Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (Updated)

First let me put my biases on the table.  I've favored a revote for Florida and Michigan since the beginning of the process.  It should have happened earlier, but Clinton was pushing for a solution that obviously wasn't going to happen (sitting the candidates as is) and time kept passing and passing.  Finally, a rush solution was created, but it has enough problems that it will never happen.  As those annoying posters say, "Lack of planning on your part will not constitute an emergency on my part."

What's wrong with the plan?  Well let's look at the memo.   There's something buried in there that people might miss when they're studying the details of the process.  

What is that?  The timeline.  There's going to be a month of public comments during which the plan can be changed.  The plan won't be finalized until it's submitted to the DNC for approval in mid April.  In order for the plan to work, the ballots have to be mailed to overseas participants 5 days after it is presented to the DNC.  

The only way this works is if the DNC quickly rubber stamps the process without even looking at it.  How likely is that to happen in an election this tight and hard fought, especially in a state like Florida that has a history of election problems?

Moreover, even if the DNC wanted to say, "Whatever you want to do is fine," there are two legal problems.  First, there are questions as to whether a mail in primary would be legal in the state of Florida.   Resolving that question will take some time if someone sues, longer than 5 days, as I could see arguments both ways.   That's the minor problem though.  More important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that was brought up here yesterday.


(a) Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, prohibits the enforcement in any jurisdiction covered by Section 4(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973b(b), of any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on the date used to determine coverage, until either:

   (1) A declaratory judgment is obtained from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, or

   (2) It has been submitted to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has interposed no objection within a 60-day period following submission.

Both Michigan and Florida have counties that fall under Section 4(b).  If the plan isn't finalized until mid-April and then there's a 60-day period for the Attorney General to examine it - and there's no question that that's the quicker of the two procedures - then we won't have a result on the legality of this election until mid-June, which is after the deadline that the delegates need to be chosen.

Being a civil rights' lawyer, Obama is aware of this problem and has pointed out that people are going to sue; the Florida African American community is leery of changes and the state hasn't given them reasons to believe that this would be an exception.  

This is a plan that's designed to fail.  This late in the process, only a replacement primary is going to be legal.  I still don't understand why they can't raise the money for that instead of saving a little bit and getting nothing.  If I were in Clinton's camp, I'd be showing them the cash for a replacement primary right now as getting those votes are her best shot of having a chance.

Note: There was some question about whether section 5 applied to a primary. The drafters of this plan seem to think it does. Under the "Overview" section appears the comment, "The plan can be submitted to the Justice Department for approval under Section 5." So yes, this plan is intended to be submitted in April for Section 5 approval. How can it go forward without receiving it?

Display:


Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (none / 0)

Then seat them as they are.  Or, risk pissing off entire states and lose them in November.


by nikkid on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:37:26 AM EST

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (none / 0)

OR split the delegates 50/50.  

OR take the pouplations that have voted for each candiate in all other states and award the delgates based on THAT model.  Perhaps that would be even MORE fair!


by a gunslinger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:42:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (none / 0)

The 50/50 solution that the Obama campaign and his bots have advocated is not possible under DNC rules. That came from Howard Dean today. Not going to happen. They cannot award delegates based on something other than what the voters voted.


by americanincanada on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:27:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (none / 0)

Not looking it up, but I believe there was a suggestion from the DNC saying that they could take the national popular vote percentages.


by Tantris on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (none / 0)

You could've made that exact same comment without the obnoxious little swipe at Obama supporters.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:32:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If they're seated as is... (none / 0)

...and that flips the election, then you'd have a lot MORE pissed off people.  

I gave a solution - have a revote under the same rules as the previous vote.  The money is out there, it wouldn't face any challenges, and Clinton would do well under that process.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:42:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Essentially, though (none / 0)

If anything about these re-votes has any actual EFFECT, then someone's going to cry foul. Either the re-vote helps Clinton catch up with Obama (and the latter gets upset), or Obama does better than he did in the original vote and this helps him (so Clinton gets upset). No way we come out of this with everyone saying, "OK, that worked fine."


by spoko on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:03:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially, though (none / 0)

There's no way to avoid that... but more important to whether 1 or 2 campaigns gets pissed off is whether the election is viewed as legitimate in the eyes of the voters.


by leshrac55 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Essentially, though (none / 0)

But that's really spoko's point. The losing campaign's supporters WON'T agree that the re-vote was fully legitimate. No matter what happens, one group is going to be pissed, and is going to raise complaints about the method of the re-vote, how it was conducted, why it wasn't conducted earlier, why delegates were stripped in the first place, how the re-vote allowed voters to change their minds, etc., etc.

It'll never end. It's all FUBAR, and the only thing to do now is find some agreement that's at least minimally passable, and then work on changing the process for 2012. With a situation as bizarre as this one, I just have serious doubts that a re-vote will really mollify anyone.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (none / 0)

That will NEVER happen and it'd be a travesty if it did.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (none / 0)

obamchikis stop stalling if you stall the first election would be certified


by awayer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:37:56 AM EST

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (none / 0)

I don't think that will ever happen.


by Tantris on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen (none / 0)

This is very interesting.  I had heard complaints about Obama playing games and such.  I don't have enough legal knowledge or the resources to figure out what was going on.  Thanks.


by Tantris on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:39:00 AM EST

My solution (none / 0)

I wrote a diary at DailyKos a while ago promoting a solution.  The idea is to go back to the original punishment for both states.  Strip super delegates and seat half of the pledged delegates.  I think Obama should suggest this, fight for all of the Uncommitted votes and settle on his exit poll percentage of them.

