MyDD :: DNC and the Right to Vote

DNC and the Right to Vote

by zenful6219, Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST

We all know what the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee did on Saturday. I guess, for us to move one, it had to be done, but not like this. What kind of message does it say to voters when the Democratic National Committee says "Your vote is worth only half on account of where you live, but everyone else gets a full vote"? What part of fair and democratic voting does the DNC not understand? One of the things they did was take four delegates away from Clinton (that she earned) and awarded them to Obama. He did not earn them. This had the effect of changing the votes of 600,000 people in Michigan.

How is this democratic? How is this even legal?

Of course this made a lot of people angry. It's the sort of thing that goes on in corrupt governments and dictatorships. It should never happen in the United States... but it has.

Washington, DC - U.S. Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-Miramar) issued the following statement today in response to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Rules and Bylaws Committee's ruling to seat Florida's delegates to the Democratic National Convention with only 1/2 of a vote per person.
"It is with reluctance and disappointment that I accept the DNC's decision today. I do so not because I agree with the decision but because it is time for us to move on and focus on winning in November.
"I applaud Karen Thurman and the Florida Democratic Party, Robert Wexler, Bill Nelson and others who represented our state and the candidates for doing the best they could with a bad situation.
"Florida Democrats have been serially abused and the DNC is the latest of offenders. How the DNC has the authority to ignore the votes of `Jack and Jane Lunch Bucket' is beyond my understanding. The insiders who actively sought to disillusion and disenfranchise the more than 1.75 million Florida Democrats who voted on January 29 give new meaning to collective arrogance.
"The DNC's decision today ignores the core principle of our great democracy: the right to vote. I know that the 1.75 million Democrats who voted on January 29 count and don't give a damn what the DNC rules pronounce.
"Going to a party's convention is a privilege. Courts have said that political parties have a right to make their rules. In this case, the DNC has chosen to take away that privilege from people who I believe have earned the right to participate in the National Convention in Denver with a full vote. As Americans, we should never insinuate or give vent to taking away the constitutional, time honored, died for, and cherished rights of voters from any state. Yet that is what today's decision has done to the people of Florida and Michigan.
"I suppose the DNC has the right to block Democrats in Florida from attending the National Convention. They also have the right to be stupid, and stupid they are.
"At the beginning of our great country's history my ancestors were counted as only 2/3 of a person. Until passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, they weren't allowed to vote. During that same time and until 1920, women could not vote. White men who did not own property could not vote at one point in our history as well.
"Now, on May 31, 2008, a group of elitist insiders of the DNC have effectively said that some of my ancestors' progeny equal only 1/2 and that men and women in Florida who voted on January 29th are 1/2 also. For a Party which will crown its historic nominee on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's `I Have a Dream' speech, the DNC's decision today is tragically ironic.
"As a matter of protest, I do not intend to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
"Despite all of this, too much is at stake this November. I refuse to allow those who have done me and my constituents wrong to stop us from taking back our country. Together, we will do whatever it takes to increase our majority in the House and Senate and win the Presidency.
"While I cannot speak for others, I do not intend to take any further legal action against the DNC. If I believed that we could win, believe me, I would act and so would others. But based on case history, it is an uphill battle screaming for a change in federal law.
"I will, however, spend enormous energy on convincing my colleagues in Congress that we must create a rotating regional Presidential primary system. 30 political insiders - nearly all of whom ain't ever been elected to a damn thing in their lives- must never again have the ability to reject the will of and unilaterally disenfranchise 1.75 million voters.
"This election is bigger than Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is certainly bigger than the DNC. There are over 46 million Americans who are uninsured, gas and energy costs are spiraling out of control, America's economy is faltering, and U.S. troops are dying nearly every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take the energy and resources of all of us to fix these problems and the others facing our nation.
"As Florida voters have demonstrated time and time again, we will rise above those who have sought to silence our voices and vote big and win in November."
Representative Hastings joined Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Representative Corrine Brown (D-Jacksonville) in suing the DNC in December 2007 on the grounds that the DNC's decision to strip Florida Democrats of their votes at the DNC National Convention in Denver is a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For the last six months, Representative Hastings has led efforts calling on the DNC to reinstate Florida's 211 delegates to the National Convention. A leader in Congressional election reform efforts, Representative Hastings was the former Vice Chair of the Democratic Special Committee on Election Reform following the 2000 election debacle and recently authored bi-partisan, bi-cameral legislation establishing a rotating regional Presidential primary system.

