NAACP Head Wants Barred Delegates Seated

[adabfree]

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

E-Mail Print Share:
DiggFacebookStumbleUpon
WASHINGTON _ A prominent civil rights leader has told the Democratic National Committee that refusing to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan would disenfranchise both states' minority communities.

In a Feb. 8 letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond expressed "great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted." Refusing to seat the states' delegations could remind voters of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries," he said.

The DNC penalized Michigan and Florida for moving their primaries to earlier dates in violation of party rules. Both states were stripped of their delegates, and the party's presidential candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state. Florida lost 185 delegates; Michigan, 128.

Since then, facing the prospect of a drawn-out delegate battle with Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has pushed hard for both states' delegations to be seated. Clinton won Florida's primary Jan. 29 and Michigan's Jan. 15, but was the only candidate to appear on the Michigan ballot after the other candidates removed their names.

In an interview, Bond said the NAACP had taken no position in the race between Clinton and Obama and would not endorse either candidate. He sent the letter on behalf of the voters in Michigan and especially Florida, where the Republican-controlled legislature and governor changed the state's primary date.

"It struck me as making the voters, including minority voters in Florida particularly, victims of the Republican legislature in Florida. I wanted to get Chairman Dean to find some way to rectify the situation," Bond said.

The DNC has said it would allow both states to hold a different contest, probably a caucus, that would comply with party rules. Either state can also appeal the penalty to the DNC credentials committee, which will not meet again until this summer.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb12/0,4670,DelegatesBlacks,00.html

[BlueStateGirl]

1. I am confused. The Republicans changed the primary date?

I don't know why I was thinking the state's Democratic party changed the date?

So, let me get this straight, the Republicans changed the date and the DNC penalizes the states Democratic voters for it?

That's bullshit.

[HeraldSquare212]

2. So we should let Republicans dictate when Democratic primaries are held? nt

[BlueStateGirl]

6. No. I am do not know why you think I said that. I think it is bullshit

that the Repubs moved the primary ahead and then the DNC punished Florida voters for it.

Until just a few minutes ago, I thought FLA's Democratic party moved the date ahead against the wishes of the DNC. And that is what caused the DNC to suspend FLA's delegates.

[HeraldSquare212]

14. my bad nt

[knowledgeispwr]

4. All the democrats in the state assembly in FL went along with it though

and the Dems controlled the process in Michigan.

I don't like the situation, but the state Dem politicians were complicit. Madfloridian has explained this.

[boston bean]

10. Dems did not control the vote in the state congress. nt

[pampango]

5. The vote to change the primary date was like 115-1. You could safely

say that the Florida Democratic party didn't exactly fight it too hard.

[BlueStateGirl]

9. Oh, well then fair enough. I don't agree that MI and FLA delegates

should be deprived of their voice, but if they State parties knew the rules whenthey changed the primary dates, well, then they shouldn't have changed the dates.

I have problems with the way the primaries are structured anyway, but if all players know and agree to the rules when the process starts, then there really isn't a lot of room to complain.

[Little Star]

23. Yes, just disenfranchise dem voters. Thats a winner!

[BlueStateGirl]

36. I think it sucks that the delegates aren't going to be counted, but if

the state Democratic party knew this was the consequence when they did it, it seems disingenuous for them to want it changed now.

It's not fair to FLA or MI voters, but what can be done about it now? As a Hillary supporter I would love it if the FLA and Michigan delegates were to be counted, but all the candidates agreed to the rules going in. I think the DNC was wrong to do it, but if everyone choses to operate in that system , then they should follow the rules.

Same with the super delegates. I assume all the candidates and campaigns understood the process going in, and whining about it now, and claiming the election could be stolen, is BS. Neither side should get to change the rules they agreed to initially, in the middle of the game.

There is so much I don't like about the primary process. I don't like open primaries (even though w/o them independents would have no voice in choosing he candidates), I don't like that we can't have a national primary day, and I don't like that there are super delegates. I hate that I have never voted in a primary that matters, because by the time my state primary roles around the outcome has already been decided.

[Little Star]

47. I think it is the dem voters who are lobbing their state party to fight.

Just because the State party and the DNC made a stupid mistake, why should those voters lose their voice?

[BlueStateGirl]

49. If it comes from the the voters that is one thing, but i don't think

it should come from the campaigns.

[BlueStateGirl]

50. If it comes from the the voters that is one thing, but i don't think

it should come from the campaigns.

[Coexist]

12. the dems were in the minority, but all but one voted for this, too

and as a white floridian, these delegates should not be seated.

it was in the news A LOT - we all knew.

[DJ13]

3. Dean already laid out a plan to prevent disenfranchisement

Hold caucuses in both states.

It would be improper to disenfranchise those people who DIDNT VOTE because they were told not to bother voting since it was already decided by ALL the candidates and the Party it wasnt going to count.

