors, and certain not the Clinton or Obama campaigns.

3. If the taxpayers in FL and MI have a problem with #2, then see point #1.

4. Even if you have a revote, strip those states of any superdelegates who voted in favor (or signed into law) the early primaries. They should be punished, regardless of what (if anything) can be done to fix things now.

"And suddenly now that he realizes he's in a knife fight for his political life, Obama's all about vote suppression."

Maximom - Looking at the numbers, its Hillary with the knife between her ribs, bleeding dry. She's just hoping to stay in the fight long enough to do the same to Obama before McCain really starts sparring.

This is true for Florida, but to my knowledge, no parts of Michigan are covered by the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

- RK Ref

This is true for Florida, but to my knowledge, no parts of Michigan are covered by the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

- RK Ref

This is true for Florida, but to my knowledge, no parts of Michigan are covered by the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

- RK Ref

(Sorry for the triple post - technical difficulties!)

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.