The only thing that is problematic with regards to this is that Obama would surely perform better in Michigan(obviously), even better than Uncommitted did.  He would be very competitive there.  In Florida, I imagine it would be about the same or slightly closer.  This solution wouldn't greatly affect pledged delegate standings, but it would affect popular vote counts.  A redo, would obviously help Obama in Michigan with regards to popular vote.

Since this is the case, I would offer the above solution for Florida and offer to pay for half the Michigan redo, if Clinton's campaign would pay for the other half.  A full primary-like caucus, with the original rules in place.

I imagine all of this is moot.  In the end, there is a lot of momentum behind the Mail-in vote plan.  Since, if the diarist is right(not doubting him, just saying), there are problems with that plan, it will be too late when this is figured out to design a new plan.  As it is, time is running out.  Because of the time table, I imagine that Dodd's plan is going to win, which is going to really upset a lot of people here.  Split the pledged delegates 50/50.


by Tantris on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:48:33 AM EST

Re: My solution (none / 0)

I think the re-do in MI only with FL seated as is (with the delegate penalty you suggested for both states - or even without, but preferrably with) is the best way to go.  FL is a logistical nightmare compared to MI, and the state (Dems and GOP alike) has a well documented history of effing up elections whereever possible.  I don't think it's worth the effort to re-do that state for only a tiny change in the results.  MI is easier to handle and probably will come out very differently.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:54:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It will happen... (none / 0)

Where there is a will. There is a way. If we can hold elections in Iraq, we should be able to do so in Florida.


by MediaFreeze on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:11:13 AM EST

Re: It will happen... (none / 0)

Clinton is like the Sunni insurgency. No matter how small their chance of winning, they just won't go away.


by carbocation on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:35:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It will happen... (none / 0)

uh...please don't compare a Democratic candidate for president with murderous Iraqi insurgents. I get that it's tongue-in-cheek, and I usually enjoy your comments, but this one's not appropriate.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:38:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It will happen... (none / 0)

The big difference is that there are reams and reams of pages of laws in Florida, both state and federal.  There were no such laws in Iraq.

Having the "will" doesn't mean much I'm afraid to say.


Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016
by Its Like Herding Cats on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Solomon Solution" in July (2.00 / 2)

The ultimate solution is to cut the baby in half. Here's how:

Seat all delegates for purposes of all business except the vote for presidnetial nominee. do this for both states.

Grant the pledged delegates each one-half vote in the vote for the presidential nominee.

Super Delegates receive no vote for presidnetial nominee as it was the duty of the super delegates from each state to insure the states complied with party rules.

Voila, the baby has been cut in half.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:34:11 AM EST

Re: "Solomon Solution" in July (none / 0)

This would be acceptable if all of the uncommitted delegates from Michigan are pledged to Obama.


by carbocation on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:36:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Solomon Solution" in July (none / 0)

Nah, leave them uncommitted to cast their half vote however they wish.

I say this as an Obama supporter, too.

Obama won't need the uncommitteds and he will control the credentials committee, which is where this is headed anyway.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Solomon Solution" in July (none / 0)

Unacceptable. I need raw numbers to play with in spreadsheets to kill the time until Pennsylvania.


by carbocation on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:51:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Solomon Solution" in July (none / 0)

This is the best part of elections. It's called the "uncertainty factor".

:-D


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Solomon Solution" in July (none / 0)

This sounds like the best idea I've heard so far.


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the FL mail in vote will not happen (2.00 / 1)

I think Obama should offer to seat Florida as is in exchange for a Michigan Caucus.  I doubt HRC would go for it, but I think asking Florida to hold another election is asking for troubles.

We were lucky that Obama lost Ohio big.  If it has been closer, you would have seen all sorts of problems under the hood.


by DaveB on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST

Does not apply (none / 0)

I dont think so. Why are caucuses legal then?


by moi moi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:36:22 PM EST

Re: Does not apply (none / 0)

Cuacuses clearly do not meet any federal voting standards - Secret Ballot, access to vote by disabled, etc.


by moi moi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:37:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen ( (none / 0)

I dont think so. Why are caucuses legal then?

Because they're conducted by political parties, not states.


by RP McMurphy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:02:31 PM EST

Re: Why the Florida mail in vote will not happen ( (none / 0)

The Voting Rights act does not apply as this is a party nominating contest organized by a party, not a state-run election.  If the Voting Rights act applied to these contests, do you think all these chaotic and discriminatory caucuses would have been approved?

The Democratic Party may request the assistance of the state in checking signatures of voters, but that in itself make it an official state election subject to the voting rights act.  Parties often request assistance from the state in many ways to carry out their nominating contests.

The Obama campaign will need to find another rationale for opposing hearing from the voters of Florida.


by markjay on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:38:35 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.