Tags: Democratic National Committee (all tags)

Permalink :: 30 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (2.00 / 1)

Their is NO constitutional right to vote in presidential primaries. The DNC is a private organization and is free to make it's own rules.

by venician on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:16:10 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

The DNC elections are essentially private country club elections. This is not, and has never been, a "voting rights" issue, and it's insulting to compare it to actual voting injustices (Florida 2000, etc.).

by Pat Flatley on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

So, you're ok with some committee changing your primary vote? If that's the case, why bother letting any of us vote. The RBC could just decide.

by zenful6219 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:22:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (2.00 / 1)

Now, now Zenful, that's not what he said.

You first asked how it could be legal. He answered that.

Whether or not he, or any of the rest of us, like it is something else entirely.

Legality isn't equity. They aren't the same thing.

As I said in my own comment downthread, I am not happy that it came to this, but frankly there was no possible solution that wasn't going to piss about half of the party off.

They split the difference, at the suggestion of the Michigan state party. That's about as good as you're going to get.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:26:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (2.00 / 1)

".....but frankly there was no possible solution that wasn't going to piss about half of the party off."

Actually, I believe there was such a solution.

Although I support Senator Clinton (after the candidates I originally favored withdrew from the race), I believe that Senator Obama already has the nomination won. That being the case, his supporters will be well pleased. And, as he will have the nomination, I believe that he could have allowed the results in MI and FL to stand, as voted, and agreed to seat the full delelgations. That would mollify the HRC advocates, and create a win-win solution.

Obama's delegate lead cannot be overcome, IMHO. He would have served himself well and shown some in-party statesmanship by supporting full inclusion. If and when HRC withdraws from the race, I expect that is exactly what he will choose to do, in the interest of party unity.

by BillCat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:54:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

Well first of all, I don't think you can seat the full delegations because then in 2012 you'll have all states jumping the gun.

But besides, the Clinton campaign's position was that she should get the Clinton votes, the not-Clinton votes should be available to her, and the write-in votes should be thrown out.

That's indefensible. Nobody would have put up with that. To tell the truth I'm not terribly thrilled with 69-59.

But to get to the point, my feelings on 73-55 are irrelevant because that was not the Clinton campaign's position. They were insisting on 73 and then some further division of the 55 between the two campaigns. That was never going to happen.

And the outrage machine takes its cue from the Clinton campaign by and large. If 73-55 had been the decision, and they had sent out the single that THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, the same people would have played along.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (2.00 / 1)

"Well first of all, I don't think you can seat the full delegations because then in 2012 you'll have all states jumping the gun."

Obviously, by 2012, the rules are going to be changed, so seating delegates now will have little relevancy under 2012 rules. Frankly, the main issue here is not 2012, but winning in 2008!

Unless I am badly off the mark, Senator Obama is unstoppable at this point, regardless of what happens with the FL and MI delegations. He has a huge lead in delegates and, barring any disasterous errors on his part, he will be the nominee. That said, he will want/need to mend fences with voters in those two critical states; assuming he asks the DNC will seat the delegations. If the DNC balks (which they will not), Obama can still go over their heads and ask the convention to seat those delegates, and they will assuredly do what their candidate requests.

"But to get to the point, my feelings on 73-55 are irrelevant...."

Your feelings are irrelevant, as are mine. Obama has the nomination in hand, IMHO, so there is no reason why he should not ensure that as many delegates as possible come to Denver. He needs to unite the party, and that need will not be served by continuing to punish. Why would he not choose to do the gracious thing? What would continued exclusion of MI and FL delegates do to help Senator Obama to win in November?

by BillCat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

Correct. They could do that, and essentially did so for quite some time.