Most of the candidates werent even on the ballot in one state, and no one got to hear the candidates making a direct pitch to them when they were on the ballot in Florida, so trying to count the votes of those who voted anyway is disenfranchising to those who actually listened to their Party when they were told it wasnt going to count.

Really, holding a another primary in those two states is the only fair thing to do for all concerned.

[joshcryer]

7. Link? Dean's solution is simply to seat them afaik.

[anamandujano]

11. For something so important, the expense of another primary is

well worth it.

[Pathwalker]

15. "The MDP will do what the Supreme Court orders us to do.

Short of that, there will be no DO-OVER caucus or primary". That is what I was told by a staffer at Michigan Democratic Party headquarters, when I called them yesterday. When I asked which Supreme Court - State or Federal - did he mean?, his reply was "Federal."
He went on, but since no one will bother to read this, I won't bother.

[hedgehog]

18. I don't see how the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction.

On the other hand, I still don't think they had jurisdiction 2000, either!

[Pathwalker]

19. Actually, our State Supreme Court "might" have jurisdiction IF

State funds would be involved. God help the Democrats if that happens - they're as right wing as it gets. I don't think they'd allow it, then.

[HeraldSquare212]

22. And if state courts say they have jurisdiction under state law, then SCOTUS couldn't interfere. n

[AZ Criminal JD]

30. Not true

Claims are filed everyday in federal court that could have been filed in state court and visa versa. State courts and federal courts can have jurisdiction over the same claim.

[HeraldSquare212]

31. Yeah, but if they claim a violation of the state constitution,

the federal courts can't review that unless the state court's decision violated the federal constitution. SCOTUS has already said party rules on primaries can't be questioned under the federal constitution (unless there's a 14th Amendment violation, I guess), so there'd be no way to get to federal court.

[AZ Criminal JD]

40. The federal courts can get involved if a claim of state action is made

In Nixon v. Condon (1932) the Supreme Court invalidated an attempt by the Texas Democratic Party to exclude blacks from voting in the Democratic primary. They considered the party's action to be a form of state action and they used the 14th Amendment to make their ruling. Could a federal court use that theory on the grounds that blacks use the Democratic party in Michigan and Florida for their political expression? Maybe.

[AZ Criminal JD]

26. Federal court would have jurisdiction on a Equal Protection claim

Normally federal courts will not interfere with primaries but they have in the past when they have had a discriminatory effect and denied a class of voters their right to participate.

[Little Star]

25. hear, hear!!!!! Do not silence the voters!

[hedgehog]

27. WHich voters? As noted above, what about the people who stayed home

because they were paying attention and knew it was an unsanctioned primary and/or their candidate wasn't on the ballot anymore?

[Little Star]

42. Then how come so many others could figure out that it may come

down to fighting for their voices to be heard. You act like the people of MI & FL are not smart enough to figure out that this battle would be fought.

Why did O put his name on the FL ballot? Why did he sign on after the fact as uncommitted in MI? Your reasoning does not compute.

Got any problems with how many voters are disenfranchised by caucuses?
Blue collar workers will most often stay home in order to not be out-spoken by the elites, many older people, many shy people, many private people, people who speak broken english, Handicapped people, people who don't want their spouse, their boss, their neighbors, their in-laws to know who the voted for. Caucuses disenfranchise a ton of voters.

Thought you might not have a problem with that.

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. What dream world do you live in?

To have primaries in Michigan and Florida would cost tens of millions and the party doesn't have it. Period. And the states aren't going to pay for another. Period.

[Little Star]

21. F*ck Caucuses! Those states are primary states!!!!!!!!

[HeraldSquare212]

24. But you'd need the state to agree to new primaries, right?

You'd need the Board of Elections to put out machines, etc. With a caucus, you don't need that. I guess the assumption is that the state legislature wouldn't budge, so the party would have to do it itself, without machines.

[still_one]

37. That is the ONLY way I would accept it /nt

[aquarius dawning]

45. I don't think there is a precedent for a "do-over" in American elections

And I'm not sure that there should be.

[aquarius dawning]

46. Dean should be replaced for fucking up this bad. nt

[anamandujano]

8. Bravo!

I hope if they vote again, it's not a low percentage caucus.

[HeraldSquare212]

13. Do other black leaders feel the same? Was Bond speaking as head of the NAACP, or just on his own?

One reason Florida and Michigan were penalized is because the DNC wanted to give blacks (SC) and hispancis (NV) more of a voice in the choice of nominee than they had had historically. Now, you can say, well, there are plenty of blacks in MI and plenty of hispanics in FL, but the DNC chose those two states. The move to put SC near the beginning was led by black leaders.

[DrFunkenstein]

16. Why Didn't He Voice Concern When The States Were Threatened For Moving Up?

They knew exactly what they were doing, and I don't see why they should be rewarded for it.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Our Democratic Nominee should not win by seating MI/FL delegates or the supers deciding = CHEATING!

