Ruling on Strip voting looks likely today

[babylonsister]

Ruling on Strip voting looks likely today
6 percent of state delegates could be at stake

By David McGrath Schwartz

Thu, Jan 17, 2008 (2 a.m.)


The dispute threatening to undermine Nevada’s caucus is likely to be ruled on today as a U.S. District Court judge considers a legal challenge to plans to provide at-large caucus sites designed for workers on the Strip.

The state Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee filed legal arguments Wednesday opposing the lawsuit, which seeks to prevent nine casino caucus sites from operating during Saturday’s Democratic caucus because they give casino workers, mostly members of the Culinary Union, an unfair advantage over other caucusgoers across the state.

The state party and the national committee are fighting the lawsuit on several grounds, including the last-minute nature of the challenge. “By sitting on their hands until a few days before the caucus ... plaintiffs have forfeited any claim,” the response said, citing a doctrine that bars abusive 11th-hour challenges.

The response also notes that four of the plaintiffs voted in favor of the plan to create the at-large sites. The lawsuit was filed by five Democrats and the Nevada State Education Association, the teachers union.

The state and national parties also argue that political parties have a right to structure their own delegate selection procedures.

The case will be heard by Judge James C. Mahan.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/17/Strip_voting/

[ursi]

1. just so you know ...that Judge is a Bush appointee!

[babylonsister]

2. I didn't know; thanks. nt

[Rock_Garden]

3. Thanks for that tidbit, ursi.

[Adelante]

7. In this case, maybe better than having a Clinton appointee nt

[CK_John]

4. I'm hoping he declares the caucus violates the Voting Rights Act and is unconstitutional. n/t

[Perky]

6. on what legal basis?

[CK_John]

14. IMO, Fixed place and time, no means for absentee voting, and no provision for private ballot. n/t

[MaineDem]

17. It's a caucus remember

Private voting is not done at a caucus.

[CK_John]

18. That's 1 of several reasons I feel they should be unconstitional. n/t

[Perky]

20. So it really is the entire caucus concept. you object to

[CK_John]

22. Yes, they are a holdover from when everybody could agree on a time and place to meet and discuss,

but in todays 24/7 world it has loss it's functionality.

[Perky]

5. I am really of two minds on this

to the reasonable observer this looks like Clinton engineered voter supression and just politics as normal. It is ugly...but it is how hardball politics get played. The suit should have been filed long ago and not at the last moment.

On the other hand, the argument that it migh have a direct efferct on geographic proportionality is viable.

I suspect the judge is going to rule that the the Party has the right to set up its own places of meeting and its own rules both on freedon of assembly grounds and the long helf view that the parties are private institutions.

It would not surprise me however to see a delay in the voting which is what this may actually be about to begin with.

[Perky]

24. Exactly as I predicted

LAS VEGAS - Democrats with ties to Hillary Rodham Clinton failed in court Thursday to prevent casino workers from caucusing at special precincts in Nevada.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan was presumed to be a boost for Clinton rival Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday because he has been endorsed by the union representing many of the shift workers who will be able to use the precincts on the Las Vegas strip.

"State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said.

Nevada's Democratic Party approved creation of the precincts to make it easier for housekeepers, waitresses and bellhops to caucus during the day near work rather than have to do so in their neighborhoods.

The state teachers union, which has ties to Clinton, brought the suit against the special precincts shortly after local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination. The union is the largest in Nevada, with 60,000 members. The Clinton campaign said it was not involved in the suit.

[rucky]

8. "four of the plaintiffs voted in favor of the plan..."

That there is all you need to know.

[Renew Deal]

10. And... The suit was brought late

I read something that said there's legal precedence to throw it out on that alone.

[Renew Deal]

9. Strip Voting?

I HAVE TO vote this year!! :D

[Inuca]

11. LOL n/t

[bluestateguy]

12. The Nevada courts and that thug union that is bringing this suit should STFU

This is a junk lawsuit.

[CK_John]

15. This is in Fed District court. n/t

[Inuca]

13. Each time

I read or hear something about this lawsuit, I feel my blood boiling. I do not know nor do I care about the legal details and arguments, the plain facts are enough. The Clintons being behind all this is just UNBELIEVABLE.

[MaineDem]

16. I'll go out on a limb and say the decision will be for the Dem Party plan

It was approved over a year ago and courts have already ruled that parties control their own selection process.

But... :)

[CK_John]

19. Here is a perfect chance for a * appointed judge to throw a wrench into our selection process, this

is one time I'm hoping for a just outcome for the wrong reason.

[Barack_America]

21. Judge James C. Mahan is going to be the biggest fool in the world...

If he even briefly considers ruling in favor of this lawsuit.

Apparently the plaintiffs are arguing that they couldn't have brought the suit earlier because the caucus plans were, until recently, marked "draft" on the county's election website. They're claiming that they just recently learned of the final plans for the caucus sites and that's why they filed the lawsuit so late. But, doesn't the fact that four of the plaintiffs were involved in originally adopting the plans tell you how bullshit this lawsuit is?

So, they didn't have knowledge of the very plans that they voted to adopt? Riiiiiight.

[CK_John]

23. This Judge also has the opportunity to down in history as doing away with the caucus. n/t