Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clintons and NSEA disenfranchising 60,000 Las Vegas Culinary workers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
LVZ Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:27 PM
Original message
Clintons and NSEA disenfranchising 60,000 Las Vegas Culinary workers
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 01:59 PM by LVZ


Jon Ralston - Las Vegas political columnist


http://lasvalley.com/702/viewtopic.php?id=1342

http://lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2008/jan/15... /

http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/video/2008/01/obama_...

http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/video/2008/01/obama_...

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/13/culinary-leader... /

http://lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/15/fed... /



January 14, 2008

Ms. Lynn Warne, President
Nevada State Education Association
3511 East Harmon Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89121

Dear President Warne:

As teachers in Nevada, and members of the Nevada State Education Association, we are deeply dismayed that our union is trying to stop our students parents from caucusing on Saturday. We urge them in the strongest terms to drop this lawsuit immediately.

Many of our students are Hispanic Americans and come from low-income families. Their parents are construction workers, McDonalds employees, and other shift workers on the strip, who work around the clock, and wont have time to travel to their caucus locations on Saturday. Thats why the state Democratic committee set up nine at-large precinct locations on the strip to provide nearby caucus locations for Nevadans who otherwise wouldnt be able to caucus.

These at-large locations were approved back in March of 2007, and no one raised any concerns about them for nearly a year. But now, our union is filing a lawsuit making the baseless charge that these at-large caucus locations are discriminatory, when the fact is they were set up to make sure as many Nevadans could caucus as possible.

This lawsuit is all about politics. Its widely known that many of our unions top officials support Senator Clinton and now that the Culinary Workers Union has endorsed Senator Obama, theyre using our union to stop Nevadans from caucusing for Senator Obama.

We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of whats right for our students, but thats exactly what theyre doing. As teachers, and proud Democrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support.

Sincerely,

Tamara Anderson, Elementary School Counselor
Monica Baldwin, 3rd grade teacher
Jodi Brant, Government teacher for 12th graders
Mari Calderon, Kindergarten teacher
Jessica Cohn, 3rd grade teacher
Ketica Guter, 3rd grade teacher
Sarah Irby, Kindergarten teacher
Padmini Jambulapati, 7th and 8th grade teacher
Tracy Kamhi, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade teacher
Jennifer Kehs, 4th grade teacher
Clara Munk, Primary Reading teacher
Matthew OKeefe, 4th grade teacher
Frances Rabbitt, Special Education teacher
Chantae Readye, 5th grade teacher
Jessica Tolliver, 1st grade teacher




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nevada meet Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. yes, being left out is a feature of a caucus---phyically present
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
36. delete-posted in wrong place
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:18 PM by jenmito
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. HILL0RY EATZ BABYZ! HILL0RY EATZ BABYZ!
--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. interesting that non of the school support people/workers in the union signed the petition
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 01:31 PM by papau
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Were they asked?
Are they educators?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. They are members of the union that is going to court - just like the teachers. Don't know if they
were asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. Has the Court ruled on this?
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 01:34 PM by Debi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Are courts always right?
I wish people would take an hour and educate themselves and decide what they think on this matter. Not anything personal against you, but judges can be political too, even the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. No, but I didn't know the status of the case w/in the court system
However, I have read the law suit and also read the rules for the at large caucus put in place by the Nevada Democratic Party. I am not a lawyer, though, so I may be too uneducated to have an opinion on this matter. You let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. I think anybody can read statutes
read past court cases, etc. I said this wasn't personal at you. I just get tired of people being willing to give away their rights any time a court says so. If I didn't think every DU was educated enough to read and come to an opinion, I wouldn't have suggested it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. I don't recall giving up anything
All I wondered was IF the Court had made a decision.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. And all I said
is courts aren't always right and I wasn't directing that personally at you. It was just a general observation and comment about relying on courts. I understand that all of us are waiting to see what the court says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Thank you for clarifying. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. Andrea Mitchell says If the Culinary Union Wins Obama WIns
If Culinary Union loses Clinton Wins.