No one is arguing that the process doesn't need to be reformed, but it can't be done in the middle of a primary, and it doesn't have to conform to anything aside from whatever rules the DNC feels like implementing.

If they decide that people with only blonde hair are allowed to vote, then I'm going to be out of luck. I won't be "disenfranchised," I'll just be out of luck, much like I can't vote for the president in a local country club.

by Pat Flatley on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:28:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

nobody earned the votes of fla and mi.....period.

there was an understanding between all parties involved.

suggesting that hillary's votes should be awarded but others disqualified is being disingenuous.

by citizendave on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:18:01 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

Arlen Specter is considering convening a congressional hearing on the matter. I urge all of the democrats on here who think it's a good idea to call Mr .Specter and leave a message of support for this inquiry.

by Iceblinkjm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:18:45 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

I personally think, rather than wading into the DNC's business, Specter should start Congressional inquiries into the massive array of malfeasance committed by the current Presidential administration...

McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!

by JenKinFLA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

There is no way. He's a veteran of the Senate who understands what a Pandora's box that is - if he can do it then the Democrats can investigate Republican primaries all day long.

Like why was the winner-take-all Washington Caucus called for John McCain with less than a thousand votes separating him from Huckabee and 16% of the results still uncounted? That was almost certainly fraud, and that's just off the top of my head.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (2.00 / 1)

It is legal because the Democratic Party is a private organization that can choose its leadership and its candidates in any way that it chooses.

They could have Al Gore draw names from a hat. That would be legal.

As to Michigan? It was not a fair or sanctioned contest. There was no way to have a fair or free revote either. I'm emphatically not happy it came to this, but there was simply no solution that would make everyone happy.

None.

And no, giving Senator Clinton everything she asked for wasn't ever going to happen. You make demands that ludicrous in the hopes of getting some or most of what you want. Its called negotiation. Considering how tainted that contest was, Senator Clinton and her supporters have little to complain about.

If you want to fix this primary system, I am right there with you. But you can't, you just can't rework the whole thing in the middle.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee split the difference. That's about as fair as you can get.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:19:14 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

It is NOT as fair as it could have been.

by zenful6219 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:24:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

So what's more fair to Obama supporters in Michigan? It isn't just about Clinton supporters, dammit.

Our candidate took his name off of the ballot to honor his word. Half, or more than half, of the other candidates did the same thing. Set aside your tribalism for a momemnt!

Only one prominent candidate was on the ballot. You really want to honor a vote that wasn't fair? Senator Clinton herself said it would not count and you cannot tell me that, considering how very very low turnout was compared to other states, that the nature of this sham election didn't depress turnout.

Most people didn't go because they were told it was a sham. Do you care about those voters?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

The fact that the turnout was SO low means that the votes of individual people in Michigan, even halved (which strictly speaking isn't what they're doing) have more power in electing delegates than most other states.

Elsinora comments on this all the time. A Michigan voter has more say on what happens at the convention than a Wisconsin voter does. Why? Because Wisconsin, like just about every other large state, had turnout in the millions. Michigan had fewer people electing more delegates.

I wouldn't be surprised if Florida turns out to be the same way. Lower turnout means more power for the individual voter. Alcee Hastings is just wrong here, that is, if he's concerned about the power of the voters and not the individual delegates.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MI's incredibly *low* turnout (none / 0)

Only 600,000 Democratic (non)primary votes. That's very, very, very low ... indicative that Michigan Democrats knew that their vote was of no meaning and little consequence.

Compare that result to the Washington Democratic primary on February 19. It was unequivocal, and universally known, that our primary had nothing whatsoever to do with electing DNC delegates. There were no other important issues or measures on the beauty contest ballot. Because we have no party registration, it would have been perfectly OK for anyone to vote in the Republican primary, where the result did allocate half of the state's delegates to the nominating convention. And Washington is an appreciably smaller state than Michigan, with only about 62% as many registered voters.

The meaningless Washington Democratic primary turned out almost 700,000 voters, far more than the Michigan turnout (and also far more than the Washington Republicans).

by N in Seattle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I find this problematic. (none / 0)

In what way is this letter helpful?

