Clinton Loses on This Gamble - Katrina Vanden Heuvel (I Mean ... er, The Nation)

[WillyT]

<snip>

Since her loss in Iowa, Senator Hillary Clinton has been an outspoken critic of the caucus system, saying that the limited time allotted for voting disenfranchises too many workers who are on the job during those hours.

It seems in Nevada Clinton has had a change of heart.

Last week the powerful, 60,000 member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 chose to endorse Senator Barack Obama after "fierce lobbying" from the three frontrunners. Two days later, the Nevada State Education Association – with ties to the Clinton campaign in its leadership – filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to shutdown nine casino caucus at-large sites created to allow both union and non-union shift workers to vote during the workday. (On any given day, it would be difficult for these workers to participate without these caucus sites. It will be even more difficult during the busy Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend.) According to the Washington Post, the system was created last March with input from the presidential campaigns and – as meeting minutes reveal – "several of the parties to the suit were there and approved of the process."

Karen Finney, Director of Communications at the Democratic National Committee, said to me, "The state party submitted their delegate selection plan last May and it was available for public comment…. They also had a thorough review process in the state and informed the campaigns months ago about their plans. A key goal is to ensure the broadest participation by eligible voters. The state party has worked hard to increase the number of caucus locations throughout the state, there are some 520 public locations statewide, and there are more caucus locations than there were polling locations in 2006. The at-large precincts are 9 percent of those locations are open to all shift- workers within a 2.5 mile radius."

This is the first time in the 2008 presidential race that the Latino vote will play a significant role in an electoral outcome, and nearly 40 percent of the Culinary union's membership is Latino. Estimates put the votes at the casino sites at more than 10 percent of the statewide total. According to the Los Angeles Times, at a union rally Obama spoke out against the lawsuit which would "disenfranchise the hard-working folks on the Strip.... You don't win an election . . . by trying to keep people out. You're supposed to try to bring them in." He also said of the lawsuit's timing, "Ever since I got the support of Local 226, the lawyers decided to get involved. The rules were OK when the other campaigns thought they would win the Culinary endorsement."

Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote, agreed that the timing and impact of the lawsuit are problematic. He told me, "The time to discuss the fairness of caucus sites is long past – you simply don't want to reduce the number of places to vote or do a last-minute change if you want people to participate. Caucus turnout already promises to be distressingly low for representative outcomes."

Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who does voting rights cases (he's also chair of Montgomery County for Obama and running to serve as a Delegate), told me that the case is without merit: "The Equal Protection claim in this case is silly and would be thrown out even if it hadn't been raised in the eleventh hour in a transparently political way. The claim boils down to the argument that it discriminates against teachers and other professionals to set up polling places in casinos for people who work there since these employees then get an unfair advantage in access to the polls. On this curious theory, of course, it would violate Equal Protection for some people to live two miles away from a polling place while others live on the same block. The irony is that most polling places are in public schools ! Setting up polling stations in workplaces where there are tens of thousands of voters who would otherwise be unlikely to vote is perfectly rational. It's also a public policy that progressives should celebrate and duplicate, not try to thwart."

<snip>

More: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=270073

It is SO NICE to know that we've learned from the Republican playbook.

:puke:

[killbotfactory]

1. The Clintons will save the democratic party by destroying it

[jgraz]

4. They did that from 1992-2000

I wonder what their next trick will be.

[mod mom]

2. ""several of the parties to the suit were there and approved of the process."

You know damn well if the union had endorsed HRC, there would be no suit brought by Clinton supporters. Why didn't these folks attempt to make caucus locations better suited to their union members back in March?

[karynnj]

8. It does not seem they want to make them more convinient to their suppoters

They are not lobbying to ADD locations, which could do that. They are arguing to eliminate some a few days before the caucus. (Imaging if Blackwell had decided a week before the election to eliminate some inner city polling places, consolidating where precincts vote. Is there anyone here who would not add that to the list of unfair voter suppression done?)

