Some Florida Delegates Could Be Seated

Here's what's happening.

Remember the Ausman challenge? Well, there are actually two Ausman challenges -- one regarding Florida's superdelegates, and one regarding the ability of the party's rules and bylaws committee to penalize an entire delegation.

Sources close to the DNC's rules and bylaws committee say that the Ausman challenges WILL be heard -- and that if the votes are there, some Florida delegates could be seated -- temporarily -- by the end of April. (The seating would likely be appealed to the credentials committee, but we'll cross that suspension bridge when we pay the toll for it.)

"Democrats in Florida should rest assured that we are all working .... to find a solution that will result in a delegation at the DNC and there will be no empty chairs on the floor in Denver," DNC chairman Howard Dean said today.

The Ausman challenge does not apply to Michigan, a state where Barack Obama removed himself from the ballot.

In a statement, the Clinton campaign had kind words for DNC chairman:

"We have long maintained that pretending the voters of Florida and Michigan don’t exist is not fair in principle and unwise in practice. This morning’s Quinnipiac poll out of Florida reflects the urgent need for Democrats to get behind our effort to count Florida’s voters and seat its delegation at the convention. Chairman Dean is clearly committed to seating the Florida delegation and we urge Senator Obama to join us in calling on the rules and bylaws committee to make this a reality."

Comments

The earlier post on this matter could have just as easily been entitled "Dean Meets With Florida Delegation - Expect A DISjointed Statement".

Which is exactly what we got. Dean CLEARED UP NOTHING, and the MESS REMAINS AS IT WAS.

Par for the course for the LOOPY LEFTY CROWD running the DNC ship onto the rocks.

AGAIN.

Posted by robert ethan | April 2, 2008 3:20 PM

Re: Obama "removed himself" from Michigan ballot. Didn't he do so to honor an agreement among all the major candidates to not participate in the Michigan primary, since the DNC had ruled that it would not count? And didn't Hillary break that agreement by failing to remove her name from the ballot, thereby "participating" in the invalid primary? And weren't there Democrats who didn't vote in the invalid primary, because they were assured by the DNC that it wouldn't count? And Hillary is now demanding that the results of the invalid, one-sided, undemocratic primary be honored?

Posted by TKD | April 2, 2008 3:55 PM

Actually no. He removed his name along with John Edwards because they didn't want to lose the "beauty contest" and give Clinton momentum.

Posted by Caleb | April 2, 2008 4:09 PM

You mean, they (Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden) removed their names to avoid having Clinton falsely claim momentum on the basis of votes cast in a non-compliant primary. Which again means that they honored their commitment to not participate in the primary, while Clinton did not. And then she turned around and demanded that the results of the bogus balloting be counted for determining the nomination.

Posted by TKD | April 2, 2008 4:19 PM

Did Obama also agree to not 'participate' in Florida? Just wondering - because Obama left his name on the ballot in Florida. I'm sincerely unclear about that ...

Posted by sbj | April 2, 2008 5:05 PM

Could someone clarify this for me? Ambinder surely didn't...

They aren't going to seat and appropriate Florida based on their fake primary, are they? Simply because Obama was on that ballot? That would set a dangerous precedent: "If we rule a primary invalid, but you keep your name on it, it will later be ruled valid."

sbj - I've also long been puzzled as to why the candidates didn't also remove their names from Florida. Maybe it's because Florida was two weeks later in the process?

Posted by socctty | April 2, 2008 5:29 PM

It is my understanding that Florida law actually PREVENTED the candidates from removing their names from the ballot (even though Obama et. al. wanted to).

Posted by Dan | April 2, 2008 5:44 PM

Obama and Hillary Clinton signed a document, agreeing that the Florida and Michigan primaries would not count. This was on TV a few days ago. Now that she's losing she wants to change the rules.

Posted by T9600 | April 2, 2008 5:46 PM

socctty:

My real point regarding the Florida ballot was to poke fun at TKD. He claims that Obama took his name off the MI ballot because he promised to not 'participate' there. Since Obama also promised to not 'participate' in Florida (I'm guessing?) this puts the lie to TKD's point.

It's obvious to me, as it was obvious to everyone else at the time (kos included), that Obama et al took their names off the MI ballot not because they had to but because they were pandering to voters and leaders in Iowa and NH. And that's okay ... but it's not okay to rewrite history to make your candidate seem righteous.

I don't believe these challenges have anything to do with MI merely because this Ausman fellow is a citizen of Florida. It doesn't have anything to do with a name on a ballot. Someone from MI would have to challenge ... but I am also unclear as to what Marc is saying here. My guess is that he is referring to FL super delegates. My opinion is that they will be seated because Dean violated the DNC charter when he penalized FL and excluded the super delegates. He clearly can't do this. So this should give Hill an even greater lead in SDs.