What is Rep. Hastings hoping to accomplish by comparing the DNC's penalty to the legal status of slaves in the Constitution?

Who is he trying to convince? And to do what?

I think this letter only hurts our party.

I seriously question Rep. Hastings's judgment in choosing to release this letter.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:19:41 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

Forgot to link: http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm ?newsid=19725132&BRD=2737&PAG=46 1&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

by Iceblinkjm on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:19:57 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

This is a party nominating election. This is not an election for public office. The party has the right to make up its own rules. In the RBC bylaws, there is a statement that states that a state will be penalized if they move their primary/caucus into the early window reserved for state selected by the party in advance. These states are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

It is fair and the courts have said so repeatedly. Do you read?

Thanks!

Obama 08!

We Need Team Hillary!!

Obama 08!

by comingawakening on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST

There's only one thing to do. (none / 0)

I tell everyone who brings this up that the only thing for it is to have faith in Democracy and settle this the way that all issues with elected leaders are settled: By voting out the state politicians that so callously played chicken with their votes.

I never agreed with Bush's decision to go to war, but we did, and I, as an American citizen, am planning on punishing him by helping to make sure that his party loses elections.

If I were the Florida and Michigan politicians that made their states laughingstocks, I would be very nervious right now, especially if I were up for re-election this year.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:35:04 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

Corrupt governments and dictatorships have sham elections, too. The greatest flaw in your reasoning, as with the reasoning of many people on Saturday, was that they simply refused to admit how flawed those elections were. Levin was about the only person in the room who made sense on that issue. So please, spare the grandiose comparisons.

by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:58:53 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (2.00 / 1)

I appreciate the anger some feel over this, but Michigan was a very flawed election. There is no "fair" solution to Michigan.

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:04:26 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

Check primary history: Until 1972 presidential candidates were picked in back rooms at the conventions. As a matter of fact, Hubert Humphrey didn't compete in a single primary and was chosen as the nominee at the convention. Because of the chaos caused by that they tried having primary voting.

There is no obligation to base the nominee choice on voting at all, except that that's what we started out doing so that's how we did it in this election season. I suppose they could decide to go back to the old way since the voting stuff didn't avoid a messy primary at all. The RBC doesn't have to pay any attention to that. Their rules don't require it in any way. It looks to me like having SDs is a bit of a throwback to the old system - keeping those party bosses involved a little. My understanding is that their job is to make sure we get the best nominee even if the public picks a nutcase.

So it seems clear they've decided Obama will be a good nominee. I'm sure something could turn up on Obama that would send them all running to Clinton and I have little doubt that is what she hopes for. But still, I think the process has played out the way it's supposed to.

by Becky G on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:36:58 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

How the hell else were they supposed to resolve it? There was no fair way to do it so they made a compromise. This is what governance is all about. Truly there was no objectively fair way to handle Florida and Michigan. This compromise recognizes Clinton's win in Florida and her "win" in Michigan by awarding her the most delegates from each of these states. What else do you want?

by wasder on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EST

Re: DNC and the Right to Vote (none / 0)

If Florida and Michigan had simply followed the rules like everyone else, this wouldn't be an issue.

When you decide to play chicken with the DNC, you have to live with the consequences.

by WellstoneDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM EST

But Hillary wants DNC members to (none / 0)

to support her.

How is Hillary going to get super delegates by running against the DNC?

Only Hillary supporters would believe that Florida and Michigan were deliberately "disenfranchised." Reasoning people would see this as what it is, a party discipline issue to enforce the primary schedule. As Michigan and Florida ignored the party when they held their primaries, the party had the right to ignore Michigan and Florida when it held its convention. In mutual interest the party compromised with Michigan and Florida. There was no attempt by anyone to exclude or undercount voters anywhere and accusations to that effect are offensive to the party and members of the DNC.

Please tell me how insulting people is a good way to win their support.

We shall overcome. Yes we can.

by Sam Wise Gingy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:53:47 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.