Politics American Style.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Andrea says what the people talking into her earpiece tell her to say
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. Don't look behind that curtain! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:38 PM
Original message
Wow...It looks like CLinton and her supporters are conducting a
scorched-earth campaign. This is despicable and it will not be forgotten, which makes it stupid, as well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hats off to these teachers wanting better access for voters!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
12. Nevada is a "no excuse" absentee ballot state, and has early voting.
http://www.electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=474

That Clinton and the NSEA are disenfranchising voters is a huge lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. If the lawsuit is successful, will the result be a net loss in Caucusing Nevadans?
C'mon C'mon

I haven't got a Hillarite to answer this yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LVZ Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. in terms of number of participants, yes, of course. n/t
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:38 PM by LVZ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
44. then that, my friend, is Voter Suppression
Glad I could introduce you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #44
70. Perhaps we resemble Repubs sometimes and voter suppression is
only a bad thing, if it is "your" voters who are being suppressed. (That's a sad thought.) :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. This is from The Nation..
snip~
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~
D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of Culinary Local 226, also felt that the Democratic Party should speak out strongly to defend the caucus sites. As he said to the New York Times, "I never thought we'd have people in the Democratic Party try to disenfranchise women, people of color and large numbers of working people in this state. I am sure every single elected official in Nevada will renounce it, and so will the Clinton campaign."


More>>
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2008/ja...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
54. I don't think that is what the court should be considering, at all.
At the very least the court should require that "at large precinct" caucus goers be subtracted from the rolls of their "home precinct." Otherwise, IMHO, there will be a situation where their "home precinct" caucus gets to allocate a delegate for them, based on their address on their voter registration, and the "at large precinct" caucus gets to allocate a delegate for them based on their attendance, in effect, they are counted, or allocated a delegate, twice.

It should be easy enough to do that though, since I think the "at large precinct" caucus goers must show proof of where they reside when they attend the "at large precinct" caucus, which should also make it possible to remove their numbers from those allocated for the "home precinct." I think I said that right.

It is also a very interesting side note that everyone was happy with it until Hillary didn't get the endorsement from the culinary workers union.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #54
73. Not such a "side note"...Yeah, hillary didn't get the vote
from the Culinary's Union and then all hell breaks loose at the clinton's campaign hq.."What we gotta stop this bloodletting with some good ol' fashion voter suppression with a silly lawsuit..everyone will just think we're really really cunning."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #73
82. They've got 60,000 members..
and that's a lot of bloodletting. In fact, it could be lethal. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. I can hope..
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LVZ Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. irrelevant to this thread - this is a caucus not a primary - n/t
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:38 PM by LVZ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Thanks, I stand corrected.
I know very little about a caucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. There is no absentee or early voting this time
With the caucus the early voting and absentee voting was suspended.
***********
"Is there a way to vote early or cast an absentee vote?
No. Participants must caucus on Jan. 19, 2008."
http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/index.php?option=com_conten...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Thanks for the link. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Absentee voting NOT permitted for the caucus!
http://sos.state.nv.us/elections/nvelection/caucus.asp

"Democrats
Saturday, January 19, 2008

Detailed Caucus Information: www.nvdemscaucus.com

Eligible Participants: Open to all registered Democrats. If you are not already registered but eligible to vote, you may complete a registration form and participate on the day of the caucus. If you will be 18 by November 4, 2008 and are otherwise eligible to vote, you may participate in the caucus.

Caucus Locations: Check my Caucus Location

Sign-In: Arrive by 11:30 am

Basic Caucus Process: Caucus participants will indicate which candidate they support. The precinct caucus chair will then announce which candidates have the most support and which candidates do not have enough support to meet the viability threshold. Caucus participants who support a candidate who is not viable and has not met the threshold of support to continue will then realign themselves with their second choice candidate. Based on the size of the presidential preference groups in support of one candidate or another, the delegates to the county convention are apportioned. Additional Information

Absentee Voting: Not permitted"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. So then the problem appears to be dividing up the precinct?
If a precinct is allowed x number of delegates that are asigned to viable candidates, is the x then further subdivided by the sites Obama wants for his people?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Let's make it clear, Obama did not design this system. The state Dems did...
...with the cooperation of BOTH campaigns. Funny that it took losing the Culinary Workers endorsement to make the Clinton campaign realize that they were getting an "unfair" advantage in the caucus, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. So is or is not the problem dividing up the "x"?????
Perhaps we could leave the rest out, and identify the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. I personally don't agree with that.
Find a way to fix that, fine. But don't take away the caucus sites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #48
56. I personally do not have a problem with the sites per se. I think there is another problem ...
and it seems to be getting buried in this hoopla. The remaining problem seems to be dividing up the "x" - - but I am totally confused over this, truly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Yes, but the Clinton campaign's solution is to get rid of the sites entirely...
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:45 PM by Kristi1696
And that's not fair.

