FAQ on the Nevada at-large caucus disenfranchisement debacle

So what did they do for at-large caucuses in previous years?

Why didn’t the NEA get at-large caucus locations too?

Will the lawsuit actually get rid of at-large caucus locations?

Can non-union members participate in these at-large caucus locations?

How many people are we talking about here?

Who does the lawsuit hurt?

Who does the lawsuit help?

But is there any real proof of a connection with Clinton’s campaign?

Has Obama said anything about the lawsuit?

http://www.thedailybackground.com/2008/01/14/an-faq-on-the-nevada-at-large-caucus-disenfranchisement-debacle/

Their members don't generally have to work on Saturday nights. Casino workers do. The teachers don't need caucuses near their workplaces over the weekend.

are not able to caucus because they can't get to their home precincts. They're not talking about teachers or paras, but custodians, so maybe two per school. But this is because the NEA didn't negotiate it into the rules, which they could have last year just as the CWU did. This is just a weak excuse to try to overcome the CWU endorsement. No other explanation.

and a number of Teacher Union employees will be required to work at the schools where there is a caucus and, therefore, will not be able to attend a caucus where they live.

I believe the number stated was around 300 teacher union employees.

to block the votes of the parents of the children they teach. I put it in a post that's a page or so back, I guess. The letter can be found on Time Magazine's website.

Voter suppression should never be a tactic of any Democratic candidate. Period.

Good FAQ.

:)

because of this information provided by the local newspaper:



That is when I knew it was pure bunk. If it was about the merits of the case either they would have objected when the rules were set or after the sites were approved months ago.

and he was mad as hell.

:shrug:

but, yes, a majority of Culinary Union members are Hispanic, I believe.

>So what did they do for at-large caucuses in previous years?

I don't think there were at-large caucus locations in previous years.

>Why didn’t the NEA get at-large caucus locations too?

Because the rule was made to treat at-large caucus like an urban caucus (50 caucus goers to 1 delegate), so you have to have 4000 employees at the at-large location to qualify. If they were to make the at-large like a rural caucus, then the at-large caucus would have a disproportionate representation at the state convention (rural areas in NV already enjoy a disproportionate number of delegates in relation to the number of caucus goers).

>Will the lawsuit actually get rid of at-large caucus locations?

Yup. All of them.

>Can non-union members participate in these at-large caucus locations?

All the rules say is employees. I have no idea if they will even check the employee status, much less any union affiliation.

>How many people are we talking about here?

9 locations at 4000 minimum per... so the floor is 36,000 employees... probably more like 40,000 to 50,000

Versus

the 300 teachers who will not be able to attend their own home caucus because of being assigned work on Saturday (the suit was filed on their behalf)

>Who does the lawsuit hurt?

The employees of the casinos... and since the major union for the employees endorsed Obama, presumably it will hurt him.

>Who does the lawsuit help?

It's voter suppression. It helps Clinton, who didn't get the endorsement of the Culinary Union leadership.

>But is there any real proof of a connection with Clinton’s campaign?

Yes. Many of the plaintiffs are known Clinton supporters. The leadership of the teachers union is mostly Clinton supporters (one is a founder of the local Clinton leadership committee)

>Has Obama said anything about the lawsuit?

Not to my knowledge. However, his supporters are speaking up.

ignoring the fact that the casino workers will not be voting as a block. Just because the union endorsed Obama does not mean it's member will vote for Obama.

Clinton would hardly want to keep people from voting for her.

What this appears to be about....is state politics, and a favorable status for the culinary union.

and filed 2 days after the Culinary Union leadership endorsed Obama. The at-large precincts were in the plans since last March and the final form of the agreement which allowed that at-large was published Sept 24, 2007. So if the teachers union had a problem with it, why wait until now to file the lawsuit?

It stinks.

If this lawsuit had been filed by republican operatives or agents in Nevada just before the general election, the outrage here on DU would be universal. (and yeah, I know that this SPECIFIC at-large precinct controversy will not apply in the general election, but I saying that IF there was, say, a polling location set up for union employees in casinos or something similar and the repukes filed a lawsuit 10 days before the election...)

Apparently, the Clinton supporters and maybe the Clinton campaign decided that the chance that union employees would follow the endorsement recommendation of the union leadership was too great... so they are trying to prevent them from attending the caucus. (It's not like workers can take off, drive to their homes, attend a 1 to 2 hour caucus at 11:00am, and then return to work).

I think the weighting of the delegates is very unfair. The same number of warm bodies participating should equal the same number of delegates. And I would think that regardles of how they fall for the candidates.

The teachers are also being disenfranchised. In MUCH smaller numbers, but it is still happening. I still dont think anyone should have to work in a caucus location and not be allowed to caucus. There may very well be political jockeying with the lawsuit...but for me, the whole situation points to the fact that the caucus system there is broken needs to be evaluated.

A far as Clinton participating in something that would keep her from getting every vote she could...just doesn't make sense.

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

Did you know that rural residents in Nevada get a disporportionate say in this caucus? Where is the outrage over that? (BTW, much like the Democratic convention, the Nevada caucus are NOT democracy in action, just rules set up by the Democratic party on Nevada to choose delegates to a state convention, who will then choose delegates to the national convention).

Did you know that if you are a Culinary worker who has to work on Saturday, but maybe you live somewhere affordable, like SearchLight or another outlying town,by participating in the at-large caucus, your "vote" will count much less than if you stayed home and caucused at the local meeting hall? Your neighbors that don't work on Saturday will be able to have their votes counted as "rural", but not yours. Is that fair?

