Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary's Lawyer Supporter Kummer Sues 4 Union To DISENFRANCHISE HISPANIC, UNION VOTE IN LAS VEGAS!!

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:38 PM
Original message
Hillary's Lawyer Supporter Kummer Sues 4 Union To DISENFRANCHISE HISPANIC, UNION VOTE IN LAS VEGAS!!
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:00 PM by Dems Will Win


Hillary has really gone too far this time. If she pisses off the youth, the blacks, and now the Hispanics, how can she win in November?? Here is the lawsuit to reduce the number of Hispanics voting, filed by her supporters' law firm for the teacher's union:

http://vegaspundit.typepad.com/vegas_pundit/files/filed...

Union Files Suit Over Casino Caucuses

Members of the mainly Hispanic Culinary Workers Union, which has endorsed Obama, will likely make up most of the casino caucusgoers. (Reuters).


By Paul Kane
LAS VEGAS - A teachers' union filed federal suit late yesterday trying to shut down nine Democratic caucus sites to be held next Saturday in casino halls along Las Vegas's famed "Strip", arguing that those sites give unfair advantage to union workers who are backing Sen. Barack Obama.

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.


"The Democratic Party of Nevada 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 alleges.

...

In a first-of-its-kind arrangement, executives at culinary union-backed casinos have largely been cooperating with their employees to allow them to take a break just before noon Saturday - when the caucus begins - to participate in the political event. The teachers union contends this set up is specifically for just those union workers.

But those sites are also open to any shift worker, from cab drivers to employees at non-union casinos, on duty midday Saturday within a 2- mile radius of the nine casino caucuses. They must present identification showing that they work on or near Las Vegas Boulevard, as the "Strip" is officially titled.

...

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.

The union was more blunt, contending the arguments are only a political effort to muddy the waters in case Clinton loses. "It's strange is coming after our endorsement," said D. Taylor, the secretary-treasurer of the local labor group, told the Washington Post in an interview last night after an Obama rally in his union hall.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/pos...


This is truly Rovian Republican tactics and will have reverberations throughout the Spring against Clinton by Hispanics. How dare she!! Congressmen Bilbray is a lawyer at the law firm doing the suit and is stumping for Hillary in NV. This is her campaign a t work for sure!

PLEASE RECOMMEND IF YOU THINK DIS-ENFRANCHISING ANY VOTER IS WRONG

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good. We need a candidate who is able and willing to fight. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You support voter suppression???
People have DIED to stop this shit in the south.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. No, I support candidates looking out for their campaign. If the campaign is on the right
side of the suit, it's not voter suppression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. This is shameful. I can't believe you'd excuse such dirty tactics. This is
why I don't like the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. It's a lawsuit. Grow up. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. "Grow up"--whatever, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Learn a lot about people and ethics n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. It's a legal matter. If you don't like the judicial process, politics may be too distasteful for
you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. LOL! Yes, I'm sure it's a purely legal matter, and has nothing to do
with any recent endorsements and voter suppression. Pull your head out of your ass and realize that if the Queen's campaign is behind this, she's just as awful as Chimpy and Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. When you refer to the candidate as "The Queen" you make clear your own bias.
Try to get rational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Oh, I'm perfectly rational, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. I don't think getting hysterical any time a move is made that you think hurts your
candidate is a sign of rationality.

But enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Not seein' any hysterics on my part. Just calling bullshit on dirty tactics.
Enjoy your ethics-challenged candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Now filing a lawsuit is unethical? Tell you what - if this suit causes voter suppression,
countersue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. We'll have to wait and see if the court even accepts this case.
But if the timing is intended to interfere with the caucus, then it's highly unethical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:06 PM
Original message
Is it legal?
Is it illegal?

And is it at all unethical to accuse people without evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
51. Hmm, arguing about legality of the move, instead of the ethics--yep, you
must be a Hillary supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Whether it's ethical or not is up for debate. I'm asking about the legality because
that's the most pertinent issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buck Stopin Harry Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #53
111. Joe!
The most pertinent issue is trust and leadership.
The legal letter of the law here only serves to devide the party.
HRC is suppose to be about the business of making her case to demonstrate that we can trust her to defend the rights of all the people . She should put a stop to this NOW!!!! or she will be precived as complacent , or even behind it. If you support her you should be aware of the minefield this issue is. It has allready gotten out of hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #111
113. Incorrect.
The most pertinent issue is the legal basis for the suit. If the system unconstitutionally puts other voters at a disadvantage, that is is illegal and should not stand.

Hillary Clinton shouldn't put and end to this because she shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
117. Legal, illegal...l No passion for the difference --Fugazi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
92. The suits been thrown out.
I guess the judge found it to be frivolous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. Then done deal. That's how the law works. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #43
116. "If you don't like me stealing your money, sue me. No court in the land will stop me."
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 03:02 AM by Leopolds Ghost
So it's OK to commit a crime so long as the victim has the opportunity for redress in the civil courts? Sounds like the mentality of

a) an especially litigious member of the British royal court in the Elizabethan era

b) Mob politics (entirely appropriate for Las Vegas).

In Anglo-Saxon common law, it used to be OK to kill (manslaughter)
so long as the defendent paid a weregild. This strata of our history of justice is still in place, called wrongful death suits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #116
123. No. But filing a lawsuit isn't crime.
Is that what you're arguing? That it's a crime to bring a dispute to court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
91. And the suit has been thrown out
I guessthe Hillary Campaig was good with it when she thought the culinary union would endorse her, but now that they went to Obama, she's getting all pissy.

Here, have a bowl of sour grapes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
90. It's a lawsuit to suppress votes
How dare those uppity minorities try to vote!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #90
97. Bullshit. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. The entire Nev Dem Party set the rules
Just like the rules for the Iowa caucuses are set by the Dem Party and just like she tried to suppress voters there. Wake Up. For chrissake WAKE UP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Sorry but I'll not indulge paranoid rantings. The end. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. There is no way the court is going to impinge on the party setting the primary rules
from a lawsuit filed so late in the day. It may rule to change the at large precincts in a later election, and even that is highly unlikely. But no way is the court going to shut these caucus halls down and the Clintons know this.

Dumb move on Mark Penn's part.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. If you're right - and you well may be - then that's what happens and their loss.
I won't cry about it one way or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
35. Bullshit. Trying to stop unfavorable groups from voting is supression. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Voter suppression is illegal. Are you saying filing this suit is an illegal activity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #37
49. Oh you fuckin-a right it is
If they can find one phone call or email with the Clinton people, ILLEGAL. No question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. Fine. Press charges. Sue. Live it up.
Big "if".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
56. I don't know what the standard of proof is in NV, but...
The suit is clearly intended to influence the outcome of the caucuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Is the suit voter suppression? Are you saying this lawsuit in and of itself
constitutes voter suppression?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doublethink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #59
132. It's an attempt at voter suppression, ethically and morally ....
Where did your your ethics go in all of this? I'm an undecided voter still, but shit like this drops Hillary's and her peoples stock a few pegs. Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
115. "It's not wrong if my guy does it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #115
124. There's nothing wrong with anyone bringing a dispute to court.
It's funny how many DUers have stated a desire to seek redress in the courts over voting issues. But if someone wants to do the same in a way that stands to benefit Hillary, it's a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
134. You have got to be kidding with this
If Hillary wants it, the rest of the world needs to bend over?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
127. RIGHT!!
When someone tells me they don't vote I do a turnaround and say People have died for this right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:43 PM
Original message
Reminds me of bush suing to keep votes from being counted..
That spoke volumes about his character (or lack thereof). This is not good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ursi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. teachers have Saturdays off, they aren't being disenfranchised by this!
so what's the point? keeping minimum wage casino workers from caucusing because they are stuck at work?? What is Hillary so afraid of? This is going to backfire on her! It already has!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. If it backfires on her, it backfires. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Exactly. And if they had a problem, why are they only filing a suit NOW?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
125. if she was worth voting for, this would not be an issue
... how nice of you to commend her campaign for "fighting" to disenfranchise the voters. On top of all her suckass corporate payola/graft and love of war and blood-profits, she just comes across as a run-of-the-mill sleazy politician stealing other people's slogans about "change" while she epitomizes the antithesis of change.

whatever.

so far, I am soooo NOT impressed by HRC. If she is anointed as the nominee, I will really be hoping that Bloomberg gets his 3rd-party run together. If not, I can always write in somebody worthy of my vote, which she is NOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #125
126. Oh you have so misunderstood. Tch tch. I wil hep you.
I can't commend her campaign for disenfranchising because that's not what her campaign is doing, nor are the plaintiffs in the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Un-freak-in-believable.
Oh wait, it's Hillary, and she senses the culinary union might stand in the way of her ambition. Yes, sadly, believable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Just like bush was entitled by hook or (and especially) by crook
in 2000 to steal the election for himself, Queen Hillary is just as entitled to win by any means necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. "no woman is illegal"
wonder how those hispanics feel now after her visit chomping on nachos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. "chomping on nachos"
Yes, I'm sure I can trust you to assess the situation fairly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
54. lived in Vegas 20 yrs and my parents still live there
yes... I think I can assess her visit to Vegas quite fairly thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
8. Was the pro-HRC teacher's union supposed to use a lawyer who opposed them?
Look, I don' care for HRC, but this is WaPo--and this isn't new for politics.

Two unions opposing each other? Sorry--I'm Swiss on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. You must have missed the part where Hillary's campaign thought this
was a good idea last spring...until the Culinary union endorsed Obama. Ooops! Time to play dirty pool, the Queen didn't get her way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Oh for chrissake wake the hell up
The Nev State Party created the rules for the caucus a long time ago. You Know, Harry Reid Nevada Dem Party. Chip Reid heads Hillary's campaign. The director of the teacher's union leads a Women for Hillary group.

The SEIU and Culinary Union support Obama and suddenly these Hillar groups have a probem with the caucus??? And you don't get the problem?

Especially after they pulled the same shit complaining about Iowa students voting??

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
18. Your OP subject line is misleading
We don't know all the facts yet in this case and we can't assume that Hillary herself is behind this ... yet.

I am not a Hillary first supporter, for the record -- we need to get more info on this before we take it to the extreme that Hillary is trying to "disenfranchise Hispanic voters." That's a stretch at this point, IMHO.

That being said, I posted on this same subject just a bit ago, as the story does raise concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Well this is two states
How many does it have to happen in before you see a pattern?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Can you fill me in on the details of the students in Iowa, or whatever that was that you mentioned
above thread as to being a similar political ploy? Thanks in advance if you can just briefly summarize.

Like I said, we don't have much info on this. I think it's a stretch to declare she's targeting Hispanic voters. Not that I'm naive enough to think that the Hillary camp couldn't be so fiendish in order to pull a win, but, I want more info before I can claim she's really disenfranchising Hispanic voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #28
42. It's all just a big coinkydink
Yeah, right. The Democratic Party fights for the right of students to vote at their college residence for years, and then when it doesn't bode well for the Clintons, they spread a bunch of nonsense about students voting illegally. That's what they did in Iowa.

These caucus rules were set a year ago, when Hillary was putting together her Nevada machine led by Harry Reid's son. Oops, Obama gets the biggest hospitality union in the state, and the SEIU, and suddenly there's a problem with the caucuses. Never mind that it's her endorsers concocting this phony law suit, never mind it's lawyers connected to her, nah, we don't have enough info.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #42
82. I see your point
Reid was likely behind the idea of the Culinary Union setting up these at-large precincts in the first place, and it backfired.

Unfortunately, it wasn't a good idea how they set up the caucus sites for these workers -- criticism is warranted for that.

And I can see the Clinton connection. I have similar concerns and that is why I posted on it.

But, I still don't think that Clinton is purposefully disenfranchising the *Hispanic vote* -- that's just the byproduct of this whole mess.

If the Culinary Union had endorsed Clinton instead of Obama, can we assume Obama's people would be making the same stink?

Something tells me yes.

That's why I think it was a bad move from the beginning that these at-large precincts were created and given more weight than others. It kinda' came back and bit them in the but. Oops.

Anyway, thanks for your patience and discourse. :hi: We have the same concern, me thinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. She is in fact trying to stop 9 precincts from voting or having their votes count according to party
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:06 PM by Dems Will Win
rules. What Hillary is really trying to do is SHUT THOSE PRECINCTS DOWN.

Really. Read the lawsuit link above. No Caucus open there.

And those 9 precincts are the highest Hispanic precincts in the state!

So I don't see how it can be seen any other way as trying to dienfranchise the Hispanic vote in Las Vegas, because she just found out that mostly Hispanic Union went Obama!

Si, se puede!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #46
89. And if the Culinary Union had have endorsed Clinton, Obama's people may have made a fuss, too.
It was a bad decision for the Culinary Union to do this in the first place -- set up an at-large caucus site that was weighted more than other caucuses.

She wouldn't be *shutting them down* had the union endorsed her, I'm sure of that.

I still think your OP title is disingenuous, though. And I am not a Clinton supporter -- if anything, this kind of stuff is why my first choice at this point is Kucinich or Edwards.

I've read the lawsuit. I posted on this earlier today. I have similar concerns to others, including yours, about this whole story. I think your OP is flame bait and grossly exaggerates what we know thus far. Any disenfranchisement of Hispanic voters is likely a byproduct of political shenanigans that backfired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. You forgot, anti-Hillary-license permits misleading portrayals. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeraldSquare212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. I sure would like to hear her repudiate it nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. You think she'll admit she supports this?
She'll say it's internal Nevada problems and it would be inappropriate for her to comment on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
94. For a start, she could order her cronies to drop the suit
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. Kummer is her supporter and his law partner former Rep. Bilbray has campaigned in the state for her
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:02 PM by Dems Will Win
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. I know
I posted on it earlier, albeit, without *screaming* foul and making broad claims. I have my concerns, as stated above. But to make such hyperbolic claims, with what limited info we have, is, IMHO, unfounded at this point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:13 PM
Original message
Here's more
8/9/2007
Former Nevada Rep. James Bilbray Endorses Clinton
The Clinton campaign today announced the endorsement of former Nevada Congressman James Bilbray.

"America is at crossroads and Senator Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate with the experience, intellect, and vision to lead our country in the right direction," Bilbray said. "I am confident that as president, Senator Clinton will work hard to strengthen Americas position in the global economy, protect the nation from national security threats, and ensure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to reach their full potential.

Congressman Bilbray is a Nevada native, and prior to being elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1987, he was a Nevada State Senator. During his four terms in the United States Congress, he was Chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Taxation, Tourism and Procurement where he fought to promote and protect the economic interests of hardworking Americans. In addition, he was a member of the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence Committee and the 2005 BRAC Commission. Congressman Bilbray currently works at the Nevada law firm Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario and serves as a member of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors.

"Jims tireless efforts to promote economic opportunities for small business owners and his continued devotion to the public exemplify his dedication to Nevada and the country," said Clinton Nevada Chair Rory Reid. "We are honored that he will play a leading role in the campaign."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #38
67. More - Bilbray himself is on the HRC site! It's his law firm doing the suing to close the Hispanic
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:25 PM by Dems Will Win
precincts. He is helping to lead Hillary's campaign in NV on one hand and trying to stop Hispanics from voting with the other. He's Hillary's man!

8/9/2007
Former Nevada Rep. James Bilbray Endorses Clinton
The Clinton campaign today announced the endorsement of former Nevada Congressman James Bilbray.

"America is at crossroads and Senator Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate with the experience, intellect, and vision to lead our country in the right direction," Bilbray said. "I am confident that as president, Senator Clinton will work hard to strengthen Americas position in the global economy, protect the nation from national security threats, and ensure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to reach their full potential.

Congressman Bilbray is a Nevada native, and prior to being elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1987, he was a Nevada State Senator. During his four terms in the United States Congress, he was Chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Taxation, Tourism and Procurement where he fought to promote and protect the economic interests of hardworking Americans. In addition, he was a member of the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence Committee and the 2005 BRAC Commission. Congressman Bilbray currently works at the Nevada law firm Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario and serves as a member of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors.

"Jims tireless efforts to promote economic opportunities for small business owners and his continued devotion to the public exemplify his dedication to Nevada and the country," said Clinton Nevada Chair Rory Reid. "We are honored that he will play a leading role in the campaign."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
25. Ah, the
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
34. I think this could be a real problem
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:02 PM by midlife_mo_Jo
"There will be 10,000 delegates to the state nominating convention available to the candidates among the more than 1,700 normal precinct sites, but as many as 650 delegates will also be up for grabs in the "at-large" sites inside the casino ballrooms that are being retrofitted into political halls for the caucus. Some estimates are that these casino precincts could produce 10 percent of the total statewide participation in the caucuses."

So, nine precincts out of 1709 precincts could determine 10 percent of the total statewide vote. Because their votes are concentrated into these nine precincts instead of distributed over all the other precincts, they will have an unfair advantage, thereby diluting the one person, one vote rule. Their vote will count more than others.

Remember, these are caucuses, not just regular voting. You're going to have union members pressuring other union members to vote for the union nominee. In the world of caucusing, this concentration of possible Obama supporters is clearly unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. I suppose Hillary's camp thought it was PERFECTLY fair when
all of the campaigns went along with this precinct plan last spring--now that it favors Obama because of the endorsement, NOW it's not fair? Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. I don't understand people
I know some people just don't have any ethics at all. But the rest, I just don't get. It's clear as day to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I don't get it either--this is pure dirty politics, no doubt about it. The only
question is to the degree of the Hillary campaign's involvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Ethics?
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:12 PM by midlife_mo_Jo
I'm not even a Hillary supporter. I'm a Edwards supporter, and I would not be surprised if HIllary won this case. ALL candidates strategize and make decisions when the time is right. If this truly does give Obama an edge (and he's my second choice as I have said numerous times on this board), legally, Hillary Clinton could have a case.

Did you see how many delegates these NINE caucuses could end up sending to the state convention, as opposed to the other caucuses? Clearly, their votes will have more weight than others. Anybody who can do simple math or even estimate in their head can see that.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's camp was prepared to make a legal fight if Hillary had gotten the endorsement. That's just how politics works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #52
58. You'd think people didn't WANT a candidate who could be strategic and use every
legal means available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. You'd think people would see how this partly disenfranchises the other voters
Clearly, there should be a better way for the culinary workers and other workers in this area to vote, but not at the expense of having their vote count more than others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. You realize that this has been set up since last spring--the disenfranchisement
argument might have come up then, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #64
75. Everyone was waiting to see who would get the endorsement
before challenging it. And I personally think all the candidates would have challenged it. It's just the way politics works these days. (I'm for Edwards, by the way.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. No. Edwards isn't filing suit, is he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. but Hillary is. Why waste precious resources.
Look, I'm not saying what is right or wrong. I'm saying that legally,

1) These caucuses have a disparate share of the delegates.

2) The union members may be pressured by leaders of the union, since members will be highly concentrated within these nine caucuses.

Sure, a judge may very well rule that it's too late to bring suit, but these would be the issues that could present a problem - off the top of my head, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #80
88. Because Edwards is all about counting votes
Remember? Like he always said he would have done in Ohio? If people are being disenfranchised, well Edwards better stand his ass up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #60
68. Agreed. And I really see it as a dispute between the unions, and one that is best served
by the standard process for such disputes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #58
95. Not when it means cheating people out of votes
This case has no merit and will be dismissed. The lawyer should be sanctioned for pursuing such a frivolous case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. So you say. The other side says it's to maintain the integrity of equal voting. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. Well the other side is full of shit.
Counting the votes is maintaining integrity, not suppressing votes. They'd have loved you in the Jim Crow South.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. Naturally, you'd say that.
And your insult is unwarranted, but at least you know that's what you're reduced to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Your cavalier attitude towards voting rights warranted it.
You're sycophancy to Hillary has blinded you. Like I said, if she's wins, I'm boycotting the election and will refuse to vote, since a choice between Hillary and another Republican is no choice at all, like a choice between being kicked in the nuts or being stabbed in the foot. They both suck and I'll have no part in this sham coronation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. To the contrary. I want voting rights protected. I want transparency. If there is a dispute
regarding such, there is a good place to bring the dispute: the courts.

That's what was done, and I have zero problem with court testing.

I don't give a shit who you vote for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. They are getting to vote! What's wrong with that?
I just don't like wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits to advance one candidate over another.
Likewise , I don't give a shit about your vote either. Hillary is pro war and pro-outsourcing and I guess now pro-disenfranchisement so I guess that says alot about you as her supporter. I hope you'll be satisfied when she fucks this country even worse then it is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. What's wrong, per the suit, is that the existing system violates the principle
of 'one person, one vote' by creating at-large precincts for certain caucus participants, based solely on the employment of such participants".

In such disputes the appropriate sounding board is the court, which is what's happening.

I don't know why you're so opposed to even a hearing on the constitutionality of the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. But the intent of the suit is to restrict access to voting
If their was such a problem with the system, why wait so long to file a suit unless the intent is to disenfranchise voters? It's Florida 2000 all over again, except its hillary and her goon squad doing the dirty deed this time.
You must be so proud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. No, the intent of the suit is to protect the princple of one person-one-vote.
Don't confuse a legitimate legal challenge with stealing votes. You should be ashamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. Just like with MI and FL
the time to fight it was when they were making the rules. No, I would hope Obama would not disnfranchise voters, not ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #52
62. If it prevents some people from being able to vote, and thus give someone
else a political advantage, it's wrong. If Obama challenged it because he didn't get the coveted endorsement, it would STILL be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
47. You know the time to protest was when they were setting up the thing
or right after it was passed.

To do it after the union endorses Obama is rather telling don't you think?

I say if the union had endorsed Clinton, there would not be a peep.

She is willing to game the system in her favor. That is not right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #47
57. If Obama has a legal team, I'm sure they would have fought this as well
I would bet anything that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama were all waiting to see who got the endorsement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. Actually I don't think so.
Obama is not the type to try to disenfranchise anyone. He of all people would be sensitive to that.

Obama tries to include people and get them to vote for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. I don't think Obama is naive enough to allow a small concentration of voters
to cost him an election. These voters will have way more delegates than the other voters in their precincts. This was a screwy plan from the start. We're talking about caucusing. And, hey, let's just caucus as a union so we can pressure union members to vote for the union endorsement. This has red flags all over it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Red flags? Hillary was all for it, months ago. Obama gets the endorsement, and
suddenly, it's all red flags, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #71
81. I'm arguing about the legal issues. Period.
Not the politics. I just thought it might be helpful for someone to state what some of these legal issues might be!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. Did Edwards slander the IA student vote?
Even tough he knew he wasn't going to get it? No, he didn't. Hillary did. Everybody does not play low ball dirty in the gutter politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. I love how Hillary supporters project that Clintonian ethics problem onto
other candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #66
73. Last I checked the students didn't have their own union endorsement
Culinary workers all caucusing in NINE precincts. Just think how easy it would be to put union leaders in all those caucuses to make sure everyone votes for the union candidate. You don't see that as slightly different than a bunch of students voting where the currently reside?

By the way, I'm pro-union, but I can see the legal issues that will be made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Again, if it's unfair and problematic, why no challenge until now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #76
83. I'm arguing the legal issues - not the politics! Understand?
I'm for Edwards!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #73
78. The Nevada Party jointly set the rules
Do you think they didn't know there was a culinary union when they set those caucus locations? Who do you think leads the Dem Party in Nevada? Who do you think those votes were supposed to go to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #78
84. Can the Nevada party dilute other precinct votes?
I guess that's going to be the real question.

If this wasn't a caucus, but just a bunch of people voting, there'd be no problem.

Also, how many union leaders will be watching in these nine caucuses? (Which will be pretty easy to do.) What about the union member who wants to vote for Edwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. Is Edwards suing?
If Edwards thinks there's a true problem, why doesn't he join the suit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #86
93. I think it would be wise for him to somehow be involved in this matter.
Maybe not necessarily through a lawsuit, but somehow, he needs to have a voice in this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #78
100. Some of the plaintiffs of the lawsuit were present at the meeting when the plan was agreed to
According to this source:

... Sun columnist Jon Ralston has been reporting this story all day and revealing new stuff to his e-mail newsletter subscribers.

For instance, some plaintiffs of the lawsuit were present at the meeting when the plan was agreed to. It passed unanimously. Ralston also reports that AFSCME may join the lawsuit. AFSCME has endorsed Clinton.

See tomorrow's Sun, and we'll blog more of Ralston's reporting later...
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/12... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #66
74. Yup.
Edwards and Obama don't make me ashamed to be a Democrat. I know that in their hands, we won't have to cringe at low down dirty behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
36. Kicked and recommended. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
40. Yeah when is Hillary going to condemn this move?
lol. That is a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
65. An unfair advantage for union members?
And the teachers union is saying this? Most of the votes I've ever cast have been in school auditoriums. And I've never heard any teacher's union complaining about this arrangement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. Thank you. Award-winning post of the day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #65
85. but with thousands and thousands of culinary voters in these nine
precincts they will have a disporportionate outcome on the vote.

My kids' school is the site for our local precinct, but the school is not home to a couple of thousand teachers. :)

I'm just talking legalities. Not what I think should be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #85
109. Making it harder for people to vote is not the answer
No doubt I'd feel different if precincts were set up inside corporate boardrooms, but making it easy for working people to vote is always a good thing in my book, no matter who they're voting for. And I'm not an Obama fan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
79. This whole post twists the truth so egregiously
Edited on Sat Jan-12-08 06:30 PM by Harvey Korman
it's unbelievable. You've deliberately misrepresented the facts to get people huffing and puffing along with you, and you should be ashamed of the dishonesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #79
87. I agree - nothing shows a Hillary campaign request - even a meeting - to effect this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #79
112. Well it worked.
It got him 30 recs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dragonlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-12-08 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
98. Kudos to the DNC for trying to bring minority members into the process
This year the DNC worked out a plan to get minority voters into the mix in choosing the presidential nominee in early states. South Carolina will add African Americans and Nevada will add Hispanics to the mostly white populations in Iowa and New Hampshire. That's a good thing for our party and our country. Now we learn that they set up a procedure to let the casino workers participate even though they have to be at work at the time of the caucus. Is this showing favoritism? I think it's a valid way to further the goal of getting minorities into the process without risking their jobs.

Caucuses by their nature favor whoever has no other commitments during the limited time when they are held. Maybe it's time to modify the caucus procedure to let some people "vote absentee" or come in earlier in the day or some such thing. I recall going to a caucus in Michigan (1984) that was not operated like the Iowa caucus--we just came in, announced our preference, and then could leave. That system would broaden the range of participants who choose the nominee and lead more people to get involved and hopefully stay involved in the party.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
110. This is Hard-Boiled Politics However You Slice It. Casino caucuses for culinary workers!
Excuse the puns.

Employees-only caucuses at the job site? What sort of proof of valid employment do they require? I guess the unemployed don't get to vote. It would take extraordinary labor peace to avoid the potential for abuse here (which of course Las Vegas is the only state in the nation to have such labor peace, thanks to its unusual combination of a strong union tradition backed by the same, er, families that started the casino industry, and a full-employment rapid-growth economy fueled by a constant influx of liquidity from gambling and tourist dollars, and a labor shortage coupled with dramatic population growth in a desert. Kind of like the Saudi Arabian economy.) Let's just say that the Culinary union should be careful what it wishes for, though of course this is a scheme to eliminate the current Republican stranglehold on a formerly rural right wing sagebrush state. It could backfire if the voters are ever asked to endorse a candidate that is against the interests of the casino or, for that matter, the union.

Still, this reminds me of Gangs of New York for some reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
114. Suppress the vote. Load the convention with your super delegates. Why have a primary at all.
I wonder why I am not surprised. This will only turn out more union voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
workinclasszero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #114
118. Exactly
Code words and now voter suppression. Hill and Bill are rolling in the dirt now eh?

Do people REALLY want the baggage that will come with a Hillary Clinton administration?

Please lets start fresh and mud-free with Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
119. Logan's Law: Accusations get nastier as Obamites sense imminent defeat.
Edited on Sun Jan-13-08 06:47 AM by Perry Logan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
120. I think it's disgusting how you exploit Hispanics here
disenfranchisement of minorities is a serious issue, not something to be thrown around by hype artists.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sidwill Donating Member (975 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #120
121. Good god
How the F@ck can any progressive defend these actions?

A blatant Bushian attempt at suppressing votes = "being a fighter"?

I guess we shouldn't be surprised, this is coming from the same people who forgive Clinton's blank check IWR vote so why wouldn't they be drawn to other Bush like Clinton predilictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #121
122. how can anyone defend Obama's cheating?
Our elections are precious! People died for fair elections! Obama doesn't care about democracy! He's a traitor!

(this is a parody of this ridiculous mode of argument)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
128. Making it more difficult for anyone to vote is disenfranchisement.
Would this be happening if the Culinary Workers had endorsed Clinton? Unlikely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. Is it disenfranchisement to give some voters GREATER access than eveyone else
based on their job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. It most places there are a heck of alot of polling places in schools.
Wouldn't that be to the advantage of the teachers and make it more difficult for the workers on the strip?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. But the teachers aren't the only persons allowed to vote there, are they?
And they are in those locations because that's where most of the housing is, which is designed to give everyone access.

How about IT IS DISENFRANCHISEMENT TO GIVE CERTAIN GROUPS GREATER ACCESS THAN OTHERS BY DESIGN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. It depends on what precinct you're registered to vote in.
If a person is registered outside the precinct, of course they can't vote there. Just like the person voting on the strip can't travel out to the burbs and vote at a school. Unless, of course, Nevada has voting laws completely different from any other state. The bottom line is that voting should be made easier for everyone, no matter who they support and no matter what their economic lot in life, not more difficult. For either side to do otherwise is shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-13-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #133
135. I agree. It ought to be easier for everyone. But no one group should have a special
case that makes it easier for them than anyone else. Easy for all, but equal access.
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 Sun Feb 23rd 2020, 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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