Why should at-large precincts in casinos be given more weight than other precincts around the state?

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

The lawsuit charges that changes were made to the agreement since then, however, and that the at-large precincts now unfairly give the casino precincts more weight -- "disingenuously" allocating delegates based on participation instead of based on registered voters, for example -- creating a "grossly amplified number of delegates" thus "treating each precinct as if it were a separate county."

Dem. approval, among other things.

I read the whole 13 page lawsuit; others should do so before making judgments about it.

I don't know whether the lawsuit has any merit, whether the timing is an issue, etc., but the posts I have seen on this issue so far have not presented the whole picture.

it's much easier just to bash hillary 24.7

I am sick and tired of seeing dishonest tactics used to get votes, no matter who does it, or how they do it. It should be only registered voters who decide who gets delegates. And if that's true that they are trying to bypass that, then I am pissed!

To someplace that we could all read the lawsuit? I really want to know what it's all about. All I got from what the Obama supporters are saying is Hillary is trying to pull a fast one. I would like to find out the facts.

If there is a link maybe you coult post in in a new thread so everyone who wants to could read it and see for themselves what is going on.

here is a link to the lawsuit

http://vegaspundit.typepad.com/vegas_pundit/files/filed_complaint.pdf

to get the Culinary Workers endorsement - which means SHE would have benefitted by the weighted precincts. Is it a coincidence that, knowing about these changes for months, the suit was filed only after the union endorsed Obama?

Can you spell D I S I N G E N U O U S?

and was content with the arrangements until Obama got the endorsement. Now, she's all about vote-suppression. Does that make you proud?

...

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/post_271.html

Nevada precincts. 5 voters to get one delegate. In the Reno/Sparks and Las Vegas are where there is more population, they get 50 to one delegate. They voted to treat these casino precincts like rural county precincts because not all workers will be working at 11:30 that day and some won't be able to attend anyways because someone has to serve the thousands of gamblers, visitors, etc.

Nevada should have never gone to a caucus like this. We are covered with shift workers all over the state in mining and casinos and hospitals, etc. But teachers have Saturdays off and that's all Hillary cares about! So do State employees and city and county employees besides cops, etc.

We have at least 30 posters here tonight that are having very orgasmic righteous indignation episodes over false voter suppression blah, blah, blah.

Its Saturday night - let them have their fun.

When will even you draw the line?

They don't want to based it on "registered voters"? I don't get it. I thought "only" registered voters had a say. I did hear something that I didn't like the other day on CSPAN. They said that a person could register to vote on the day of the vote, and they did not have to provide proof of being a resident of the state, or proof they are legal to vote in the first place.

You're just spouting talking points.

A vote is a vote is a vote. If Obama wins Nevada, he wins Nevada. I don't see what's wrong with bringing the precincts to the people if the people can't get to the precincts.

Should be making the choices. If what has been said is true, and they are trying to by pass that, then there is a big problem, don't you think?

can vote in the first place.

Maybe I'm confused about this lawsuit. It's saying they're basing delegation on participation, but how the hell can you participate if you're not registered?

Either way, unless someone is voting who isn't registered, this is a ridiculous suit.

If a voter can't go to the precinct, bring the precinct to the voters.

Up above where you can go and read the whole thing.

because SOME teachers will VOLUNTEER to work at caucuses in their schools (as caucus workers) instead of going to the location near where they live to participate in the caucus for their home precinct. By creating the "at-large" precincts in hotel/casinos, workers who are REQUIRED to work (their normal working time) will be able to caucus, thus giving them more weight because of higher participation (than that of the teachers).

What is really intended here is to disenfranchise ALL Culinary workers who work on that Saturday (the busiest day in Vegas for hotels/casinos) because SOME teachers volunteered to work at schools where they teach, not where they live.

The lawsuit is transparent.

It will likely be heard as there is a substantial matter of law to be determined (are "at large" precincts legal) which means a stay will be ordered on the casino precincts until there is time for a hearing. Even a speedy trial or hearing would not likely take place in time to actually set up and hold the caucuses as was planned. Hillary supporters win (at least the disenfranchisement). And it sucks. If you think that is all "that's OK, she is playing by the rules" then you are just a sad excuse for Democrat... we fight this type of crap from Repukes every general election. DU is rife with firsthand accounts of voter suppression and disenfranchisement. Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, and now this.

If the teachers want the opportunity to be counted in their home caucus, don't volunteer to work at the school where they teach. Let the poor, mostly people of color, kitchen workers express THEIR desires. IF they caucus for Hillary, great. If Obama, great. If Edwards, great. If someone else, that's great too. But don't tell them "Hey, it's your job or your vote, 'cause if you want to be counted, you have to go to your home precinct which is a 4 or 5 hour round trip time".

By Herman Munster below. From what I see the lawsuit has a point. Why should one segment of the population be allowed to vote outside their home district, and yet other workers in different jobs can not do the same.

I think the teachers union has a point myself. Why is Clinton being blamed for this? Is the teachers union backing her, or what, do you know?

doesn't mean you should disenfranchise EVERYONE.

Acommodating many is better than nothing.

work day for them. They can spend the entire day at the polls, if they so choose. Culinary Workers, having endorsed Obama, will be working that day, as they do every day, 24/7/365. Even with the casino caucus stations, many will not be able to break away to vote. The certainly would not be able to vote in their home precincts - this is the west, remember, and it is not at all uncommon for low wage workers to live 20-40 miles from where they work.

Those filing the suit are intimately connected to Hillary's organization in NV. You don't suppose they'd do this without floating it by her first, do you?

Once that didn't happen, all bets were off.