I agree that caucus is a silly way to run an election. There isn't, in this day an age, a time when everyone in the state can simply show up somewhere for a few hours and have their voices heard in the election process. Especially in a place like Las Vegas (the original 24 x 7 town). A week long vote with paper ballots and hand counts is much prefered (by me). But that isn't what the party chooses to do in Nevada.

And the Clinton supporters made a determination that their candidate would do better if these people (some 40,000) were disenfranchised, losing their votes for Clinton, but also preventing the votes for other candidates. Which is very very sad.

As a Democrat, we should all want everyone to caucus or vote, and make it as easy as possible for them to do so. Anything else is undemocratic.

DO object to, is unfair weighting, anywhere it happens, and to people being required to work a caucus site without the having the ability to caucus.

I do not agree with the presmise that Hillary would have anything to do with any action that would make people unable to caucus. She WANTS vote. The notion that she is willing to piss off a whole union full of people (many of which who would vote for her) seems like a big fat stretch to me.

IMO it's political spin.

you would be in favor of Hillary issuing a statement opposed to the lawsuit and encouraging the Culinary workers to caucus, whoever they might caucus for.

And we've heard that statement, right?

Hillary borrowed one from the Rovian playbook and used surrogates to file the lawsuit. You can research the people named as plaintiffs. You can see who they donated to. One of them is the chairwoman of a Clinton support group. And the law firm used has long ties to the Clintons.

If she or her supporters felt that more union workers were going to vote for Obama, because of the leadership's endorsement of him, then they might well have made the calculation that suppressing the vote of ALL of the union would be to her ultimate benefit.

"I hope it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party. Obviously, we want as many people as possible to participate."

And that's fine with me. It IS between the courts and the state party. And I don't think for a minute that she'd be willing to risk that kind of bad publicity or the people's votes.

She is washing her hands of the matter and "leave it up to the courts"... which is much like what Bush was saying about Scooter Libby (we don't comment on active investigations).

Her supporters filed the lawsuit and now she says "let's leave it up to the courts".

Kinda convenient, don'tcha think?

Here is the actual suit:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf


The claim is not that the NEA was treated unfairly. The claim is:

1.That all Nevada voters who don't work on the LV strip are treated unfairly by having one set of rules for casino workers and one set for everybody else in the state.

2. The plan was created with good intentions, but nevertheless violates Nevada election law.

I think there is no question that the suit is brought by people who seek to benefit Sen. Clinton, but regardless of their motives, the suit itself may have merit.

There would seem to be many people who could benefit from having caucuses at their worksite. For instance, retail workers. What about all those people who have to work on Saturday in stores? It looks like the strongest union wins. The Culinary workers are influential enough to get what they want.

caucus date will be excluded from the process.

However, it's not the fairness or lack of fairness that is in question, only whether or not it violates state election laws. Furthermore, it was a process agreed to by 4 of the plaintiffs before the endorsement of the union for a candidate other than the one they support.

The Party set up the rules, as it has a right to.

Party members and others could have objected to these rules anytime last year after the plan was adopted (March) or when the plan in its final form was published (Sept 24,2007).

The concept was to let union workers at LARGE locations (and working in the largest industry in Nevada) to have a say... and you have to have 4000 workers at your location to get the "at-large" precinct designation. Nine of the largest casinos qualified.

I think we should be in favor on any rule that lets more people express their preference, even if we can't guarantee that ALL will be able to caucus. I'm sure that was the intent of the plan as adopted by the Democratic party in Nevada.

It's being objected to in the 11th hour because the one of the two major unions concerned endorsed a candidate other than the one the plaintiffs support.

The case probably does have merit. But the lawsuit should have been filed a long time ago when there would be an opportunity to fix the plan. Or it shouldn't have even been a lawsuit but rather a discussion in the rules committee of the Nevada Democratic party.

I don't think any plan would be perfect. There will always be someone that won't be able to caucus. That's why a caucus is a bad idea to begin with. A vote that lasts a week, and uses both hand counted paper ballots AND instant runoff voting would be far preferable.

BTW, one of the things to emerge from this is the realization that RURAL caucus voters end up with a much greater say than urban caucus voters (more representation at the state convention). Why isn't everyone upset about that?

And more to the point. Why does the Democratic National Convention even have a concept like the Super Delegate (who is not elected but appointed)? That's very un-democratic.

Anyway, rules are rules and the plan was agreed to by all of the major stakeholders previously. Only because of the endorsement by the Culinary union of Obama do we see this lawsuit from Clinton supporters.

Anybody within 2.5 miles can caucus at the sites which have over 4,000 employees, not just casino workers. The weighting is in accordance with state law as well. The Secy of State oversees elections, and unless he/she is corrupt, wouldn't have allowed an illegal election to move forward.

Hillary was bitching about Iowa's caucus because it didn't make accommodations for shift workers, now she wants to say it's unfair.

The suit has no merit.

the legal question to be settled is "Can someone caucus at a location based not on where a person lives but rather where they work?" It's a valid legal question, further more, it is only for some people that work where there is a large contingent of voters, 4000 or more to be exact.

I don't like the lawsuit, nor the motives of those behind it, but it does have pose a question of law that needs to be addressed.

One can make the case that the party can make whatever rules it wants in running a caucus, but the concept of someone caucusing at work rather than in their residential precinct is novel, to say the least.

Unfortunately, my guess is that a judge will likely strike down the plan and force people to caucus in the precincts where they are registered to vote in the general election. Which means that Hillary is likely to win the state. My hope is that enough people see what she and her supporters did and are turned off so much that she loses support.

KKKarl Rove tactics should not be employed by democrats. In my opinion, voter suppression is something right out of the Lee Atwater playbook.