The process of seating the Florida & Michigan delegations [UPDATE]

Update [2008-1-28 12:7:3 by andrewalker08]::Ben Smith at Politico.com just posted an article that lends some credence to the process of seating Florida & Michigan's delegates that is outlined below. Here's a quick excerpt:
I spent some time on the phone with a DNC official with a firm grasp of the delegate process [...] So there's a scenario under which Clinton doesn't quite have enough delegates, but her allies gain control of the credentials committee, seat Florida, and push her over the top. Source: Ben Smith/Politico.com article "Florida, technically"
Can we just go ahead and say it? MyDD has some of the best and well-knowledged researchers on the internet. -Andre

As I've previously stated, the 2008 Democratic nominating contest is shaping up to be as much about the process as it is about the horse-race.  With Sen. Clinton's recent statement regarding the seating of the delegations from Florida and Michigan, I believe now is the time to examine the process of how exactly the delegates from the Wolverine State and the Sunshine State will be allowed to vote at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

The question of whether Florida and Michigan's delegations will be seated and allowed to vote in Denver this August is a question of each state's credentials and as such, this question falls under the purview of the Committee on Credentials for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.  Simply put, the Credentials Committee is the committee that determines the eligibility of each delegate to vote.

Article VII of the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention establishes the three standing committees for the Convention; Credentials, Rules, and Platform; and also sets the total number of votes on each committee as well as how many committee votes each state gets on each of the three standing committees [Source:  Article VII, Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention].  The Credentials Committee has a total of 183 votes with 158 of those votes apportioned among the states & territories (American Samoa, Democrats Abroad, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and the remaining 25 votes awarded to Democratic Party Leaders & Elected Officials.

Under Article VII.C.1. of the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention,

"The members of the standing committees allocated to the states and territories shall proportionately represent the presidential preference of all candidates (including uncommitted status) receiving the threshold percentage used in that state's delegation to calculate the at-large apportionment pursuant to Rule 13.E. of the Delegate Selection Rules, provided, however, that members of the standing committees from primary states shall be allocated to presidential candidates (including uncommitted status) based on the statewide popular vote"[Source:  Article VII.C.1., Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention]
.  
Rule 13.E states,
"At-large and pledged party leader and elected official delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated to presidential preferences by reference to primary or convention votes or to the division of preference among district-level delegates or alternates, as the case may be, as specified in Rule 10.C., except that a preference falling below a threshold of 15% shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates at this level. Such delegates and alternates in primary states shall be allocated to presidential preference (including uncommitted status) according to the statewide primary vote"[Source:  Rule 13.E, 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention]
.  
In other words, each presidential candidate that receives 15% of more of the vote statewide in the Democratic primary is entitled to representation on the three standing convention committess.

For example, in yesterday's South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary, Barack Obama received 55.4% of the statewide vote, Hillary Clinton received 26.5%, and John Edwards received 17.6% [Source:  January 26, 2008 South Carolina Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Results; South Carolina State Elections Commission].  Under the rules, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all eligible to receive representation on the three standing committees.  However, just because these three candidates are eligible for standing committee members doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get any standing committee members.

Article VII.C.2. states the following:

"The presidential preference percentage of each candidate receiving the applicable percentage or more within the delegation shall be multiplied by the total number of standing committee positions allocated to that state or territorial delegation. If the result of such multiplication does not equal 0.455 or above, the presidential preference in question is not entitled to representation on the standing committee. If the result of such multiplication is 0.455 but less than 1.455, the presidential preference in question is entitled to one (1) position. Those preferences securing more than 1.455 but less than 2.455 are entitled to two (2) positions, etc." [Source:  Article VII.C.2., Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention]

Applying this to real life, South Carolina has been allocated a total of six standing committee members (two for the Credentials Committee, two for the Rules Committee, and two for the Platform Committee) [Source:  Appendix D, Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention].  If you multiply each candidate's percentage of the popular vote by the number of standing committee members allocated to each committee from South Carolina, here's what you would get:

Barack Obama: 0.554 x 2 = 1.108

Hillary Clinton: 0.265 x 2 = 0.53

John Edwards: 0.176 x 2 = 0.352

Under the rule, Clinton and Obama would receive one member each on the credentials, rules, and platform committees because the product of multiplying the statewide primary vote percentage by the total number of standing committee members allocated to the state equaled more than 0.455 (Clinton - 0.53 = 1 standing committee member; Obama - 1.108 = 1 standing committee member).  Unfortunately, since John Edwards fell below the 0.455 threshold (0.352), he will not receive a standing committee member at all.

