Why did the DNC penalize Florida and Michigan, but not NH, Iowa, and SC?

[Karmadillo]

The article below suggests an injustice, but I don't know enough about the facts to know if the claim is accurate. Was there something that justified Florida and Michigan being treated differently?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/13/81143/8416#commenttop

<edit>

Speaking as someone who sent Howard Dean to the DNC to decentralize the power of that committee to the states, it was a terrible leadership for him to have allowed the Rules & Bylaws Committee to tangle the presidential nominating selection process by selectively attempting to strip two states of their delegates, while continuing to ignore the fact that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina broke those same rules.

What's that? Yes, read the rules. I've posted about this before, and andrewalker08 has a must-read follow-up:

Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all.

And what about Florida & Michigan?

Well, we all know what happened to them.

Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

That sort of ruling, my friends, is why it'd be worth whatever it takes to get Donna Brazile to remove herself from being in a position of authority within the Democratic Party.

more...

[skipos]

1. Because those states are supposed to be first according to the rules.

I live in MI. Lets change the IA/NH first rules, but lets not do it now just because it benefits one candidate.
Hillary didn't give two shits about us back when she thought she was inevitable.

[still_one]

55. If the politicians in MI and FL were really concerned about the voters

they would redo the elections in those states

The excuse that it is too expensive doesn't cut it with me. The DNC should help finance and facilitate it

With the Millions, maybe even a billon of dollars spent on elections, redoing a primary is not too much to ask

[NoodleBoy]

2. Do you only know half the story?

It has been widely accepted that Iowa goes first in caucuses, followed by New Hampshire first in primaries.

Last year, to include other regions in the early contest calendar, the DNC held a competition between state Democratic parties in the South and West to determine which other state would be allowed to hold an early contest.

Nevada and South Carolina won that contest, and were allowed to have early elections. Michigan and Florida knowingly violated the rules set forth by the DNC, and were penalized accordingly.

[AtomicKitten]

3. Because Howard Dean says so.

[Romulox]

4. I love how we must follow "the ROOLZ!" when they disenfranchize Michigan

But it's all about the "spirit of the rules" when it comes to light that the DNC did not apply the letter of the rules to the golden children: Ia, NH, SC, Nv (are all four of these red states, btw, or only 3?)

[Alexander]

31. If Michigan and Florida didn't like the rules, they didn't have to agree to them.

No one held a gun to anyone's head making them agree to the rules. Michigan and Florida had the option of objecting, but they didn't. Now that they broke the rules they already agreed to, they are being penalized.

By party rules, both parties have Iowa and New Hampshire first. It's been that way for decades. I don't like it, and I can see you don't, but the way to change this is to petition DNC members to change it, not last-minute "we're too good for the rules" bullshit posturing.

By the way, only one of the 4 early states is a "red state" as you put it. Gore won Iowa, Kerry won New Hampshire, Clinton won Nevada both times, and Nevada was still close when Gore and Kerry ran.

[Romulox]

33. FYI: W took Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada in 2004.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2004&off=0&elect=0&f=0

[Romulox]

36. Also FYI: W took New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina in 2000.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000&off=0&elect=0&f=0

[RL3AO]

5. Iowa has to be first by law. Same as New Hampshire.

[Romulox]

6. First "by law"??? ROFL nt

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Which law would that be?

[Romulox]

8. Law of the Jungle? First Law of Thermodynamics? Law of made up BS? nt

[Debi]

9. Well, not 'law' but 'rule'

The rules established by the Calendar Commission and voted on by the DNC.

[ecstatic]

35. And that law must be changed ASAP nt

[Debi]

10. You forgot Nevada

x(

Reading this might help you.

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/nominating

Any state that moved up their date because of FL/MI moving up received a waiver from the DNC to do so.

[Romulox]

11. So the "rules" are subject to Party Insiders' caprice, not justice or fairness then.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Debi]

13. Those party insiders are elected to the committees by us party members

Don't like your DNC representatives? Become a delegate to the convention and vote them out.

[Romulox]

17. Sorry, your little RED state's day in the sun is OVER.

And the rules say that the credentials committee gets to decide if Michigan's delegates are seated.

