I'm not a Lawyer, but.....

by nikkid, Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:04:40 PM EST

After reading the pdf provided in this link by portia9 in another diary:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/ de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

It's interesting to note that the Delegate selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, mention a couple interesting points:

It seems to state throughout the word DEMOCRATS shall select, or DEMOCRATS shall vote, etc. etc.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the language, but it sounds like this is saying you need to be a Democrat to participate in the Democratic selection???

Then under #11 Timing (page 16), it distinctly says that any state holding their primary/caucus on certain dates are violating the rules, specifically:

1) Iowa cannot vote any earlier than 22 days before the 1st Tuesday in Feb (that would be January 14) - their vote was on Jan 3rd - violation?

2.) New Hampshire cannot vote any earlier than 14 days before the 1st Tues in Feb (that would be Jan 22) - their vote was Jan 8th - violation?

3.) South Carolina cannot vote any earlier than 7 days before the 1st Tues in Feb (that would be Jan 29) - their vote was Jan 26th - violation?

Only Nevada seemed to follow the rules which stated they could not vote any earlier than 17 days before the 1st Tues in Feb, which was Jan 19th and that's when they voted.

So - if Iowa, NH, and SC also violated the rule - then why would they be treated differently than MI and FL?




Tags: DNC, delegates, committee, FL, MI, democratic, election, primary, caucus (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 16 Comments :: Post a Comment


Well, I'm sure kos agrees that there should be (none / 0)

consequences.

Thing is, they had laws on the books in their state saying that they would be the first primary/caucus.

shrugs punish them in 2012.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:05:51 PM EST

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (none / 0)

In a moment, some Obamacons will be around to tell you that Iowa and other states got special dispensation to move their dates.


by Montague on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EST

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (none / 0)

I'm a little confused how someone actually using the correct answer when asked a question is apparently reason to preemptively insult them.

As to the actual question from the diary, you want to look a bit farther, to sections 20.5 (which gives the DNC the authority to increase the penalty beyond the suggested stripping of half the delegates) and section 20.7 (which gives the DNC the right to hear a state's case and reduce the suggested penalty).


by werehippy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:17:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you (2.00 / 1)

for answering nicely. Instead of the usual barrage of negativity.


by nikkid on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

Everyone here is somewhat on edge at this point. If you are an Obama supporter this site is a constant barrage of taunts and spurious arguments (or so it can seem, and all of which your candidate and the common good demand you respond to with a smile) and if you are a Clinton supporter time is running out and the odds of what you've worked for and been so passionate about happening are fading.


by werehippy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (2.00 / 2)

You are absolutely correct.  The DNC can increase or reduce the suggested penalty -- and they can also review and change their decisions.

I strongly recommend that, on May 31, the DNC Rules committee revise their decision so that all five states (FO, MI, IA, NH, SC) are treated equally.


by markjay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (2.00 / 1)

"So - if Iowa, NH, and SC also violated the rule - then why would they be treated differently than MI and FL?"

Because they got a waiver from the rules and MI/FL didn't.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:09:39 PM EST

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (2.00 / 1)

Can you show us a link to that waiver? I'd like to know what it said specifically.


by Little Otter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (none / 0)

States asked permission to move their primary.  The DNC said yes to some.  I don't know if the actual text of "Sure, go ahead," is online.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (none / 0)

The DNC accepted the principle that Iowa, NH and SC should be early in the process and that other states shouldn't be too close in time to them.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (none / 0)

Here is some more detail if you're really curious.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (2.00 / 1)

Fascinating. I wonder what standards wereused to grant any waivers? The chair's discretion?


by christinep on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (none / 0)

I gave a link right above.  Basically the party decided in 2006 that 4 states were going to go first and therefore were allowed to go outside of the window and all other states had to wait until at least 2/5.

They chose the states based on growth potential for the party and racial makeup and a few other criteria.  It passed the rules committee unanimously.  

...one interesting thing about that document is, "Under the DNC delegate selection rules, if a state party's plan violates the rule with
respect to timing, the number of its pledged delegates--those delegates awarded proportionally
to candidates based on the primary or caucus results--is automatically reduced 50% (without
any action by the RBC or DNC);" which makes me wonder if the Rules Committee really can give them more than 50% of their delegates.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (none / 0)

Thanks for the clarification. As to limitations on the committee to reinstate, etc., one rule of statutory construction is that unless the agency/decider/person is specifically & expressly prohibited from doing x, it is allowed.  (In some cases, of course, if the rules themselves provide the limitations, then one might make the opposite argument.) Usually, there is a lot of inherent authority in quasi-administrative entities (like the DNC, perhaps) to interpret its own rules--so long as all are treated similarly. The latter is why the "rules are rules" mantra has been troubling from the classic construction sense.


by christinep on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a Lawyer, but..... (2.00 / 1)

Well, you have touched upon a couple interesting points here.

First, I don't have the language in front of me, but I believe the rules make clear that "Democrats" refers to anyone who wishes to participate as a Democrat.  It's not a mandate for closed primaries, in other words.

Second, the early states most certainly violated the rules.  Now, of course they got a waiver, but that pretty much begs the question of why they got a waiver and MI/FL didn't.

The standard talking point is that well, these states only moved up because MI/FL moved up, so how can you blame them.  This letter makes clear that it's more complicated than that:

Michigan Democrats, while disappointed our state was not selected as one of the four "pre-window" states, announced we would abide by the DNC calendar, unless New Hampshire or another state decided to ignore the rule establishing that sequence and that calendar.

On August 9, New Hampshire's Secretary of State, with the support of the state's Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the DNC rules. This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that they would hold their GOP primary on January 19.

One of New Hampshire's purposes was to push the New Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC's rule had scheduled for January 19. New Hampshire's transparent action reflected its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar.

Those of us who fought hard to loosen the stranglehold of New Hampshire on the process saw you stand by silently.

But when the Florida legislature changed the date of the Florida primary to a date before the window opened, you promptly determined to punish Florida Democrats by threatening to not seat their delegates if they abided by their legislature's decision. You still maintained public silence about the New Hampshire Secretary of State's decision to violate the DNC rules, a decision, again, which was supported by New Hampshire Democrats.

As you might imagine, there's a lot of acrimony towards the stranglehold that Iowa and NH have traditionally held on the process.  One of the reasons why the DNC needs to work out a compromise solution that anyone can live with is that if the issue ends up going to a floor vote at the convention, an awful lot of states are going to have something to say about the fact that New Hampshire was, yet again, allowed to run roughshod over the process by the impotent DNC.  And they'd have grounds to feel that way, too.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:07 PM EST

Process (none / 0)

If you are arguing process at this point, the contest is lost.   Whatever the process all the candidates agreed so this discussion is a non issue now.  


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:16 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.

Login
Username:

Password: