A lawsuit waiting to be heard (temp restraining order motion filed-NV caucus)

[ursi]

Source: Las Vegas Sun

January 14, 2008 · 5:01 PM

The lawsuit seeking to dismantle the nine at-large caucus sites because they would give improper weight to Culinary workers remained in limbo this afternoon.

Although the complaint was filed on Friday, the plaintiffs have still needed to file an emergency motion such as a temporary restraining order to get the matter heard swiftly in U.S. District Court, according to state Democratic Party officials.

Nothing had been scheduled so far late this afternoon, although the filing could occur electronically as late as midnight.



Read more: http://lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/14/lawsuit-waiting-be-heard/

---

The Temporary Restraining Order motion to stop the at-large precincts from caucusing has been filed and can be found here:

http://lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2008/jan/14/motion-filed-lawsuit-tro-and-emergency-hearing/

[Double T]

1. Looks like someone is trying to stake the deck.

[cloudythescribbler]

2. Is this just a MOTION FOR a temporary restraining order (TRO) or an actual TRO?

The phrasing leaves it ambiguous

[HooptieWagon]

3. apparently, its the motion for TRO that was filed. n/t

[ursi]

4. I think this means that the original lawsuit could be heard tomorrow

now that this motion has been filed.

Thanks for the correction.

[lapfog_1]

13. Someone who seems to be a Nevada lawyer

is blogging that the venue selected by the Plaintiffs is all wrong for a quick hearing or even a TRO. They filed in Federal Court for the district of Nevada instead of a state court. This person's guess is that the Federal Court will want nothing to do with it and bounce it to a state court... and time is working against them even getting a TRO if that should happen.

[McCamy Taylor]

5. What about women who work at KMart, Wal-Mart, Kroger, 7-11, McDonalds

or any number of other places where they will be working on Saturday and will not have the day off and will not have caucuses brought to their door for them? How is this fair for them if they are Hillary supporters (as women tend to be)?

People act like this is just teachers versus culinary workers, but Hillary has a lot of support among non college educated lower class and working class women many of whom have to work on weekends and work extra jobs. Where is Obama demanding that they get special opportunities to vote in their "pink ghetto" jobs? What about women who take care of children and have no baby sitters when they need to go caucus?

[Kittycat]

6. HRC didn't have a problem with it until she didn't get the nod from the Culinary Union.

Please keep the facts straight. There was plenty of time to file protest. This is an obvious set-up and chance to silence voters.

[ursi]

7. ...and that kind of behavior makes women look like manipulators

[grantcart]

10. Besides the fact

listed in another post that it was enthusiastically agreed to when they thougth they had the Culinary workers, the workers at Walmart and McDonalds have 2 choices; go to their caucuses at home or down on the strip. The locations you indicate are widely dispearsed while the idea (which was unanimous at the time) of having at large on the strip was to facilitate participation where THERE WAS A LARGE CONCENTRATION OF WORKERS.

[lapfog_1]

12. To be fair

only workers that work within, I believe, 2.5 miles of the At-Large locations are eligible to caucus at those locations. Given the time of day (11:00am) and the usual traffic around the big casinos, workers in areas not near the strip would be much better off going to their home precinct. Yeah, if you are working on Saturday, this sucks. The Party tried to put a plan together that would allow some 40,000 or more union workers to vote on that day. Flawed though it may be, without it, those people will not have their voices heard. And the plan was agreed to by all parties UNTIL the union endorsed Obama.

[Diane R]

8. So why does Hillary not want these people to be allowed to participate?

[ursi]

9. because she didn't get the Culinary Union endorsement last week, Obama did

so she must be afraid that the workers will vote for Obama instead of her. Her people approved this plan originally ...until it looked like it wasn't going to work for Hillary after last week.

[lapfog_1]

11. Ahh, I read the motion and finally understand where the

10 to 1 disproportionate weight argument comes in.