You might want to concentrate on trying to convince Iowans to vote for the Democrat this time (your state is far more to blame for the awful state we find ourselves in than Michigan--at least we did not go for W!!!) instead of stomping your feet and demanding to be first! :hi:

[Debi]

21. Your bitterness is papable

And that's too bad.

[Romulox]

23. Papable? Able to be made pope? LOL nt

[Debi]

25. Oh Noes! The Iowan made a spelling mistake! There's a reason they shouldn't be first!

You're a winner :thumbsup:

[Romulox]

28. Nope. The facts that you and NH both cast your votes for W in '04 is why you shouldn't be first.

[Debi]

29. Well, you're half-right

http://www.sos.nh.gov/general%202004/sumpres04.htm

But I won't be an ass and and a LOL to my response.

[Romulox]

30. Sorry, NH went for W in 2000, Kerry in '04. What was Iowa's excuse? nt

[Debi]

40. No excuse - 10,000 more Iowans voted for Bush than Kerry

What happened in the 2004 Michigan caucuses?

On-line voting problems, poll sites being moved the morning of the vote, poll sites being closed.

Maybe that had something to do with the calendar commission not awarding Michigan with one of the four early spots?


http://wigblog.blogspot.com/2004/02/internet-voting-in-michigan-democratic.html

[Romulox]

42. So much for Iowan's so-called "good sense", huh? nt

[Debi]

44. Nice comeback.

Now, can you answer my question? What happend with Michigan's 2004 Caucuses?

[Romulox]

45. You might read a paper, or try google. I can't be your personal newscaster.

The entire affair is thoroughly documented.

[Debi]

49. Yes it is.

Poor planning by the state party.

Not a good position to be in while demanding an early spot in the 2008 primary season.

[Meshuga]

12. By tradition Iowa, NH, and SC are early states

Every other state was only allowed to schedule a primary/caucus on or after 02/05. Florida and Michigan would be in better shape if they participated in the Super Tuesday contests. Or have a lot of attention if they did what VA, MD, and DC did by scheduling elections a week or two after super Tuesday.

They were told what not to do but they defied party rules, therefore, they were punished.

Florida and Michigan party officials are to blame for the fuck up.

[frazzled]

14. Is Jerome retarded? Iowa, NH, and SC had to move their dates BECAUSE of Florida

Florida setting their primary on Jan. 29 caused the whole schedule to be moved around. Florida was told it could not have a primary before Feb. 5. It did it anyway, and the other states had to scramble. Penalty: Florida.

[TAWS]

15. States leapfrogging each other = chaos

We would have primaries two years before GE.

[Romulox]

18. Allowing a couple of tiny RED states to decide our candidates = multiple lost elections. nt

[Little Star]

38. Could you please get on a roof top and scream that!!!!!!!!!!

Allowing a couple of tiny RED states to decide our candidates = multiple lost elections.

[madfloridian]

16. IA NH and SC were in the pre-window already. They petitioned the DNC and got permission

The DNC gave them permission to move ahead when Florida and Michigan leapfrogged.

It was quite fair. Was it Jerome questioning? He should know better. Or was it one of the comments?

I have more on the subject. They were first. FL and MI butted, and Dean and the DNC worked with them to give them first in line status again.

What does Donna Brazile have to do with it.

[Coexist]

37. and Florida did not apply for an early primary when it was being discussed by the DNC

March 11, 2006 - Rules and Bylaws Committee meets in Washington, DC. In a March 13 letter to state party chairs the Committee invites states to apply as pre-window states. The letter emphasizes racial and ethnic diversity; regional and geographic diversity; and economic diversity, including union density. Alabama, Arizona , Arkansas, Colorado , Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia and the District of Columbia applied by the April 14 deadline.

[madfloridian]

19. Here's more....Harkin says IA would not move up without permission.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1621

Could you PLEASE show me the part of your link that refers to that? I can not believe Jerome has gotten that bad....pretty bad lately though.

[suston96]

20. Obama will win the nomination without them, but the MI and FL delegates must be allocated.....nt....

[madfloridian]

24. No....they can not be allowed to count. It would destroy the party.

Heck, let them count. Maybe it's time.

[suston96]

26. What will destroy the party is telling over 2 million people who voted that their votes don't count.

That is heresy in the party that has fought for every vote counting since forever.