Now, for the purposes of explaining how the delegations from Michigan & Florida will get seated and allowed to vote, let's say that once all the votes are cast, the delegates elected, and the standing committee members allocated, Hillary Clinton ends up with a majority of the votes (92) on the Credentials Committee.  As I stated above, the Credentials Committee is the committee that determines the eligibility of each delegate to vote at the Democratic National Convention.  Once the Credentials Committee is fully organized and constituted, Hillary Clinton could instruct her majority on the committee to include a resolution in the Credentials Committee Report that overturns the decision of the Rules & Bylaws Committee for the Democratic National Committee and seats the delegates from Florida and Michigan with full voting privileges.

If that happens, then the next step will be for the full Democratic National Convention to vote on the adoption of the Credentials Committee Report with the resolution that reinstates the voting privileges of the delegates from Michigan and Florida.  Interestingly enough, that's the first order of business that the Democratic National Convention delegates will have to take up.

Here's what Article VIII.C.1 says:

"Report of the Committee on Credentials: The Report of the Credentials Committee shall be acted upon before the consideration of other business"[Source:  Article VIII.C.1., Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention]
.

From this point forward, it's up to the Convention to accept or reject the Credentials Committee Report and the Credentials Committee Report must be acted upon before the consideration of the Rules Committee Report; the Platform Committee Report; and the Roll Call of the States to officially nominate the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

For the sake of the argument, let's say that the full Convention rejects the Credentials Committee Report.  Here's what the Procedural Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention say:

"In the event that the committee's report shall not be adopted when the question is put, the committee shall immediately reconvene to reconsider its report and shall present a new report to the Convention as soon as possible"[Source:  Article VIII.C.1.d., Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention]
.

What this means is that if the Convention delegates reject the Credentials Committee Report, then the Credentials Committee re-convenes, puts together a new report for adoption or rejection by the full Democratic National Convention, and re-submits it.    The question from this point forward becomes how many times the Hillary Clinton-controlled Credentials Committee will push for the restoration of Florida and Michigan's voting privileges, and if some Clinton members of the Credentials Committee will waver and vote against the wishes of their candidate.

So let's go through this again step by step:


  1. Each state allocates its standing committee members by the result of the statewide primary vote; as a result, Hillary gets a majority of the Credentials Committee members;

  2. Hillary instructs her members of the Credentials Committee to include in the committee's report a resolution that reinstates the voting privileges of the delegations from Michigan & Florida; and

  3. The full Democratic National Convention votes to accept or reject the report of the Credentials Committee.  If the Democratic National Convention adopts the Credentials Committee Report, then Florida and Michigan are allowed to vote.  If the Convention doesn't, then the Credentials Committee re-convenes and submits a new report to the Convention for its consideration.

Tags: Democratic National Convention, Florida, Michigan (all tags)

Comments

23 Comments

Seating the Florida and Michigan delegations

Amazing diary andrewwalker08 and very informative. I was hoping someone would post a diary explaining this process

If the DNC votes to reject the Credentials Committee, which is definitely a possibly, how does the DNC go about mending bridges with FL and MI for the GE? This is some scary stuff. This issue could really fracture the DEM party.

by lonnette33 2008-01-27 12:00PM | 0 recs
Interesting...

Based on Obama's behavior (he's said nothing)it would appear that he already has confirmation from the DNC-that the Credential Committee will be rejected. When George S. brought this subject up on This Week, Obama had a smirk on his face like "yeah right".

by lonnette33 2008-01-27 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The process of seating the Florida

Man, get out the slide rules.  This is some complicated shit.

Do you think both the commmittee vote and the floor vote are basically a power play by whoever can muster a majority, or will at least some of the delegates be thinking about greater concerns like what's best for the reputation of the party, etc?

by Steve M 2008-01-27 12:11PM | 0 recs
I know right...

...To answer your questions, I would hope that the delegates would do what's best for the Party.  But each and every delegate may have a different idea of what's best for the Party.

However, for lack of better terms, the Convention delegates have no mind of their owns.  Here's what Rule 9.D. says:

Prior to the selection of national convention delegates and alternates, the state party shall convey to the presidential candidate, or that candidate's authorized representative(s), a list of all persons who have filed for delegate or alternate positions pledged to that presidential candidate. All such delegate and alternate candidates shall be considered bona fide supporters of the presidential candidate whom they have pledged to support, unless the presidential candidate, or that candidate's authorized representative(s), signifies otherwise in writing to the state party by a date certain as specified in the state's Delegate Selection Plan.
In other words, the presidential candidates have the final say over which individuals go to the Convention as delegates pledged to them, and they're going to make damn sure that they're delegates are loyal to them so that they won't lose any votes in the case of a brokered convention or the seating of the delegations from Florida & Michigan.

by Andre Walker 2008-01-27 12:19PM | 0 recs
But...

But once the delegates are approved and selected, I don't think the candidates can do anything if the delegates subsequently change their mind. The delegates will be extremely loyal, but they can change their votes if circumstances warrant.

by msn1 2008-01-27 02:42PM | 0 recs
Yes, I Noticed This Clause

When I looked at this a few days ago, I noticed this clause and began to reflect upon how it could be VERY significant.  

In particular, what this clause means is that if none of the candidates have a clear win before the convention, and none of them give up, then they may have to take a deep breath and REALLY use this clause to its fullest.

The amount of disruption could be massive and politically painful as both campaigns might essentially clear out and disqualify any and all "citizen" delegates (yes, they can happen) in favor of replacing them with die hard campaign operatives in every single frickin CD.

I don't have the rules in front of me...what is the next step, the next procedure, after they challenge the bona fides of certain CD delegates?  Is there a hearing?  Or is their challenge peremptory and final...boom...they get to replace that individual with one of their choosing.  

Wow, that would mean that the campaigns themselves, and NOT the caucus voting within each CD, will choose virtually all the individuals who can attend the Denver convention as delegates.

Power to the people...Not.

by Demo37 2008-01-27 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think they can do that

I've looked through the rules, and I don't see any procedure to replace delegates after they've been approved (except for death). Andre, your also going through the rules in detail - what's your thoughts on this?

by msn1 2008-01-27 03:09PM | 0 recs
You're right...

...Once a candidate for delegate has been approved by the presidential candidate, they can't be replaced unless they kick the bucket.

by Andre Walker 2008-01-27 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I know right...

I haven't examined this year's rules closely, but in the past the candidate had could take names off the list of delegate candidates -- but they were required to make sure there were at least 3 candidates left for each spot. I would be surprised if that clause had been removed.

In practice, candidates/campaigns very rarely take the opportunity to scratch delegate candidates -- it usually only is used to weed out the real nuts who a candidate is loath to be associated with (a LaRouchite, a white supremacist, a supporter with a criminal record).

by lifelongdem 2008-01-27 03:08PM | 0 recs
Does This Mean It Goes Next To Alternates?

Perhaps that is it. Let's see...

Under the rules, the caucus results are honored, with chosen delegates AND alternates, and if the candidate challenges and thereby REMOVES a delegate, then it next goes to the caucus-chosen alternate?

Is that the way the removal clause works?

If that is the case, then the campaigns would NOT be able to hand-pick all the delegates.  They would just be able to "work within the confines of" the total slate of delegates in each CD. Quite the restriction.

Is that your understanding?

by Demo37 2008-01-27 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Delegates can not be challenged or replaced after the primary/caucus, only before. Basically, each candidate gets to approve all the delegates running to represent that candidate. (Makes sense, otherwise  you could have room for major dirty tricks). But once the delegate is approved, and then elected, he/she can not be replaced, even if they decide to change the candidate they support. That's why its up to the candidates to make sure that only the most loyal delegates get selected.

by msn1 2008-01-27 04:09PM | 0 recs
By the way, here in Georgia...

...State law mandates that delegates pledged to a particular candidate must vote for that candidate on two ballots at the Convention.

§ 21-2-196.  Qualification oath of delegates and alternates to national convention

Any person selected as a delegate or delegate alternate to such national convention shall file a qualification oath with the Secretary of State pledging support at the convention to the candidate of their political party or body for the office of President of the United States for whom they are selected to support. The oath shall state that the delegate or delegate alternate affirms to support such candidate until the candidate is either nominated by such convention or receives less than 35 percent of the votes for nomination by such convention during any balloting, or until the candidate releases the delegates from such pledge. No delegate shall be required to vote for such candidate after two convention nominating ballots have been completed.

by Andre Walker 2008-01-27 04:18PM | 0 recs
Here Are The Relevant Rules

Here are the relevant rules.  I will just copy and paste them for now...gotta run...then will get back to analyzing how they apply.  

In the meantime, maybe you can pinpoint your read of these provisions...and how they apply timing wise.

My quick superficial read suggests some flexibility as far as timing, with the key consideration being when an actual "selection" (primary results...or subsequent notification from party leaders that you are the chosen delegate?) takes place.  

Perhaps the technical "selection" varies from state to state. In some states, I suppose the delegate might even be on the ballot?

12D.  Prior to the selection of national convention delegates and alternates, the state party shall convey to the presidential candidate, or that candidate's authorized representative(s), a list of all persons who have filed for delegate or alternate positions pledged to that presidential candidate. All such delegate and alternate candidates shall be considered bona fide supporters of the presidential candidate whom they have pledged to support, unless the presidential candidate, or that candidate's authorized representative(s), signifies otherwise in writing to the state party by a date certain as specified in the state's Delegate Selection Plan.

1.  Presidential candidates shall certify in writing to the Democratic State Chair the name(s) of their authorized representative(s) by a date certain.      

2. In states where delegates are voted upon on the ballot, the date by which the presidential candidate, or that candidate's authorized representative(s), signifies approval or disapproval of the list of delegate and alternate candidates in writing to the state party as required by Rule 12.D., must allow sufficient time to ensure that names removed from the list do not appear on the ballot.    

12E. National convention delegate and alternate candidates removed from the list of bona fide    supporters by a presidential candidate, or that candidate's authorized representative(s), may not be elected as a delegate or alternate at that level pledged to that presidential candidate (including uncommitted status).    

1.  Presidential candidates may not remove any candidate for a district-level delegate or  alternate position from the list of bona fide supporters unless, at a minimum, three (3)  names remain for every such position to which the presidential candidate is entitled.  Provided, however, that in states where individual district-level delegates and alternates  are voted upon on the ballot, the presidential candidate, or that candidate's authorized  representative(s), may approve a number of delegate candidates or alternate candidates  equal to or greater than the number of delegates or alternates allocated to the district.      

2.  Presidential candidates (including uncommitted status), in consultation with the state party, may remove any candidate for at-large and pledged party leader and elected official delegate or alternate position from the list of bona fide supporters as long as, at a minimum, one (1) name remains for every national convention delegate or alternate position to which the presidential candidate is entitled, except that a state may provide in its delegate selection plan, if the plan is approved by the Rules and Bylaws Committee, that presidential candidates (including uncommitted status), may remove any candidate for an at-large and party leader and elected official delegate or alternate position from the list of bona fide supporters as long as, at a minimum, two (2) names remain for every position to which the presidential candidate is entitled.    

12F.  State parties shall ensure that state Delegate Selection Plans provide fair and adequate time for persons to file for delegate or alternate positions, and for presidential candidates, or their authorized representative(s), to review the list of persons who have filed, and to remove from that list persons not confirmed by the presidential candidate or his/her representative(s) as bona fide supporters of the presidential candidate.    