It's from the lawyers FLAWED (and I mean FLAWED) apples to oranges comparison in their motion to obtain a TRO.

Here:
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2008/01/plaintiffs_app.pdf

end of page 3, top of page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
extraordinary scenario, likely to occur on January 19:

John and Jane Voter, each registered Party voters living in the same home in the Clark County Precinct 1001, are shift workers as a casino located on the Las Vegas Strip. John is scheduled to work at his place of employment on January 19, 2008, with his work schedule including the time of the caucus. He make the necessary arrangements to attend his assigned At-Large caucus. Two hundred-sixty other eligible shift workers also attend this At-Large caucus. The At-Large caucus participants choose 52 delegates to the Clark County Convention. John's voice in the At-Large caucus could be assigned a value of 0.19%.

Jane, by seeming good fortune, is not scheduled to work on the day of the caucus, so she is able to attend her home precinct caucus. Because Precinct 1001 has 261 registered delegates, she and the other participants at this precinct caucus choose 5 delegates to the Clark County Convention. Jane's influence in her home caucus could be assigned a value of 0.019%

Thus, pursuant to the Plan, this couple, both of whom live in the same house and work for the same employer, would have their caucus votes treated in vastly different manners. Jane's voice would be ONE-TENTH the value of her husband's, for no other reason than that her employer did not schedule her to work during the time of the caucus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, let's take this apart one thing at a time. First off, there is an incorrect word choice in this example. Precinct 1001 (the example home Precinct) does not have 261 registered DELEGATES, it has 261 registered VOTERS... it's a small thing, but motions should be correct. According to the Plan rules, 261 registered voters in a Clark County Precinct would get delegates at a ratio of 50 - 1, that is, 50 registered democratic voters to 1 delegate. So 261 / 50 = 5.2 or 5 as the example states. And her voice is the stated 0.019%. Here is where the apples to oranges comes in. The example of John voting in the At-Large Precinct at the casino states that 260 eligible voters SHOWED UP to select delegates. The example never states how many SHOWED UP to vote in Precinct 1001 where Jane voted. The Plan states that an At-Large Precinct needs 4000 or more workers to qualify, so the fair comparison is number of workers or 4000+ / 50 equals number of delegates. Not the 260 that the example states "showed up" to caucus. After all, perhaps out of the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001, lets say only 40 showed up to caucus. Jane would then have a weight given to her vote of 2.5%, a much HIGHER representation than John's.

You see why the plaintiff's lawyers had 260 showing up at the At-Large V. the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001... because both of the groups have the SAME REPRESENTATION of 50 to 1 of registered voters... but they want to distort it by claiming that ALL VOTERS in the example precinct 1001 showed up but only got 5 delegates, whereas 260 showed up (out of 4000 potential voters) at the At-Large caucus and got 52 delegates. A convenient way to come up with the 10 to 1 ratio in the claims. But it's totally bogus.

Edit to add

Ohh, I just thought of something ELSE...

Jane's vote in her home precinct actually will count MORE (very slightly) than John's vote.
Follow me here... John and Jane both vote in precincts that award 50 to 1 delegates to eligible voters as has been demonstrated. However, John can't be in two places at one time, and in the example, John is a registered voter in the HOME PRECINCT (where Jane is voting), which means that the number of delegates awarded to that precinct is higher than it should be... because John (and all union members that are using the At-Large and who live in Precinct 1001) is not there to vote... so those who DO show up to vote in Precinct 1001 get the benefit of having MORE delegates to represent them.

To see this mathematically, use the same example the the lawyers wrote, only this time put in numbers that show EVERYONE caucusing (all 261 registered voters MINUS John and other working union members) and all 4000 At-Large eligible caucus voters. Jane actually gets a slightly LARGER voice than John (he is stuck at 50 to 1) because the number of delegates in her home caucus will include John and his co-workers (at the same 50 to 1 ratio).