Nor is it fair for their votes to count towards more delegates, etc. But they deserve to be able to vote.

Have you read the threads about how sad people are in Michigan that their votes don't count? We don't want to make even more Americans feel that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. I'm from Florida. Have you read how sad I am?
just kidding

But you just slipped back into blaming the Clinton campaign and that is just back to the swamp, in my book.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. The lawsuit has ties to the Clinton campaign.
Do you deny that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. some people say
such allegation are spurious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. By "some people" you mean the NYT and Associated Press?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #40
62. I think that is exactly what this issue should be about.
As I said upthread, post #54, the number of delegates alloted to each traditional precinct is determined by the number of registered Dems who live inside that precinct, while the "at large" precincts will allot their number of delegates based on actual attendance of caucus goers. It seems like there could be a way to subtract the "at large" attendees from the roles at their home precinct (only for the purpose of assigning the number of delegates) since they will all have to present ID when they show up to caucus.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. It is ok...
they endorsed Obama so they are not really Democrats. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
23. disenfranchising?
Is somebody prohibiting them from caucusing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LVZ Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. in practical terms, yes. This tactic is normal for GOP, not for Dems. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
43. So when I had a bad back
and found it difficult to get to my polling site six blocks away, was I disenfranchised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. No, you were just a Lazy Brokeback Monkey
Too much jumping on the bed, I assume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. No
I don't jump on the bed at my age. I was bending over to pick up a cat. Go figure.


got anything of substance to say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #49
65. Heh. That was clever. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Yes, removing caucus sites at the last minute disenfranchises people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Work schedules are already set...
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:09 PM by Kristi1696
And those most interested in participating probably signed up to work on Saturday.

So yeah, those voters would either be disencfranchised OR the casinos are going to have to be willing to shut down for a few hours so they leave to caucus. Think that would happen? No way. End result? The voters are disenfranchised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. I don't completely understand your point. All the caucus participants have to caucus together.
It's not like a voting booth that you go into one at a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LVZ Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. 500 caucus sites in Nevada - n/t
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:38 PM by LVZ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
52. I don't understand your point. If they can't caucus at work, they can't caucus.
That's the bottom line.

Or, they have to call in sick and potentially risk losing their jobs in order to caucus. All because one campaign who was in agreement with the policy decided that they no longer are, after losing the union endorsement.

How can you defend this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. At a given time all caucus participants move to their candidate's spot. No participant can work.
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:42 PM by Maribelle
The purpose of having a caucus site close to where they work is so that they can go quickly from work to the caucus site when they are not working. It is a marriage of convenience - - nothing more, nothing less.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. It's scheduled to happen during a large shift-change...
To minimize the effect on the casinos, even though they say it's for worker "convenience". It's really for the casinos. Hillary reportedly has a good relationship with the casino owners. I wonder how they feel about this? If they're going to be faced with massive worker shortage because everyone has to call in sick to caucus, they'll probably be pretty pissed at her.

In any case, there's a big difference between caucusing on site and having to trudge around on public transportation to be able to caucus. Remember, many of these people are poor and likely to not have their own automobiles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. You seem not to understand
the meaning of the word "disenfranchised".

Nobody's prohibiting them from voting. Nobody's outlawing or discarding their votes. The complaint is that their voting isn't being made as easy as possible - that's not disenfranchisement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #41
51. you seem not to understand that these Caucus locations already legally exist
To dissolve them would be disenfranchise those who are set to use them.

You forgot that the lawsuit is to get rid of these sites that already exist.

If the teacher's union has a problem, they should sue to have more sites created.

The only reason to sue to dissolve sites is to suppress the votes that would occur there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. and the lawsuit is about the fairness
of those sites existing.

The suit is not about whether the system is fair to Clinton. It's about whether it's fair to Nevada voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. But the ISSUE is about a campaign changing their mind about those sites...
...ONLY after they lost the endorsement of the workers' union.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. but no campaign is behind this
why accuse Clinton? There's no evidence she's behind this - just spurious charges.

