TPM on NV: Maybe there's a reason this isn't as beyond the pale as it looks. But I'm not seeing it.

[dkf]

The Nevada State Democratic party has set up nine at-large caucus locations on the Las Vegas strip for casino workers who might not otherwise be able to caucus on January 19th. Remember, because of the recent Culinary Workers Union endorsement of Barack Obama, casino workers are expected to vote heavily for him.

Now, the Nevada State Education Association (the state teachers' union), which is seen as supportive of Clinton though it has not formally endorsed her, is suing the Democratic party to prevent block those at-large caucuses from meeting on the grounds that similar arrangements have not been made for other Nevadans.

I don't know the particulars of how the Nevada caucuses are arranged. But the 'tell' is the fact that the teachers' union apparently didn't think this was a problem until Sen. Obama bagged the key union endorsement. When asked why the union had never approached the state party about this issue until Friday, union president Lynne Warne, tellingly replied, "We're approaching them now."

"If there's one thing that's core to the modern Democratic party is that voter suppression tactics are always wrong. Much of the US Attorney purge scandal was at root about Republican voter suppression tactics. I suspect this is doubly wrong -- both in the sense that the suit is meritless on its face but certainly also in the sense that you don't decide how easy to make it for people to vote depending on who you think they're likely to vote for."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063499.php

[babylonsister]

1. Recommend! This was a boneheaded move that will bite her in the butt. nt

[jasmine621]

24. The answer for HC is to push for making similar arrangements for others

and open up even more caucus sites. I think the teachers union is making a good point despite the ranchor that it's all HC's fault. The teacher's union may genuinely feel disadvantaged unless similar arrangements are made for their members. It's a legit complaint as far as I can tell.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

26. Yeah, even aside from the ethical turpitude

it's strategically idiotic. Just like Hillary's Iraq War backing.

[defendandprotect]

2. Why would any union/workers support HRC or Obama --- ???

[Lucinda]

3. Link to the actual document. If anyone wants to bother to read it before sounding off:

http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf

[sandnsea]

4. It's about her endorsers, they're suing

They had plenty of opportunity to sue before now. They didn't until their chosen candidate lost the workers who will vote in those caucus sites.

[Lucinda]

6. Did you read the lawsuit?

[sandnsea]

8. Where was it a year ago?

When they made the rules?

[Lucinda]

9. Did you read it?

And I doubt they popped up with a 13 page lawsuit in 2 days.

[dragonlady]

10. They wrote the complaint and kept it in reserve if needed n/t

[Lucinda]

13. Did you read the document?

[sandnsea]

14. lol, *I* could come up with a 13 page lawsuit in 2 days

That's what lawyers do. I don't need to read it because I don't care what's in it. That's beside the point. The caucuses were perfectly acceptable when they thought they would work to Hillary's benefit. Only when she didn't get the endorsement did her people complain. It is as clear as day. If Bush had done this, people would be calling for prison terms.

[Lucinda]

23. Ahhh...So you don't want to let the details interfere with your preconceived opinion?

Got it.

[annie1]

17. i tried, my browswer wouldnt open it for some reason. grrrr.

[Lucinda]

20. It seems to take forever to load. Its a pdf...so that may be part of the problem

Do you have adobe pdf reader?

[mod mom]

19. Approved unanimously on 3/31/07. Why didn't those involved in the suit attempt

the same conveniences for their folks. They waited AFTER the culinary workers union endorsed Obama. Seems like had they endorsed HRC, there would have been no problem. Voting should be made easier for folks-PERIOD! Here's more from ABC:

The state party approved the at-large precincts at its Nevada State Democratic Party's State Central Committee meeting on March 31, 2007.

According to those minutes and attendance records of the obtained by ABC News (Click HERE), four plaintiffs now suing the state party to stop these "at-large" precincts from convening were in attendance: Clark Party Second Vice Chair Vicki Birkland and John Birkland, Party Third Vice Chair Dwayne Chesnut and Clark County Public Administrator John Cahill.

The "Delegation Selection Plan Review and Approval" including these "at-large" precincts was, according to minutes of the meeting reviewed by ABC News, "Passed unanimously." The plan was submitted to the Democratic National Committee for approval in August.

-snip
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/tough-guy-pol-1.html

[Lucinda]

22. I have no idea how long this has been in progress....but the claims in the lawsuit

seem to have merit. Did you read the actual document?

[spooky3]

25. if you'd read the lawsuit, you'd see that among the claims are that

changes were made in the plans in OCTOBER 2007, among other times, well after the approvals.

[Igel]

18. I wonder what the counter arguments will be.

Personally, I can't imagine the come back to some of the claims.

And, for the record ... I like the idea of caucasus, in principle. "In principle", like French "en principe" and Russian "v printsipe" is a fancy way of saying 'not in practice'.

[Lucinda]

21. I just gave it a cursory read...but the weighting seemed very unfair.

I'm not sure what the initial rationalization was for the ratios...but that is a big discrepancy.

I also love the IDEA of a caucus. But too many people are not allowed to participate due to circumstances beyond their control. So yep....I'm not crazy about it in action.

Did you catch the part about teachers having to be present because their school was a caucus loaction, but since it wasn't their "own" caucus site they couldn't participate? Unless I mis-read that part, it seems to be adding insult to injury.

I need to re-read it again when my head is clear. But overall, it seemed, at first glance anyway, to have a lot of merit.

[City Lights]

5. I agree with Josh.

I think the timing tells the story.

[BeyondGeography]

7. D. Taylor is fantastic

From a linked article in the TPM piece:

Culinary union secretary-treasurer D. Taylor told the Associated Press that the plaintiffs were using "Floridian Republican tactics to suppress cooks, housekeepers, people of color and women."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/tough-guy-pol-1.html

[dkf]

11. Four plaintiffs were in attendance when the precincts were approved unanimously

"The state party approved the at-large precincts at its Nevada State Democratic Party's State Central Committee meeting on March 31, 2007.

According to those minutes and attendance records of the obtained by ABC News (Click HERE), four plaintiffs now suing the state party to stop these "at-large" precincts from convening were in attendance: Clark Party Second Vice Chair Vicki Birkland and John Birkland, Party Third Vice Chair Dwayne Chesnut and Clark County Public Administrator John Cahill.

The "Delegation Selection Plan Review and Approval" including these "at-large" precincts was, according to minutes of the meeting reviewed by ABC News, "Passed unanimously." The plan was submitted to the Democratic National Committee for approval in August."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/tough-guy-pol-1.html

[City Lights]

12. So now that the CWU endorsed Obama they want a do-over.

Fuck that.

[Igel]

16. But they claim that changes were made, and

the date the final version was adopted isn't known to them, and that the version they saw before filing was dated 9/28/08. Yes, "2008", which is an obvious typo.

Doesn't mean they weren't present in March when the plan was adopted, doesn't mean that the place-of-employment plan they currently object to wasn't in place when they were present. But it does create wiggle room and cast doubt on whether or not they saw *this* part of the plan, and therefore if they approved it.

[cloudythescribbler]

15. No doubt about it -- b/t the exit poll/reported vote divergence in NH, the race-baiting & now ....

this -- it's gettin ugly out there folks.

I must say that I was never particularly fond of the Clinton Democrats, although I'd vote for them against the Repugs. But this shows what their made of in a pinch -- no holds barred.

I don't know if this really will 'bite them in the ass', if people don't reject the Clinton campaign for its race-baiting, what WON'T they ignore?