12G.  Except in states where individual delegates and alternates are selected on the ballot, district-level national convention delegates and alternates pledged to a presidential candidate (including uncommitted status) shall be selected or nominated by a caucus of persons from the unit electing the delegates and alternates who sign statements of support for that presidential candidate. Uncommitted delegates and alternates shall be elected by the uncommitted caucus from the appropriate unit.

by Demo37 2008-01-27 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Here Are The Relevant Rules

Ah yes, that would be section 12 of the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention.

I guess I would say the following. There is clearly room for candidates to replace delegates before "selection", but they are not able to be replaced after "selection". For the purposes of this discussion, it really doesn't matter if "selection" is when the primary/caucus happens, when the state convention happens, or some other point this spring. But after that point, delegates can not be replaced. If a delegate announces the week before the convention that he/she is switching their vote, there's nothing the candidate can do. Agreed?

by msn1 2008-01-27 05:14PM | 0 recs
Removal Once Selected/Unbounded Delegates

Yes, I think we can agree that these particular removal provisions do not seem to apply once the delegate is actually "selected." It would seem, however, that the timing of the actual "selection" will vary from state to state.  In California, for example, in 2008, (contrary to prior practices) delegate selection will take place long after the primary takes place. Likewise, it seems, the delegate "selections" in Iowa and Nevada will take place long after the January caucuses.

At any rate, if both campaigns envision the possibility of a contentious convention with many contentious and important votes, then they will be very tempted to use this removal power very aggressively to insure that they have only rock solid, dependable campaign operatives running in every district level caucus election.

That will place an organizational premium on the campaigns to assemble full slates of "rock solids" in every single CD, not an easy task. Furthermore, once they have these slates assembled, they will then will be sorely tempted to use this removal power to remove every potential interloper or name they do not recognize.  As perhaps never before, many citizen activists and grass roots supporters who signed up on their own initiative because they "just want to go the convention to support my candidate" could be in for a rude and unexpected surprise:  the brusque and inexplicable boot questioning their allegiance to their beloved candidate.

And, of course, consider this: there could be monkey business wherein the supporters of a first candidate try to get their supporters to be secretly elected to be a delegates for the other candidate...such that...at the convention they can be of some assistance to the first candidate in certain borderline votes, like the seating of delegates from MI and FL.  Bottom line:  we may see the use of the removal provisions as never before.

As far as your statement suggesting, it seems, that a pledged delegate to a first candidate can switch to supporting a second candidate, I guess that harkens back to your theory (and diary from last week) that expressed your conclusion that pledged delegates to the convention are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledge to.

I disagree with this reading of the rules.  And in a comment last week in your diary, I expressed and explained that disagreement. (I surmise you did not notice the disagreement since there was no response.)

I have substantially copied that comment below for your concurrence...or rebuttal:  

"Look at the system set up by both the Call and the Delegate Selection plan. It explicitly creates two classes of delegates: pledged and unpledged. And pages and pages are spent describing the selection of these DIFFERENT types of delegates.

If the diarist's "interpretation" of the rules is followed, then it would render a complete and utter nullity the distinction between "pledged" and unpledged.

The first rule of statutory interpretation is to harmonize rules to the maximum extent possible, and not use a single interpretation of one part of the rules to render nonsensical the rest of your rules.  The logical interpretation, the harmonizing interpretation, is to accord meaning and substance to the word "pledge" and the term "pledged delegates."  

Does "pledging" to support a candidate have meaning in the rules?  Uhm, yes, it sure does. For example, here is paragraph 12B of the Delegate Selection Rules (emphasis added):

   12 B.  All persons wishing to be elected to a district-level or at-large delegate position must file a  statement of candidacy designating the presidential or uncommitted preference of the delegate candidate AND A SIGNED PLEDGE OF SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (including uncommitted status) the person favors, if any, with the state party by a date certain as specified in the state's Delegate Selection Plan. Persons wishing to be elected as pledged party leader and elected official delegates shall comply with Rule 9.C.(3).

Why make them sign something if you think it is a nullity, meaningless?