But the fact remains: the caucus system is terrible. We should vote privately, and over the course of a weekend. Anything else just systematically precludes some people from voting. But we don't have that system yet.

In the meantime, we have these systems that can be gamed and handled, and I honestly don't fault people who DO game and handle the system. This ain't ping-pong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Officials within the teachers union have endorsed Clinton.
Lawyers for the firm handling the suit have donated to Clinton

Yeah, you're right, there's no connection to the Clinton campaign :eyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/us/politics/12nevada....
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyvInzNqbVlZRinR5LP_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. I endorse Clinton
but nothing I say or do can be attributed to her. Don't be daft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. So unions don't endorse candidates for favors later on and vice versa?
That unions don't do "favors" for their endorsed candidates, such as trying to deliver votes for them?

Please. You are the one being daft.

If it has nothing to do with either campaign, then why don't we see anybody from the Obama campaign participating in the lawsuit? Freaky coincidence?

Wow, you really would defend Hillary even in the face of irrefutable fact, wouldn't you? She quite literally can do no wrong, as far as you're concerned. I'm used to seeing that kind of blind devotion to candidates, just not on this side of the divide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
67. Of course they are disenfranchised.
Just because it may be a very small thing that makes it impossible for them to vote (like moving their polling place) does not mean that they have not been disenfranchised.

Did you lose your job when you had to walk up six flights with a bad back? Would that have made any difference to you if you had?

Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. I am thinking about it
and by your line of reasoning, anything that makes it difficult to vote is "disenfranchisement".

That's silly.

Disenfranchisement has a particular definition, and it does not include what's being discussed here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. it's not making voting more "difficult", it's making voting "impossible"
For many people. That's what happens when you make changes this close to the election....

What if they signed up to work, knowing that is where they would caucus? Now they're supposed to quit their jobs or call in sick so they can go caucus someplace else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #69
81. If the judge shuts down the 'at large' precincts, what do you call it?
Closing down precincts two days before the caucus would actually BE the definition of voter disenfranchisement.

Look it up. There really is a definition, you know. Whatever you are thinking, it is not in keeping with normal mental functions. What are you thinking?

Don't you think it is reasonable to assume that most folks will have already planned where they will be caucusing, and it will be too late for most folks to change those plans? I think ANY other factors are completely irrelevant to the charge of voter disenfranchisement. Voters will not be able to attend if things are changed at this late date. Any imbecile would acknowledge that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #58
68. isn't the lawsuit also about "one voter one vote" so to speak ?
If a person attending a caucus at a casino has already been included in the eligible delegate count of their home precinct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. then shouldn't it be fair
for all workers in Nevada, not just casino workers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. Yes. People just want to shoot the messenger instead of admitting there is a serious problem.
It seems to me that the current set up is totally unfair to all the registered democrats except those that will be attending the casino caucuses, regardless of whomever started and supports the lawsuit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. There's now a legal right to make voting easy?
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:16 PM by MonkeyFunk
Nobody comes to my house on election day to gather my vote. I have to go down to the polling site.

Last year, my back was out. Really really out. I had to walk 6 blocks, and up a flight of stairs. It was incredibly painful. True story.

Was I disenfranchised because nobody came to my door to get my vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
46. Yes, by taking away their existing Caucus location
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
25. Disenfranchising? A caucus state complaining about "disenfranchising"?
WTF are you talking about? States with caucuses have caucuses precisely to disenfranchise voters. To make sure only "real" voters show up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
71. that's the point nobody's making
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 03:07 PM by MonkeyFunk
caucuses are inherently disenfranchising. Fuck whether or not a bartender can make it on his break. That's not the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
80. if they don't like the caucus system they should change to a primary
how is it fair to allow a chosen few to caucus at work? what about the people who are working elsewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunonmars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
33. Well well well


I didnt see anyone complaining when the Iowa caucuses were being held at times when mothers had to look after kids or making dinners or working in hospitals or the like.

So people have to work on a Saturday, again a major fault of having a caucus. They have to be physically present to caucus, thats why a primary was preferable, so people could vote all day.

Employers will not let thousands out for 2 hours to go caucus, tough but thats what happens when you have a caucus.