But I also am not clear as to what Marc is saying so perhaps he will further clarify ... ?

Posted by sbj | April 2, 2008 5:55 PM

The Republican controlled Florida legislature voted to move the primary date to January 29th and Florida's Republican govenor went along with it. I wonder if this wasn't by design to dis-enfranchise Florida's Democratic voters and create discord within the Democratic Party.
As a registered Florida Democrat I resent the party's stand on this issue. I visited the DNC website and in the comments section politely told them that I would contriburte no money to either the party or the candidates unless and until the Florida delegates are seated. I get solicitations for money from the party and return it in the postpaid envelop with a big "0" and a note telling them that no money will be contributed unless and until the delegates are seated. I wonder if a lot of other Florida Democrats are doing the same thing. Perhaps this is the real reason for their taking a second look at this issue.

Posted by RPT47 | April 2, 2008 9:26 PM

RPT47: The Democrats in Florida's legislature voted nearly unanimously to move up Florida's primary date. If you look around, such as on the Daily KOS site, you will find videos of the FL minority leader actually joking and laughing at flaunting the DNC rules.

And if the current vote counts for anything, then there will be just as many FL voters angry and withdrawing support from the party. Remember, there were many many voters who would have voted but had been told this primary would not count for anything.

So to make this phony primary count for anything would be an utter slap in the face to millions of FL voters.

Posted by cm | April 2, 2008 9:31 PM

Long maintained except when they explicitly didn't. Perhaps HRC was under sniper fire when she misspoke about MI & FL not counting. That'll rattle anyone!

Posted by Jay | April 2, 2008 10:38 PM

My opinion is that they will be seated because Dean violated the DNC charter when he penalized FL and excluded the super delegates. He clearly can't do this. So this should give Hill an even greater lead in SDs.

No, these are the pledged delegates. The DNC, including reps from both campaigns agreed to the penalty well in advance of the vote. What Ausman challenged, I believe, is the DNC's right to do that because the rules, as written, suggest the worst penalty would be a loss of 50% of their delegates.

Should the Ausman challenge prevail, the outcome would likely be a loss of delegates between 30% and 50% from my reading of the rules.

Michigan's more of a dilemma, because Obama wasn't on the ballot at all. And yes, like most of the Dem candidates, he agreed not to campaign in either state, he would have removed his name from both ballots, but Florida's rules prevented him from doing that.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | April 3, 2008 12:10 AM

It's disheartening that Team Obama is still putting out so much misinformation about FL and MI and their supporters and the press continually repeat these falsehoods.

The DNC did not have the candidates sign any agreement. The DNC wrote the rules which the candidates are bound to follow.The signed pledge (actually pledges as there are 4 versions) were written by the party chairs of IA, NH, SC and NV to protect the special status of their early primaries. none of these are binding or effects what the DNC does.The pledge stated that candidates promise not to campaign in states that violate DNC timing rules.

The DNC (nor the pledges) requested or commanded that any candidates remove their names from the ballots. To suggest that this is why Obama removed his name and that Hillary is a cheat for not removing her name is an out and out lie. If this was true his name would have been removed from Florida as well.

MI party leaders begged not to remove his name from the ballot as the primary will proceed and it will send a very negative message to the record number of MI voters expected to participate. Obama removed his name to court favor with Iowa Party leaders who have a powerful influence in the caucuses. It was a political risk as there was ALWAYS a possibility that the MI delegates would eventually be seated. This risk paid off handsomely in Iowa, the nations first contest.

The DNC rules along with the MI Primary rules both state that it is the responsibility of a candidate to put (and keep) their names on the ballot. If Edwards and Kucinich didn't drop out when they did there would have been several contests where their name wasn't on the ballot as they did not meet petitioning or other requirements. Obama's name WAS on the MI ballot and then he chose to remove it for his own political strategy not because of anything the DNC had requested.

Yes it's frustrating for MI supporters of Obama to not have his name on the ballot. However that is the fault of the campaign not MI not the DNC. If we strictly follow the rules which is what Obama keeps invoking in his effort to disenfranchise two states he knows he would lose, the choice of a candidate to remove their names from a ballot does not impact the legitimacy of the contest.

Obama's Michigan strategy helped him win Iowa so he should suck it up and stop trying to disenfranchise the delegation of a state we need to win in November.

Posted by jon winkleman | April 3, 2008 8:20 AM

krhc imrvah csixhgp btxauqid fnzeptubm pkblwxsr cdkhzxru

Posted by fjysi rpocgki | June 19, 2008 5:55 PM