John Kerry has a great statement, that I believe he would have made no matter which candidate got the endorsement - just as he claims.

"Here are the details. Last March, the Nevada Democratic Party came together and put together the rules of the caucus. Because of the high number of casino workers in Las Vegas, and because those workers have to work on weekends, the Democrats of Nevada decided to have special, at-large caucus sites in certain select areas (like right on the Vegas Strip) to give those working people a chance to make their voices heard. The Culinary Workers Union, who represents the workers, celebrated the move.

Suddenly, a mere days before the caucus, we now see a lawsuit to shut down those at-large sites and deny the casino workers their right to vote. Three of the plaintiffs voted for the very plan they’re now trying to block – reasonable people have guessed they’re changing their minds presumably because just a few days ago the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Barack Obama.

Here’s the bottom line. I understand people gut it out to win on Election Day. But certain tactics make victory pyrrhic – empty – hollow – and it’s not worth winning if you lose what really counts in the process. And you know what, if the Culinary Workers had backed someone besides my choice in this race - Barack Obama - I’d still say it’s right for every candidate to make sure these workers get to vote.

Whether it’s scrubbing African-Americans from the voting rolls, challenging the registrations of people with Hispanic surnames, or not providing enough voting machines in the neighborhoods of working families, the right-wing has spent years denying people the right to vote in the pursuit of raw political gain. All this time, Democrats have stood up for the rights of all people to cast their votes. We need to remain that kind of Party -- voter suppression is wrong, all the time, anywhere. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4083691

[Diane R]

3. Happy to give this the fifth recommend.

[WillyT]

5. More !!!

Disenfranchisement case to be heard in Nevada tomorrow. Could be impacted by unanimous Supreme Court decision made today.

<snip>

The attempt by supporters of Hillary Clinton to change the rules of the Nevada Democratic caucus, which have been approved for months, goes to court tomorrow. A Supreme Court decision issued today based on a case from New York State seems to undermine the arguments of the plaintiffs.

For me, this episode is one of the most despicable acts we've seen in the campaign so far this year. We expect Republicans to block voters from participating, but not Democrats. According to the Las Vegas Sun (my new favorite paper, for this week anyway) the case may be doomed already over timing issues. Basically, the plaintiffs waited too long to file:

It appeared that the plaintiffs, another legal expert said, “just waited too late in the day to entertain these types of issues.”

The doctrine is meant to prevent last-minute litigation when rules could have been challenged earlier, said Edward B. Foley, professor of law at Moritz College of Law and the director of the election law program at Ohio State University.

“The court is likely to ask: Why couldn’t they have brought this sooner? Why is it filed now?”

Supporters of the lawsuit have said they didn’t become aware of the caucus rules until recently, though the rules were passed by the state party in March.

They became very "aware" of the rules after Obama got endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union. Which brings me to today's Supreme Court ruling explained after the break.

One of the legal expert interviewed by the Sun made this astute comment:

Even if the judge discounts the timing, Foley said, courts have largely given wide latitude to parties to come up with their own rules.

“This is arguably an internal party matter,” he said. “Case law from the U.S. Supreme Court gives considerable deference to parties.”

Astute, because interestingly, a Supreme Court case unanimously decided today may undermine the lawsuit brought by the Clinton supporters. That case revolves around political parties in New York State choosing judicial candidates. From The NY Times:

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld New York's unique system of choosing trial judges Wednesday, setting aside critics' concerns that political party bosses control the system.

''A political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform,'' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court.

The Nevada State Democratic Party chose a candidate-selection process that was accepted by all the players -- until just about a week ago. On an early reading, seems like today's Supreme Court decision works in the favor of the state party's approved plan.

<snip>

Link: http://www.americablog.com/2008/01/disenfranchisement-case-to-be-heard-in.html

:mad:

[stillcool]

6. Court document

http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2008/01/16/OppoDemsMTNRelief.pdf

[JAbuchan08]

7. kicked eom