Texas Democrats distribute the state's 193 delegates using both a primary election and a caucus, but the distribution favors state Senate districts that had high voter turnout in the last presidential and gubernatorial elections.
In the March 4 election, that meant predominantly Hispanic districts, where turnout was low in 2004 and 2006, got fewer delegates than others, particularly urban, predominantly black districts. Latino districts favored Hillary Clinton; black districts favored Barack Obama.
"The manner used to allocate the delegates ... undervalues Latino Democratic voters and does not provide Latino voters with an equal opportunity to participate in the nominating process and to elect candidates of their choice," the lawsuit says.
Tell me how allocating caucus delegates based on prior turnout in 2004 and 2006 undervalues anyone? Just because all of a sudden one area of the state got finally woke up and got themselves to the polls, they are being undervalued. What I think it shows them is that it is important to get out your vote. If you show up, then your strength represents your actual voting strength.
And heck they can look it another way too. In 2010 those areas are going to get a lot more representation because they turned out this year.
While I applaud LULAC for defending Latino rights, they certainly did good work in the re-districting lawsuit at the Supreme Court, this one is a bit of a stretch. It's not like they didn't know about the caucus system. It's been used in Texas for decades.
We'll see if any of the resolutions to alter the caucus process to the convention survive and what changes are made. :shrug:
Sonia
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
