Print This Post Print This Post

May

30

What to know re: DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting on FL, MI delegates


First Read at MSNBC has a good primer on what you need to know about today’s meeting of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting to discuss proposals to reinstate Florida and Michigan delegates. Those two states violated rules related to when the DNC said primaries could be scheduled and they were penalized. Now, the commitee will be considering how to, if at all, re-instate the delegates so that they can be “seated” at the Denver national convention in August.

There are 30 members of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, and here’s the breakdown: 13 back Clinton, eight support Obama, and nine are uncommitted, including the two co-chairs, Alexis Herman VA and James Roosevelt. A majority vote of those present is needed to pass a resolution or judgment.

…

The Los Angeles Times has a good primer on the issues at stake this weekend, saying that there are two issues before the Rules committee. “The first involves whether to seat 368 delegates from the renegade states along with 49 superdelegates, and if so, how. Party legal experts issued a memo this week advising that, under party rules, committee members can restore no more than half of the states’ convention delegates. So if the panel decided to recognize Florida and Michigan, it could allow the states to send half of their delegates to the convention. Or it could seat all of the delegates and give each half a vote. The second — and far trickier — issue is how to divvy up those delegates between Clinton and Obama.”

I received a call from the BBC for a Sunday interview about the Montana, Puerto Rico and South Dakota primaries and when they said that those primaries would be the topic, I smiled and said that a lot of people are intensely focused more on today.

I’ll be staying up with it all throughout the next two days.

What do you think should happen and why? What do those last three primaries mean?

Update: James Pindell of Politicker.com has a good column here about the meeting and the issues.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:23 am May 30th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Predictions, Voting, WH2008 

Comments

18 Responses to “What to know re: DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting on FL, MI delegates”

  1. 1 Ben K on May 30th, 2008 11:31 am

    I have no idea what will happen, but whatever the rules are should probably be enforced. Not that novel of an idea.

    Of course I hope that it leads to more divison among democrats.

  2. 2 Jill Miller Zimon on May 30th, 2008 11:33 am

    Ben! That’s awful! lol come on – take that game elsewhere. I certainly prefer two or more parties being healthy and helping govern. Single party rule sucks big time. Not to mention – be careful what you wish for!

    Ben, giving you the Mother Glare.

  3. 3 Lynda O'Neal on May 30th, 2008 12:01 pm

    Agree wholeheartedly, Jill. Also agree that rules should be enforced but evenly. Other states have moved ahead without penalty. Also, penalty is a loss of 1/2, not all. Further rules say something to the effect that advertising costs you all, and Obama ads were on cable networks in FL, so he should probably forfeit FL.

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on May 30th, 2008 7:31 pm

    Clearly it shows a lack of making rules that cover all or many eventualities. I just don’t know enough about this party governance stuff to be totally critical from one side or the other but I tend to agree with you – if the DNC has control, and they warned the states and the states went ahead anyway, I just don’t see how they get to change it now – they accepted the consequences on behalf of the Florida and Michigan Dems who put their states’ party people there in the first place.

    The first place to look for reform or responsibility or both would be state party structure and how people are getting to those roles. Don’t like how they make decisions? Get new party people. End of story – but I know it’s not that simple.

  5. 5 Lynda O\'Neal on May 30th, 2008 7:51 pm

    I would agree with you except for the fact that the FL Democratic party had nothing to do with it. The date of the election was changed by the FL legislature (mostly Republican) and signed by our Republican Governor. Our problem with the Party appears to be at the National level.

  6. 6 Jill Miller Zimon on May 30th, 2008 7:56 pm

    So sorry!! Big oops and mistake on my part – not sure why I didn’t realize that (is that a common mistake?).

    Hmm – how does the legislature get to change it I bet you are right – maybe it’s that way everywhere? I really do not know – probably shouldn’t be commenting!

  7. 7 Lynda O'Neal on May 30th, 2008 8:08 pm

    Apparently in FL Election Day is set by law. Last year some legislator decided that FL should be more relevant in the decision making process and introduced a bill to move the date up by 1 week. Well, it passed and FL Dems didn’t have much choice as it is now law. Gov. Crist did offer to let us have a special election to the tune of multi-millions that the Party would have to pay, and did not have. Anyhow, it needs to be resolved at the National level or this will recur every four years.

  8. 8 Jill Miller Zimon on May 30th, 2008 8:14 pm

    Thank you – okay – end of the week memory loss – I do remember hearing about “is Ohio going to change it? no one in the legislature is really motivated to do it – no one in the parties wants to do it – so it’s not going to change.”

    I do recall that now. Hmm – doesn’t seem right that a state government could do it and allow it to impact on a partisan basis – does that seem right? I’m not sure why a state that is only obeying its law should be penalized by a partisan party leadership body – I don’t get this. lol

    Ok – I think I need to step away from this issue and read some history of how it works. :)

  9. 9 Lynda O\\\'Neal on May 30th, 2008 8:31 pm

    And therein lies the rub. I’m fairly certain that no Democratic voter in FL did anything other than show up to the designated polling place at the date and time set by law and cast their vote. This is why we are somewhat bewildered by the “they broke the rules and must pay” theme afoot here. One, the rules say that the penalty is loss of half the votes unless the safe haven exception (whatever the hell that is) applies. The rules further say that any candidate who campaigns or advertises in the state forfits completely. Therefore, if the rules are followed, half votes for Clinton and none for Obama (who advertised on cable stations) should apply.