[Alexander]

32. Fine, then hold another primary or caucus.

That's the fair thing to do. But the DLC Clinton supporters who run both state parties continually refuse. The middle ground isn't enough for them. Nothing short of making sure Hillary Clinton wins at all costs is good enough for them.

[stahbrett]

41. They were told that well before the election, so it's not a big surprise

If you want every state to be able to just leapfrog other states we may have the primaries start 2 years before the election. There should be some national strategy and guidance - I'm not saying Iowa and New Hampshire should be the first two (I don't agree with that), but those are the current rules.

(My preference would be for groups of states to hold elections - split up the country logically be geography and combined delegate count, and have a two week gap in between the groups for their elections. The groups would rotate for each election, so if there was a Northeastern group that went first this year, the next year they'd go last, and the group that went second this year (maybe Southeastern) would go first.)

[madfloridian]

47. That is a statement made while ignoring the facts. Kind of sad.

It is like sound and fury which signifies nothing.

[suston96]

51. That is what the Democratic Party has always meant - every vote counts!

That is not "kind of sad". That is a fucking disaster for Democrats.

[theboss]

52. So...if I "voted" today in the "Theboss" Primary, should my vote count?

Every vote should count in fair and free elections. These were not fair elections.

[suston96]

53. Do some research - when elections are given to the people to decide, they must all be equal and....

....all votes must be counted equally.

It cannot be decided by political hacks which votes count and which do not.

[theboss]

54. It's a primary; it exists soley on the whims of the political hacks

People don't have a right to vote in any primary.

[suston96]

58. I repeat, do the research - once the primary election is given to the people -

- the election and the voters must be treated equally and all votes must count.

The alternative is ludicrous. And, consider this: if the situation was reversed you and yours would be screeching to have all election results count from every state.

Every vote cast, once it is cast, must be counted and the delegates elected must be allocated.

I cannot believe I am explaining this to Democrats.

Edited for research:

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?S=R&bid=9300875578&cm_mmc=shopcompare-_-base-_-isbn-_-na


The Battle for the Black Ballot: Smith V. Allwright and the Defeat of the Texas All-White Primary

by Zelden, Charles L

The history of voting rights in America is a checkerboard marked by dogged progress against persistent prejudice toward an expanding inclusiveness. The Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Allwright is a crucial chapter in that broader story and marked a major turning point for the modern civil rights movement. Charles Zelden's concise and thoughtful retelling of this episode reveals why. Denied membership in the Texas Democratic Party by popular consensus, party rules, and, from 1923 to 1927, state statutes, Texas blacks were routinely turned away from voting in the Democratic primary in the first decades of the twentieth century.

Given that Texas was a one-party state and that the primary effectively determined who held office, this meant the total exclusion of Texas blacks from the political process. This practice went unchecked until 1940, when Lonnie Smith, a black dentist from Houston, fought his exclusion by election judge S. E. Allwright in the 1940 Democratic Primary.

Defeated in the lower courts, Smith finally found justice in the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 8-1 that the Democratic Party and its primary were not "private and voluntary" and, thus, were duly bound by constitutional protections governing the electoral process and the rights of all citizens.

The real meaning of Smith's challenge to the Texas all-white primary lies at the heart of the entire civil rights revolution. One of the first significant victories for the NAACP's newly formed Legal Defense Fund against Jim Crow segregation, it provided the conceptual foundation which underlay Thurgood Marshall's successful arguments in Brown v. Board of Education. It was also viewed by Marshall as one of his most importantpersonal victories. As Zelden shows, the Smith decision attacked the intractable heart of segregation, as it redrew the boundary between public and private action in constitutional law and laid the groundwork for many civil rights cases to come.

It also redefined the Court's involvement in what had been a hands-off area of "political questions" and foreshadowed its participation in voter reapportionment cases. A landmark case in the evolution of Southern race relations and politics and for voting rights in general, Smith also provides a telling example of how the clash between national concerns and local priorities often acts as a lightning rod for resolving controversial issues. Zelden's lucid account of the controversies and conflicts surrounding Smith should refine and reinvigorate our understanding of a crucial moment in American history.

[theboss]

59. I wouldn't care who won

Rules is rules.

[suston96]

60. Rules is rules? Well read my edited post. My rules from USSC trump yours from party hacks.

[madfloridian]

22. What is wrong with Jerome?

His quote is just awful...no wonder Open Left split from there.

"Speaking as someone who sent Howard Dean to the DNC to decentralize the power of that committee to the states, it was a terrible leadership for him to have allowed the Rules & Bylaws Committee to tangle the presidential nominating selection process by selectively attempting to strip two states of their delegates, while continuing to ignore the fact that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina broke those same rules."

NOPE, Jerome, they got permission.

[jaysunb]

27. He hates Obama for starters...

Jerome is a smart guy and he knew and knows why those two States got penalized.

This, along w/ Julian Bonds crap is really kinda sad.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

46. You are right. He knows better.

I am really surprised at him.

[Coexist]

39. he has become slightly unhinged as far as Obama is concerned

its ugly over there.

[Baconfoot]

34. The Iowa & NH dates were set BECAUSE Michigan set its at Jan. 15. so the order would be preserved

In light of the January 15th Michigan primary date, NH and Iowa HAD to move their dates. The first Tuesday in February is the 5th. The 15th is 21 days prior to the first Tuesday. Iowa can set their date no more than 22 days prior to the first Tuesday, the point of which is that they go first, but not TOO early. New Hampshire has to have their primary no more than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February.

Theoretically I guess Iowa could have set their date for Monday the 14th without violating the rules but New Hampshire could not have set their date prior to Michigan's without violating the rules.

So New Hampshire HAD to set their primary date to violate the rules because of Michigan's violation and that means that Iowa also had to, in order to beat New Hampshire's date PER THE RULES. New Hampshire and Iowa moving was necessitated to preserve the intent of the rules because of Michigan's failure.

[tandem5]

43. I don't care about the stupid rules - if the DNC wants to deny the delegates...

then so be it. But if we are gonna claim strict adherence to party rules and regulations then beyond influencing the opinions of the super delegates we must respect the guidelines allowing for their full and independent discretion to vote however they please.

But all this crap doesn't offend me as much as the complete disacknowledgment, in terms of the overall popular vote, of the people in MI and FL who voted. The administrative task of assigning delegates (or not) to a given state election is a separate process and has no bearing, in validity, on those individuals that cast a vote. The Republican race, that was run in parallel in Florida, suffered the same rule breach and as a consequence only 50% of the delegates were awarded, but did the reduction in delegates retroactively take away 50% of the popular vote's legitimacy? Of course not.

It disturbs me greatly when fairness is mentioned only in terms of the candidates - as if they are the only parties involved in an election and that the electorate are but pawns and as such are only considered when all the candidates have had their equal shot at manipulating them. Well here is what I say to that: we voted, its our vote and if your petty little rules deprive us of a delegation that's your call, but don't you dare tell us it doesn't count!

[johnnydrama]

48. doesn't the fact

That the primary race will be going at least to March 4th make it that Michigan & Florida's temper tamptrum about moving up before 2/5 is that much more stupid.

[goodhue]

50. Because FL & MI broke carefully negotiated DNC rules; the other 3 didn't

[LisaM]

57. Well allowing super delegates to swing the nomination is according to DNC rules too

But I hear a ton of people complaining about THAT. I'm not saying their complaints aren't justified, but all of this is squelching peoples' votes. So, if you're Michigan and Florida, not only do your delegates not count, but now Obama people get to dictate how their super delegates vote. Since the results of their elections don't count, and most here don't want them to, then I don't see that the super delegates are compelled to vote any way other than they want to. As party insiders, many of them might vote for Hillary. And guess what? It's ACCORDING TO THE RULES. So those of you complaining that Michigan and Florida shouldn't count because they broke the rules can't spin around and say that super delegates can't decide the election, because that is how it's set up according to the rules, too.

And I agree mightily that Iowa and New Hampshire have been screwing it up. Why they continue to be rewarded for it is beyond me. South Carolina has been redder than red. I would be shocked if they voted Democratic in this election.

[democrattotheend]

56. IA, NH, SC and NV were approved for early primaries

Every state party had the opportunity to submit a state plan and be considered for an early primary. Florida and Michigan did not even submit plans, and instead went ahead and ignored the DNC rules, banking on us having a nominee already and having the nominee offer to seat them. It was a gamble that didn't pay off.