:shrug:

[AZ Criminal JD]

28. How is the supers voting "cheating"?

It has been part of the rules for 30 years. Or have you been in a coma?

[CreekDog]

20. I guess this means the states that don't count really do count

but the other states that don't count, they still don't count.

:eyes:

[high density]

34. Clinton has noticed she does well when up against "None of the Above" NM

...

[CreekDog]

38. but shouldn't she have done better against nobody?

unless nobody doesn't count --a plausible argument. :shrug:

[Zueda]

32. A day late and a dollar short...doncha think?

[backscatter712]

33. Run fresh elections and I'd have no problem seating them.

The "elections" that were held in FL and MI didn't have any of the candidates actually campaigning in those states, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI. That and all the voters were told their votes don't count, so many of them stayed home.

If they want delegates, they need to hold proper elections, with at least Obama and Clinton on the ballots, and with all candidates able to run a real campaign.

[still_one]

35. Either redo the primary or caucus or forget it. If Hillary wins the nomination

without a redo of the primary or caucus, you can forget about my vote in the general election

However, if they redo the primaries, or don't seat the delegates, and she wins the nomination fair and square, I will actively support her in the general election

It is as simple as that

[Pathwalker]

39. Is it possible that Obama might need some of those delegates

to win the nomination? Will it be okay to seat them if it gives him the nomination instead of Hillary?
I'm not trying to be snarky, I just see it being possible that either one of them could need these delegates - what happens if it's the other scenario?

[still_one]

41. No, absolutely not. Just redo the primary in those states. I do not

want anyone, including Obama who I support, winning unfairly

How stupid is the Democratic party, the solution is so simple, redo the primaries in those states

[cd3dem]

44. do you know how much it costs to redo? let's get real... people voted and they have spoken!

if people want redos then lets have the whole damn country revote... and we can cross party lines like they do and vote for Huckleberry Fin

[still_one]

51. Listen very carefully, the DNC told the candidates NOT to run in MI and FL

The people have not spoken, because NOT all the candidates ran in those primaries because they followed the DNC rules

Incidently, IT DOESN'T matter how much it costs, this is for the country, and because MI and FL didn't listen to what the DNC says whose fault is THAT?

You want to seat the candidates without a redo, if Hillary wins the primary because of that without a redo, then don't count on my vote in the general election, and I WON'T be the only one. You think Hillary can win the GE without Obama supporters be my guest

You may win the primary but you WON'T win the general election

However, you redo the primary or hold a caucus, and she wins the nomination she get my support

IT IS THAT SIMPLE

[cd3dem]

54. if Florida & Michigan are forced to either redo a caucus or not be seated then I vote Independent

because we all know that caucuses disenfranchise voters... it happened in my state where Hillary had a 7 point lead but her voters are afraid to come to a caucus or can't because they are elderly... young people love crowds! if Florida and Michigan are not seated we lose... because they will vote republican! redos are expensive... Michigan residence are losing their homes and have the highest unemployment rate in the country... our caucus cost $700 for our precinct... multiply that over and over... so what Obama can stack a bunch of 18-21 year olds to decide who runs our country? and republicans can cross the line and vote for Obama? that is the swiftboat of the 2008 election... and have the over 60 disenfranchised and call that democracy? they came out in large numbers for their primaries... I think they let their voices be heard.. the DNC had no right to take away their votes in the first place and it will happen that they are seated or they will bail on the democratic party!

and if Obama gets the nomination by playing the race card and intimidating the process.... then for the FIRST time in my life and I am 48, I will NOT vote for the democrat... and I have voted in EVERY election and primary... and I am a campaign organizer and precinct chair...

I will leave and good-bye to me...

[Pathwalker]

48. That won't happen in Michigan, though. The MDP will fight it

in court, which would delay it past the point where it would matter. Like I said, I spoke to them, and they are adamantly opposed to ANY do-over. It can't happen using State funds either - the Republicans won't allow that, nor will they allow state owned voting equipment to be used. Money is too scarce here, our state is broke. The logistics are just too difficult to overcome - the will play out on the Convention floor, as far as Michigan is concerned.

[still_one]

52. Will if a nomination is decided without a redo because they seat the

delegates from MI and FL, and therefore penalize those who obeyed the DNC rules, I will not be voting in the general election for President

Either don't seat them, or redo it as far as I am concerned

Others will do as they wish, but my position is pretty strong on this

Rules are rules

[cd3dem]

43. they will be seated... we all know it... and no one is paying for caucuses

[madfloridian]

53. They will not count toward the nominee.

Florida voted for it and worked with the GOP 115 to 1.

Do not get me started.

[cd3dem]

55. they will have to be seated... you cannot disenfranchise voters... bad for the party..

Florida has been screwed in the past and if we screw them over... we are screwed!!!!