The Politico v. The DNC -- Why I Think The DNC's Interpretation Is Correct.

For those of you following this arcane but potentially important debate, here's why I think the DNC is right.

Here's Rule 20:

Standing committee members selected pursuant to a Plan found in non-compliance by the RBC shall not be included on the membership roster by the DNC Secretary nor shall those individuals be allowed to participate as members at the standing committee meeting

What the rules and bylaws committee of the party has always interpreted this passage to mean is that members of the Florida standing committee group can't vote on matters related to Florida and that members of Michigan's standing committee group can't vote on Michigan matters.

But Michigan DOES get to weigh in on any challenge relating to Florida, and Florida DOES get to weigh in on any challenge relating about Michigan.

The rule does not stay anything about the size of the committee, which another rule sets at 186.

In fact, another rule gives the DNC the ability to include as part of its sanctions the taking away of a state's standing committee representation.

So if a state is found in non-compliance, the DNC can, if wants to, include standing committee banishments in its sanctions. But the presence of that option means that said taking away is not automatic, as the Politico contends.

I suppose that the DNC's rules and bylaws committee could decide to re-interpret the rule so as to follow the Politico's sense of how the world works, but that would be weird.

Read the rules for yourself.

Comments

Politico is on the payroll of the Obama campaign. Along with that Drivel Dispenser, Drudge. Or, at best because they are nominally right wing sites, and consider Obama beatable in the G.E. I'm pretty sure that money is changing hands, though.
Ben Smith is brutal in his dishonesty. The Corrupt Cherub.

Posted by robert ethan | April 3, 2008 2:42 PM

I don't see how the rules committee could interpret that language that way. It goes against the plain language.

btw that's not rule 20. Rule 20 of the Delegate Selection Rules contains the provision that allows the rules committee to strip a State of its members of Standing Committees. They've admitted they didn't do that.

Under Appendix D to the Call they have allocated MI and FL members to the Committee. But the Call specifically provides that Members appointed by a a State cannot vote on challenges involving their state. So MI could vote on FL challenges and FL could vote on MI challenges. In that respect the rules committee is right. Assuming of course that the Members are seated on the Committee and allowed to participate at all.

The rule you cite appears to be Regulation 5.6 of the Regulations of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. All of Regulation 5 is entitled Regulations Supplementing the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I would reasonably read the word supplement to mean that those regulations are to be read in conjunction with and in addition to the rules in the Call.

The Call says there will, subject to Rule 20 of the Delegate Selection Rules, be 186 Members. Rule 20 wasn't invoked so there are 186 Members. Appendix D allocates Members to FL and MI. Under the Call, the MI and FL cannot vote on matters affecting their own state delegations. But it says nothing about whether they can vote on other matters. The supplementary regulation says that they cannot "participate" as Members. That seems pretty clear. They may have been allocated positions as Members and the committee may count them as Members but they can't "participate". At all.

Not that I think any of this is actually going to matter.

Posted by maryb2004 | April 3, 2008 3:12 PM

What would actually be weird is if the rules and bylaws committee interpreted this rule the way you say they do. And who says that's true, besides you? James Roosevelt? If so, please, report it.

This rule on its face does not support your interpretation. Here's a close look:

1. "Standing committee members selected pursuant to a Plan found in non-compliance by the RBC"
OK, the DNC presumes that states, like FL and MI, that field a delegation via a plan the DNC has ruled is illegitimate nevertheless can and will select members to the Standing committees. THAT in itself shoots down the Politico's interpretation.

2. "shall not be included on the membership roster by the DNC Secretary"
Not sure what effect this has. It seems to mean that the standing committee members from FL and MI will not be recognized as existing. It DOES NOT say that they shall be prohibited from being on the committee.

3. "nor shall those individuals be allowed to participate as members at the standing committee meeting"
THIS is where the DNC interpretation breaks down completely. It's very clear: individuals selected by FL and MI shall not "participate as members at the standing committee meeting". There's no wiggle room there. As far as I know, the DNC's interpretation that "Florida standing committee group can't vote on matters related to Florida and that members of Michigan's standing committee group can't vote on Michigan matters" comes from the language in Article VII J.3 of the 2008 Call:

Upon the request of members representing twenty percent (20%) of the total votes of the Credentials Committee, a minority report shall be prepared for distribution to the Convention delegates and alternates as part of the committee’s report; provided, however, that no member elected to the committee by a state delegation may join in such request as to a proposed minority report relating to a credentials challenge to any delegate or alternate from his or her state. The committee staff shall assist in the preparation of such report.

and further, under Appendix A of the Call, Relationship Between the 2008 Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee and the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules

Posted by along | April 3, 2008 3:25 PM

HIGH FIVE, Maryb.

Posted by along | April 3, 2008 3:27 PM

Isn't there a serious Catch-22 here?

DNC Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/c313170ef991f2ce12_iqm6iyofq.pdf)

VII. STANDING COMMITTEES ON PLATFORM, RULES, AND CREDENTIALS OF THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION

B. Election:

1. The members of the standing committees allocated to the states and territories shall be elected by each state’s National Convention delegates present at a meeting of which adequate notice of time and place shall be given and at which a quorum of the states’s delegates shall be present. Such meeting shall be held in accordance with procedures approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and consistent with this Call. Such meeting shall take place within 14 days after the final selection of a state’s delegation, but no such meeting shall be held after June 21, 2008.

But if a state doesn't HAVE a recognized set of National Convention delegates, how do they elect committee members?

Posted by jacortina | April 3, 2008 4:16 PM

Lots of good legalese here. I'm no intellectual, but I heard tell that the DNC actually has in its rules and bylaws somewhere that should a circumstance such as this arise, there is a provision for punishing those states which break such a rule (moving the primary date). The rules and bylaws provide for diminishing the value of each delegate vote; by which percentage, I don't know. Perhaps someone out there can find this in the bylaws and report? We wouldn't be in this quagmire had the DNC stuck to its own rules on this one. My sources tell me that Donna Brazile (the "neutral" Donna Brazile who often appears as such on CNN) was the one to lobby hard for Howard Dean to strip the states of their delegate votes entirely.

Posted by Anna | April 11, 2008 4:18 PM