Let us now turn to the single thing that the diarist is citing to suggest (wrongly) that the PLEDGED delegates are actually not pledged delegates:

  12J Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

This rule actually states just the opposite of what the diarist suggests.  Not surprisingly, it uses the word SHALL to mandate that they DO reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

For some peculiar reason, the diarist thinks the words "in all good conscience", should be read to mean that all signed, pledged delegates ARE NOT pledged.  But this is an untenable reading of a phrase that is nothing more than boilerplate.  

The delegates shall, being upstanding citizens, honor their pledges. What does that mean to you?  That rule tells me that they SHALL.  And if they do not, they will be seen as violating the rules and not allowed to do so.  Yet, the diarist suggests that this means just the opposite: they can do as they please, and render a nullity the entire systemic distinction between pledged and unpledged. They can nullify the signature provisions as well.

Hmmm....which interpretation makes sense, and which is untenable?"

by Demo37 2008-01-27 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Here Are The Relevant Rules

The time a candidate/campaign can remove a delegate candidate is for a limited period of time after the filing deadline for delegates -- usually about a 5-7 day period they have to vet delegate candidates. But this all happens before the delegates themselves are elected. The candidate/campaign approves a list of people who can run for delegate -- after the delegates are elected, the campaign can't remove them from the position.

by lifelongdem 2008-01-27 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Here Are The Relevant Rules

thanks for the clarification.

by msn1 2008-01-27 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I know right...

The rules about replacing delegates are still there, but only before the primary/caucus, i.e., only before the delegates have been selected. Once the delegates have been picked, they can't be replaced.

by msn1 2008-01-27 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I know right...

One place I could see this playing out is in NH and IA, particularly for Clinton, as/if she tries to make sure all her delegates back MI & FL being seated.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-01-27 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The process of seating the Florida

Howard Dean should have never let it get to this point. It was a major mistake for the Democratic Party. The time to have resolved this was between the time the final primary calendar was determined (by the NH Secretary of State) and the Iowa caucus.

by hwc 2008-01-27 12:20PM | 0 recs
Another Possibility

First, thanks for the detail and research.  This is very helpful.

I think there is also another possibility not outlined above.  Given your scenario of a Clinton-controlled Credentials Committee and an Obama-controlled Convention overall, you are right the situation would be come to a head.

You are right -- at that point there may be Clinton members of the Credentials Committee who decide to switch and send a report to the floor without seating Michigan and Florida.

On the other hand, it is an additional possibility that Obama delegates decide to vote to seat the contested delegations.

Either one would involve a select group of one candidate's supporters essentially giving the nomination to the person they do not support.

I think the fears of damaging the party in MI and FL are very real and there may be some strong Obama supporters who are nevertheless not willing to disenfranchise 1 million Democratic voters in Florida.

Not saying one is more likely than the other, but either one would be a possibility.

by rcipw 2008-01-27 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The process of seating the Florida i

We can assume that if the nomination is secured for either candidate, the delegations will be seated. If it wouldn't cost him the nomination, Obama would obviously want to reach out to Florida and Michigan voters. Similarly, if Clinton is the nominee apparent, she would make sure the states were seated.

I'm not sure I agree with your assumption that Clinton will have control of the credentials committee - lots of states still to vote to assume that. In all likelihood, the candidate ahead in the delegate count will have the largest number of members of the committee - it is unlikely to have one candidate control the committee and the other control the convention.

If a credentials fight goes to the convention floor, every single delegate would understand that the result of the fight will determine the nominee. As Kennedy learned in 1980 with his effort to wrestle the nomination from Carter by changing the convention rules (I was part of that losing effort), it is impossible to switch delegates from their position if they understand it will determine the nominee.

I continue to believe that a clear nominee will emerge well before the convention -- someone will win enough primaries, superdelegates will rally to the candidate in the lead, and the nominee will become clear. If we actually get the point where we're contesting the nomination based on whether or not Michigan or FLorida get seated, we'll be so incredibly divided that we'll be in serious trouble.

by lifelongdem 2008-01-27 03:21PM | 0 recs
it was a hypothetical situation...

...To explain how the delegates might be seated.

Obviously we won't know which candidate controls the standing committees until after all the states have voted.

by Andre Walker 2008-01-27 03:24PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads