In Private Letter, Howard Dean Pleads For Party Unity Over Primary Chaos

In Private Letter, Howard Dean Pleads For Party Unity Over Primary Chaos
By Greg Sargent - September 7, 2007, 4:30PM

We've just obtained a private letter that DNC chair Howard Dean has sent out to DNC members in which he mounts a spirited defense of his party committee's position in the current jostling with rogue states over their efforts to leapfrog their primaries forward in the nominating calendar.

In the letter, Dean lays out the DNC's position in detail, mounts a spirited defense of it, and all but calls these rouge states hypocritical for following some party rules and not others. Dean also acknowledges that the ongoing battles have rubbed a lot of people raw, makes a plea for party unity, and acknowledges some frustration with the process, repeatedly saying that party rules should "mean something."

"We do not believe that states can cherry pick which of these rules they choose to follow," Dean writes. "This process is not easy, and, no doubt, there are more than enough hurt feelings to go around. But none of us can forget that our shared ultimate goal is to select the nominee best prepared to lead us to victory on November 4, 2008 and out of the Bush wilderness. To do that, we must continue to work together."

For those of you who've been following this ongoing controversy, we've got Dean's full letter for you after the jump.

Howard Dean's letter:

September 6, 2007
Dear Democratic National Committee Members:

I hope that you all had a happy and safe Labor Day.

Id like to take a few minutes to bring you up to date on the 2008 presidential primary and caucus calendar. During the past few weeks you have, no doubt, heard about or read articles about the calendar and the nominating process. These are complex issues and, as is often the case with complex issues, the facts sometime get lost in the shuffle. Here are the facts.

In August 2006 the DNC met in Chicago to, among other things, consider and vote on the adoption of rules to govern the Democratic Partys 2008 delegate selection process.

At that meeting, you, the members of the DNC, voted overwhelmingly to approve those rules.

This is a responsibility that only the Party can fulfill. Contrary to what some have argued, the DNC (and the RNC with respect to the Republican rules), not the states, has the authority to promulgate and implement the rules governing the primaries and caucuses by which delegates to our National Convention are selected. That point was settled by the Supreme Court in 1981.

As you know, the rules that you adopted were the result of an 18-month-long inclusive and deliberative process that included the work of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling that was established by the 2004 Convention in Boston and whose members were appointed by former DNC Chairman McAuliffe in December 2004.

In December 2005, the Commission recommended that the Party preserve Iowa's and New Hampshire's traditional roles but went on to recommend that other states should be added to the pre-window period. The Commission also recommended criteria to be used in the selection of those states: specifically, that they be states that added racial and ethnic diversity, geographic diversity, and economic diversity, including union density, to the pre-window period.
Beginning in early 2006, I asked the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to begin drafting a process that would implement the Commissions recommendations. The RBC instituted a process whereby every state could apply to hold an early contest alongside Iowa and New Hampshire. After an open process in which 12 states applied, South Carolina and Nevada were selected by the RBC and the full DNC to join Iowa and New Hampshire in the pre-window
period.

Your approval of the rules, and the four states that are in the pre-window period, was just the beginning of the process. Since that time, the Rules and Bylaws Committee has worked to implement those rules.

Under the rules, each state party is required to submit to the RBC, a plan demonstrating that its delegate selection process complies with the Partys rules. The Florida Democratic Party submitted a plan that violated one of the major delegate selection rules: the rule on timing.

Specifically, the Florida Plans proposed primary date is January 29, 2008 - seven days before February 5, 2008, the earliest date that the rules allow for a state, other than Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, to hold a primary or caucus.

The RBC reviewed Floridas Plan and found it in non-compliance. In other words, the RBC enforced the Party rules approved by you, the members of the DNC.

The RBC went on to recommend that Florida be stripped of all of its delegates if the state party does not bring the plan into compliance within 30-days of its receipt of the official notice of noncompliance.

August 30th was the date on which the Florida Democratic Party received official notice of non-compliance. We have been engaged and will continue to be engaged with the Florida party throughout this period.

At the same meeting at which the Florida plan was considered, the RBC also considered the Michigan Plan. That plan was found to have only minor defects and is in conditional compliance pending correction of those defects. Michigan's Plan provides that it will hold its traditional Party-run event, usually called a caucus or firehouse primary, on February 9, 2008 - a date that complies with the DNC's rules.

As you know, subsequent to the RBC meeting, the Michigan legislature approved legislation to establish a state government-run presidential primary on January 15, 2008. Earlier this week, Governor Granholm signed the legislation into law.

The DNC has no authority over what a state legislature does. However, we do have the absolute authority to determine the selection of delegates to our National Convention. The RBCs decision concerning a state party's compliance or non-compliance with our rules is based solely on what the state party's delegate selection plan provides.

Last week, I sent a letter to each of the Party's eight presidential candidates. In my letter, I asked the candidates to do their part to adhere to Delegate Selection Rules and support the efforts of the RBC.

Each of the Delegate Selection Rules has been adopted and refined over the years with an eye toward making the nominating process fairer, more representative and more effective for our candidates and our voters. The rule on timing means something. The rule on proportional representation means something. The rules on equal division and affirmative action mean something. These rules, and the other rules, help ensure that we select our nominee through a
fair, open, inclusive and representative process. We do not believe that states can cherry pick which of these rules they choose to follow.

This process is not easy, and, no doubt, there are more than enough hurt feelings to go around. But none of us can forget that our shared ultimate goal is to select the nominee best prepared to lead us to victory on November 4, 2008 and out of the Bush wilderness. To do that, we must continue to work together.

If you have any questions about this process or need additional information please call the DNC Office of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection at 202-863-8000.

Sincerely,

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Chairman

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/howard_deans_letter.php

And met with me, me, me. :(

:shrug:

But they moved it up to Feb.5, so it's still within the rules.

It appears to have been planned for a while to get the primary bill more notice in the media.

Levin and Nelson file regional primary bill after breaking the rules they voted for.

And the Florida party itself is acting destructively toward the DNC. They are sending mail asking not to fund the DNC or the candidates.

Email from Florida DEC chairs saying not to give to the DNC or candidates.

It's pretty bad really.

We've got too many people opposing Holt and supporting the Davis amendment (to ban DREs). By now, I'd a thought my fellow ERDUers would know you can't amend a bill that isn't moved out of the Rules committee and allowed to be voted on itself. Oh well ....

...

the rules was voted on democratically by representatives of the states, as such that makes the rules democratic and those breaking them working against both democracy and party

The national party and its leader should not be blamed for the actions of the state parties breaking the rules when they knew the penalties for it(It might be hard to swallow for some but when you join an group or organization you are expected to abide by the groups rules)

He has no right to expect unity as long as some Democrats are more favored than others.

Florida and Michigan do not consent to having 150,000 Iowa Democrats select our next President or the next Democratic nominee.

Period.

Florida and Michigan and other states agreed to the rules years ago. Fighting to change it for 2012 is completely legit. Flipping now is not.