  10. 10 Chuck Butcher on May 31st, 2008 3:58 am

    It pays to know both Party rules and Federal Law before you start handing out false information.
    1)within DNC rules the State Party controls the election, 100%
    2)the State of “x” can offer financing for a general vote primary and set conditions
    3)the State Party is free to refuse the offer

    Republicans & Dems in both legislatures voted for the change, the Govs signed, and the State Parties not only willingly went along but actively opposed DNC

    The 50% penalty is the minimum and is applied where an actual effort was made to be in compliance
    The additional penalty was levied for egregious conduct, absolutely true.
    Either State Party could have self-financed caucuses at any time, meeting DNC requirements and staying within the letter of the State laws which prohibit private financed efforts from State apparatus.

    You have been repeatedly lied to. The information is freely available. The only affordable method was caucuses which Hillary opposed because she’s done poorly in them. Hillary effectively stopped FL & MI from moving into compliance by promising what she did not have the power to do – ie count the votes.

    I do not care what candidate you support, minus the speculation about Hillary’s motives the matter is fact. If you are willing to plow through the documentation you will find I am right. I have reason to know this stuff.

    Rules & Bylaws Committee members choose what is possibly the most boring Committee in the Party and thinking they will not follow the rules is not realistic. They are there because (for the most part) they are absolute sticklers for procedure and for not being over-ruled. It should be boring as watching paint dry other than a couple moments.

    Flame on, ignorance is bliss

  11. 11 Chuck Butcher on May 31st, 2008 4:04 am

    BTW, SC & NV applied for variance and received it, FL&MI did neither, knowing they wouldn’t receive it.

    5 states had Republican voters outnumber Democrats in primaries, UT – Romney, AZ – McCain, AK – Huckabee & FL/MI
    So much for Democrats turned out for illegimate votes in MI/FL.

    spin just won’t do, the elections were not “open and fair” despite any campaign spin.

  12. 12 Chuck Butcher on May 31st, 2008 4:05 am

    OH-BNN #2? Congrtulation WLST!

  13. 13 Lynda O'Neal on May 31st, 2008 7:17 am

    Dear Chuck , I’m fairly certain that Democrats in the FL state house offered a counterproposal which was voted down by the majority party. Secondly, the state party did turn down the caucus idea and I’m not certain that I like the idea of a caucus anyway. What about people who are working and can’t come to that specific spot at the specific time? Thirdly, the state had no intention of financing another primary and that was made abundantly clear by the governer. Fourth, I’m unsurprised that Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the primary as it is a Republican controlled state. In Florida, you will find Democrats in Broward, Palm Beach, some in Miami, and then in the Gainesville and Tallahassee area. There are a fairly large number of Democrats in the Panhandle area and they tend to be blue dogs. Now we had made some registration gains and were in a position to challenge some seats, and you will notice my tense. I was unaware that FL had not applied for a variance, but if you say that they would not have received it, that perhaps will explain the lapse. I then have to wonder by what virtue we know that some will be granted and others not. I do not challenge your knowledge of Party machinery, but I would like a little credit for living here and seeing what goes on around me, Chuck. Further, what I said is that whatever political crimes were committed, none were courtesy of the FL rank and file Democratic voter.

  14. 14 Carole Cohen on May 31st, 2008 11:32 am

    I’m listening to this on line, live, at Wash Post site; my perception of what they have explained (The Florida Dems who are speaking) is that they voted for the change because it was a rider on a bill that allowed a paper trail on FL voting. In this day and age (if this is true) of instant media accessibility, it still sounds to me like they dropped the ball and now they want it corrected? Am I right or wrong?

    Let me say it turns my stomach to think that people vote and their votes don’t count. However, I’m having trouble seeing this as strictly a Republican plot – why didn’t the Dems change the bill? Just asking

  15. 15 Carole Cohen on May 31st, 2008 12:20 pm

    The discussion, at least the part being televised, is candidate oriented by some on the rules committee who are supporting Clinton. Not that I am surprised.

  16. 16 Lynda O'Neal on May 31st, 2008 1:24 pm

    Dear Carole, The democratic members of the FL legislature offerred a counterproposal to bring the date into line with DNC rules. They were outvoted resoundingly by the Republican majority. (2:1 or so). Yes, we were pleased by the paper trail portion of this, but that was the only part. Regardless, no FL voter voted for any of these changes that got us here today. Also, I appreciate your sentiment as I am truly tired of my vote not counting.

  17. 17 Chuck Butcher on May 31st, 2008 6:07 pm

    Watch the film of the ‘offer’ it wasn’t seriously offered and not voted for by the Dems. LOL

    whether you like caucuses or not, it was a legal remedy which existed, you deny that remedy was possible because you don’t like it. Sorry I stated facts, you do not.

    It was not the legislature’s call, it was the State Party’s call to accept or decline the State financed vote, they enthusiastically went alone. You do not challenge or acknowledge who had control. This election is a DNC/State Party controlled issue – period.

  18. 18 Chuck Butcher on May 31st, 2008 6:09 pm

    No State Party wants to turn down State Gov financing, they have to be ready to keep control of their elections. They are expected to, they are elected to, FL/MI were irresponsible.

Leave a Reply




"));