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

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_complaint.pdf



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

People have DIED to stop this shit in the south.

side of the suit, it's not voter suppression.

why I don't like the Clintons.

you.

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.

Try to get rational.

candidate is a sign of rationality.

But enjoy.

Enjoy your ethics-challenged candidate.

countersue.

But if the timing is intended to interfere with the caucus, then it's highly unethical.

Is it illegal?

And is it at all unethical to accuse people without evidence?

must be a Hillary supporter.

that's the most pertinent issue.

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.

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.

I guess the judge found it to be frivolous.

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.

Is that what you're arguing? That it's a crime to bring a dispute to court?

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.

How dare those uppity minorities try to vote!!!

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.

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.

I won't cry about it one way or the other.

If they can find one phone call or email with the Clinton people, ILLEGAL. No question.

Big "if".

The suit is clearly intended to influence the outcome of the caucuses.

constitutes voter suppression?

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.

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.

If Hillary wants it, the rest of the world needs to bend over?

:rofl:

When someone tells me they don't vote I do a turnaround and say People have died for this right...

That spoke volumes about his character (or lack thereof). This is not good.

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!

... 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.

I can't commend her campaign for disenfranchising because that's not what her campaign is doing, nor are the plaintiffs in the case.

Oh wait, it's Hillary, and she senses the culinary union might stand in the way of her ambition. Yes, sadly, believable.

in 2000 to steal the election for himself, Queen Hillary is just as entitled to win by any means necessary.

wonder how those hispanics feel now after her visit chomping on nachos

Yes, I'm sure I can trust you to assess the situation fairly.

yes... I think I can assess her visit to Vegas quite fairly thank you

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.

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.

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:

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.

How many does it have to happen in before you see a pattern?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

She'll say it's internal Nevada problems and it would be inappropriate for her to comment on it.

n/t

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.

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.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2669291&mesg_id=2669291

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 America’s 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.

"Jim’s 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."

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 America’s 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.

"Jim’s 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."

"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.

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.

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.

question is to the degree of the Hillary campaign's involvement.

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.

legal means available.

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.

argument might have come up then, right?

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.)

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.

Remember? Like he always said he would have done in Ohio? If people are being disenfranchised, well Edwards better stand his ass up.

by the standard process for such disputes.

This case has no merit and will be dismissed. The lawyer should be sanctioned for pursuing such a frivolous case.

Counting the votes is maintaining integrity, not suppressing votes. They'd have loved you in the Jim Crow South.

And your insult is unwarranted, but at least you know that's what you're reduced to.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Don't confuse a legitimate legal challenge with stealing votes. You should be ashamed.

the time to fight it was when they were making the rules. No, I would hope Obama would not disnfranchise voters, not ever.

else a political advantage, it's wrong. If Obama challenged it because he didn't get the coveted endorsement, it would STILL be wrong.

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.

I would bet anything that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama were all waiting to see who got the endorsement.

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.

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!

suddenly, it's all red flags, huh?

Not the politics. I just thought it might be helpful for someone to state what some of these legal issues might be!

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.

other candidates.

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.

I'm for Edwards!

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?

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?

If Edwards thinks there's a true problem, why doesn't he join the suit?

Maybe not necessarily through a lawsuit, but somehow, he needs to have a voice in this matter.

According to this source:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/12/sen-reid-no-comment-caucus-lawsuit/

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.

lol. That is a joke.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It got him 30 recs.

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.

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.

I wonder why I am not surprised. This will only turn out more union voters.

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.

disenfranchisement of minorities is a serious issue, not something to be thrown around by hype artists.

:puke:

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.

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)

Would this be happening if the Culinary Workers had endorsed Clinton? Unlikely.

based on their job?

Wouldn't that be to the advantage of the teachers and make it more difficult for the workers on the strip?

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?

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.

case that makes it easier for them than anyone else. Easy for all, but equal access.