Caucuses do not work period, why cant these bloody places just have a straight vote where every one can vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
42. Yup. As my article below states, the CURRENT arrangement was agreed to by all until OBAMA got the
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:19 PM by jenmito
CWU endorsement:

"The suit was widely expected by state party officials as well as Obama's campaign and the powerful Culinary Workers Union 226, which earlier this week endorsed the Illinois senator in advance of the Jan. 19 Nevada caucus. That endorsement had been eagerly sought by Obama as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), and by yesterday afternoon culinary union leaders told the Washington Post they expected an outside group with ties to Clinton to file a motion seeking to quash the casino caucuses.

The Nevada State Education Association, some of whose top leaders have individually endorsed Clinton, filed the suit and is using a law firm with close ties to the onetime front-runner, Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Former congressmen James H. Bilbray (D-Nev.), a lawyer at that firm, has endorsed Clinton and is stumping for her in the Silver State.
<snip>
The state party quickly dismissed the lawsuit. Going back to last spring, every presidential campaign was involved in setting up the unusual casino caucus sites while state party officials and the Democratic National Committee ironed out the details. "This is a fair, legal and proper way to choose delegates under established law and legal precedent that has been reviewed by attorneys....The time for comment or complaint has passed," the party said in a statement."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/pos...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. The timing of this on the heels of the Obama endorsement really, really reeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Yup. RW tactics by Dems. Their thirst for power knows no bounds...
apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #53
86. take a look at this:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LVZ Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
45. Clinton in danger of alienating Nevada Latinos, not just African-Americans (link)
Edited on Tue Jan-15-08 02:37 PM by LVZ
http://www.lasvegasgleaner.com/las_vegas_gleaner/2008/0...

Nothing is ever simple anyway. Clinton is seriously courting Latinos. The Obama-supporting Culinary union seriously represents Latinos. The fault line in Nevada's caucus may not be between blacks and Latinos as much as it is between Latinos and Latinos. Dang! Why can't people behave in monolithic blocs to fit NYT storylines?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
47. Having caucused from precinct to county to district to state before,
the idea of absentee, or early, or at-large voting makes as much sense to me as a square circle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
85. The suit claims that the system for determining the number of delegates at the at-large is unfair
Do you think it is; or do you think it is not?


The suit claims that the system for determining the number of delegates up for grabs at the at-large meetings is unfair.

The party has "violated the principle of 'one person, one vote' by creating 'at-large' precincts for certain caucus participants, based solely on the employment of such participants," the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, said.

"This may have been a well-intentioned effort but it missed the mark," said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Mark Ferrario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. And that the best way to deal with it is to get rid of the caucus sites...
Which would lead to voters being disenfranchised, seeing as many have already planned to caucus at work and won't be able to make alternative arrangements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoadRage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
88. Doesn't this piss off other unions?
I'm just curious.. how do other Union Heads view this? It's one Union (Teachers) taking on another Union (Cullinary). But, isn't Hillary running a risk in losing support that she's garnered from other union endorsements? Could this prevent future endorsements for her.. "Endorse me, or we'll sue you" type of thing?

I just don't see why one state's caucus is worth this kind of risk. Aren't Clinton & Obama about deadlocked in the Nevada Polls anyway.. ?

I'm for Obama - but I really don't understand this move on Clinton's part. It seems as though it has a lot more Negative potential the positive upside. Even if she wins Nevada now.. won't it be like "So what.. she kept thousands from caucusing, etc."?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-15-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
89. Uggghhh.
Leave the Republican tactics to the Repugs, Senator Clinton.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LVZ Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 04:07 AM
Response to Original message
90. Senator Reid caught in middle? (link)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LVZ Donating Member (632 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
91. Howard Dean and DNC side with Culinary Union and Nevada Democratic Party
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:01 AM
Response to Original message
92. Rules were set a year ago if they didn't like em, they should have said so. But to wait until two
days after the CWU endorses Obama makes this completely transparent. She's one of the dirtiest politicians I've seen and that includes from the republican side as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
93. Repeated false accusations are the lowest form of dirty politics. Take heed, Obamites.
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 06:06 AM by Perry Logan
I've noticed that virtually every accusation repeated by the Obamites has been debunked. The Obama people simply ignore the other side of the story and go on repeating their accusations.

Now THAT'S dirty politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #93
94. Debunking to the satisfaction of the cognitive dissonant doesn't really count now does it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #94
95. You mean to the dissatisfaction of the cognitively dissonant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Sep 18th 2014, 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC