NOTICE TO ALL DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES OF STATE SENATORIAL DISTRICT 29
by amde, Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:52:25 PM EDT
Following the next step in the Texas Democratic State Convention, there has been a challenge to State Senetorial District 29's delegate and alternate status. The El Paso County Convention took place on March 29, 2008 at the Don Haskins Center, the results from which are being contested by a prominent African America lawyer named Donald L. Williams. Williams claims that:
"local party leaders through their actions and omissions disenfranchised a large swath of Democrats...by not protecting the rights of the minority party."
He is filing in response to a 94% to 6% skew in delegates in Hillary's favor when the caucus results showed a 3:1 ratio, meaning the delegate count was 120-Clinton to 7-Obama for the county results. The real controversy, Williams alledges is that the Credentials Committee refused to allow alternates supporting one presidential candidate to succeed to the delegate positions held by persons not in attendance at the county convention*
Referencing to the Rules of the Texas Democratic Party, Article IV.C.11(b), the rule states:
If a delegate is unable to or fails to select the
alternate to assume Delegate status, the delegation* shall
select from among the Alternates from the precinct from
which the delegate was elected, the particular Alternate
of the same political preference (in non-presidential
years), if possible, or of the same presidential
preference (in presidential years) who shall take the
So Williams is upset because Alternates who were supporters of Obama were not allowed to be alternates for Hillary delegates. For two reasons: they were not of the same presidential preference as stated in the rules and because the delegation, *which stated in the rules that the alternates were to be chosen by the them, was a Clinton majority. Thus eliminating Obama's chances of electing alternates in hopes of overturning Hillary delegates in the off chance Hillary delegates did not show to the convention.
And also upsetthat the 9:1 skew, was not a fair representation of the initial 3:1 ration. Thus the at-large delegates should have showed the appropriate 3:1 ration to be fair to the minority party (Obama).
Confused yet?? I am...
William's proposed remedy is to reward 26 at-large Delegate positions as well as 26 at-large alternate positions in Obama's favor. OR face the ENTIRE El Paso Delegation being withheld from being seated at the State Convention!!!
First off, the county officials had attorneys there to consult with for the duration of the entire process. They were consulted when Obamas delegates first made clear their feelings. Rep. Norma Chavez,an Obama Supporter, first threatened lawsuit immediately after the proceedings, claiming that Danny Anchondo, a Clinton Supporter, was putting the whole delegation at risk (which seems very real now).
---It was an unfair representation, but what has been fair about the delegation thus far?? Nothing. Honestly, Obama never had a chance in El Paso, polls showed him 2:1 or more; And to put it all into perspective only 3 delegates will represent El PAso County at the State Level, Ihave no idea how the at-large plays into this as far as their role. I have to look it up and frankly my brain hurts.
Any ways.... what now? Are you getting this?
As of now, many if not all delegates have recieved this in Dist. 29 and are in the process of seeking legal aid from the El Paso Democtratic Party. I am contacting them tomorrow, and hoping to find out if Hillary's campiagn will provide legal advice...
SO NOW DO YOU SEE???...
Do you see how undemocratic this process is?? Do you? Can you even begin to understand the complexity? I cant. This process should never be used again. never. for the sake of sanity, for the SAKE OF DEMOCRACY!!