Can Clinton control the Credentials Committee?

The Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention is not a model of clarity. But it seems clear enough that Hillary can control the Credentials Committee. Although I am no lawyer, I provide my analysis below. Please correct me if I am wrong.

We start with Section VII(A), which determines: (i) the number of members of the Credentials Committee, (ii) the number of votes allocated to each state and territory, and (iii) how these votes and memberships are allocated to the states and territories. Section VII(A) provides: "Subject to Rule 20.C. of the Delegate Selection Rules, each standing committee shall be composed of a base of 161 members, casting 158 votes, allocated to the states and territories in accordance with the same distribution formula used to allocate delegates to the Democratic National Convention."

Let's try to figure out what this provision says and does not say.

First, there are fewer votes than members because some members of the Committee (Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands and Democrats Abroad) get only ¼ of a vote.

Second, because there are 55 states and territories, each state and territory sends an average of 2.93 members to the Credentials Committee. This is most likely what Donna Brazil refers to when she states that "each state will send three members to the Credentials Committee." Of course, we must determine membership in the Committee by the manner set forth in the Call, not by some other manner such as an average. Indeed, the Call is clear that California sends more members to the Committee than Delaware. Why? Because California is allocated more pledged delegates, and the members of the Committee are allocated to each state in proportion to each state's number of pledged delegates ("allocated to the states and territories in accordance with the same distribution formula used to allocate delegates to the Democratic National Convention.").

Thus, Section VIIA determines the number of Committee members allocated to each state. You can liken this to how, in the general presidential election, the numbers of Electoral College votes are allocated each state. But Section VII(A) does NOT determine how the states elect the persons who shall fill the membership slots allocated to them. To answer that question, we must turn to Section VII(B)(1), entitled: "Election." That section provides: "The members of the standing committees allocated to the states and territories shall be elected by each state's National Convention Delegates ..."

So the pledged delegates for each state elect the members of the Credentials Committee for that state. But Section VII(B) does not state how such election shall determine the actual persons elected to the membership slots allocated to the state. Let's take a simplified example. Suppose State A has been allocated 10 pledged delegates. Also suppose that, because of proportional representation, BHO has 6 pledged delegates from State A and HRC has 4 pledged delegates from State A. Finally, assume that State A has been allocated 10 members on the Credentials Committee.

Query: How many BHO supporters are on State A's delegation to the Credentials Committee and how many HRC supporters are on state A's delegation to the Credentials Committee? Shall the election be proportional? Shall it be winner take all? Again, Section VII(B) gives no answer. However, one thing is clear. State A's delegation to the Credentials Committee cannot be proportional to a candidate's pledged delegate win. Why not? Because that is not an election, and Section VII(B) requires an election to determine membership on State A's delegation to the Credentials Committee (True, there have been or will be primary or caucus elections in every state, but those are elections to determine pledged delegates, not elections to determine delegations to Credentials Committees.)

So it is clear that the Pledged Delegates must hold an election amongst themselves to determine their state's delegation to the Credentials Committees. There are two choices: The results of the Pledged Delegates' vote determine the delegation to the Credentials Committee on winner take all, or proportional. But which one?

Let's first look at how this question would be answered as a legal matter. But first, I think this does not matter, because the court's will not get involved in intra-party matters. But the exercise is useful to start us thinking about this matter. As a general rule in America, elections are winner take all. That is how the Electoral College works in presidential elections (with the exception I think of Maine or Nebraska).  That is how legislation works in Congress (Congress passes a law and the president takes the whole thing, or vetoes the whole thing - no line item veto - take all of the bill of take none of it). So I think as a legal matter, HRC supporters will comprise ALL of a state's delegation to the Credentials Committee in states where she has a majority of pledged delegates, and likewise for Obama.

I think the result is the same as a practical matter. When the pledged delegates get together to vote for their state's delegation to the Credentials Committees, the pledged delegates in the majority will simply shout down the pledged delegates in the minority. The majority will demand that the composition of the delegation be determined on a winner take all basis.

So what does this mean?

Well, here are the states that HRC has won a majority of pledged delegates or is likely to win a majority of the pledges delegates, along with each state's allocation of Credential Committee members.

OH (7)
RI (1)
CA (17)
NY (11)
NJ (5)
MA (4)
TN (3)
NM (1)
AZ (2)
AR (1)
OK (2)
American Somoa (0.25)
PA (7)
IN (3)
WV (1)
KY (2)
PR (2)

And here are the states where HRC and BHO are tied in number of pledged delegates:

MO (3)
NH (1)

(Source for allocation of Credentials Committee Members to states: The Call)

Now here is the math. There are supposed to be 158 votes on Credentials Committee. However, subtract FL and MI. Then there are 144 votes on Credentials Committee. This means that a HRC needs 72 votes on the Credentials Committee to force a stalemate. (And I have no idea what would happen in that event.)

I add up all the Credential Committee members that HRC gets from the states where she has won a majority of Pledged Delegates, and gave her half Credential Committee members in states where she and BHO split the Pledged delegate count.

This gives her 71.25 votes on the Credentials Committee. If she can win only one of: Oregon, South Dakota, or Montana, she will control the Credentials Committee.

I know my analysis is flawed. Just point out where I am wrong.