Apparently the DNC’s lawyers say that, contrary to the Clinton campaign’s fondest hopes, the best that can be done regarding Michigan and Florida is to seat only half of each state’s delegation, or the full delegation with half the votes, but in any event, not the whole kit and caboodle.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prospects of persuading Democratic officials to override party rules and recognize all delegates selected in the Florida and Michigan primaries suffered a setback yesterday after lawyers for the party ruled that no more than half of those delegations could be legally recognized.
Democratic National Committee lawyers wrote in a memo that the two states must forfeit at least half of their delegates as punishment for holding primaries earlier than DNC rules allowed. Clinton (N.Y.) prevailed in both contests, although the Democratic candidates had agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, and Sen. Barack Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot. […]
… [I]n the memo, party lawyers determined that full restoration, as sought by Clinton, would violate DNC rules, although it did note a loophole that would allow her to carry the challenge to the first day of the Democratic National Convention in late August.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters that the senator from Illinois is prepared to forfeit a portion of his delegate lead, as part of a compromise to resolve the Florida and Michigan flap. “We don’t think it’s fair to seat them fully,” Plouffe said of the two delegations. But he added, “We’re willing to give some delegates here” in order to put the matter to rest.
Essentially, this gives the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (and ultimately the convention delegates if she takes this to a floor fight in Denver) legal cover to decide that only half the delegates from Florida and Michigan can be seated when they meet on May 31st. As you might recall, Clinton aimed to make a big push at that meeting to have all the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated.
Clinton supporters are organizing a “Count Every Vote” rally outside the meeting site and have bombarded committee members with phone calls and Florida oranges to press their case.
Obama’s campaign sent a mass e-mail to supporters yesterday, urging them not to descend on the event. Plouffe said the campaign could easily muster “thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people” to counter Clinton’s turnout, but said he wants to avoid an “unhelpful scene at the close of the nomination fight.”
Of course, like all us litigious types, Clinton could still go to court and attempt to force the issue, but I don’t see that as a particularly good thing for her to do. It makes her look petty and contentious, reinforcing all the old Clinton stereotypes about being ruled strictly by their personal ambition rather than party loyalty. However, I fully expect her to file a lawsuit if the Rules Committee does decide to seat less than all the delegates. She’s given no indication that she cares about her party if she cannot be its standard bearer so far, and I don’t expect her to stop now just because the DNC lawyers or the Rules Committee disagree with the position which is most advantageous to her personally.
Speaking to reporters on a morning conference call, senior adviser Harold Ickes refused to rule out a legal challenge if the committee does not rule in Clinton’s favor. “That’s a bridge to cross when we come to that particular stream,” he said.
Parsing Ickes’ words, that tells me a lawsuit is inevitable at this point, perhaps even if the Rules Committee simply decides not to decide anything, and passes the buck to the convention. Big surprise, eh?
I don’t have much legal know-how, but if it gets to the point of the Clinton campaign making a legal challenge, is this possible:
All the disenfranchised voters in Florida, like me, who didn’t vote (would have voted Obama) because we were told over and over and over and over that our votes didn’t count – to file a class action lawsuit against our Florida party leaders and the Clinton campaign for voter disenfranchisement?
What you should do is not vote for them when they’re up for reelection. The Reps control the Florida state government with significant majorities anyway, so what have you got to lose?
Or at least encourage people to vote Geller out.
Yeah, and Wasserman-Shultz should get the boot, too. She’s a substantial tool. More people like Wexler should replace them.
Wexler’s alright, but almost all Florida politicians, regardless of party, are tools.
We thought they were warming up for a lawsuit the minute she lost in SC.
They have no respect for the voters, justice or the legal system.
Clinton would never never want to look, what were the words?, “petty and contentious.”
Sue away. They’ve got no case. The courts regard this as an internal matter for the party. The Washington Post had a story up yesterday about a court dismissing a suit over the Florida Primary, saying how this was long-established law. Ickes is just growling. If Al Giordano is right about the block of 40 Clinton Supers who’ve privately announced that they’re ready to defect, then Obama has a ready answer, doesn’t he? Threaten to announce them as a block if the suit isn’t dropped and she doesn’t quit. If he does drop them in, that will start a stampede. The DNC and the rest of the leaders want this to stop and it will.
In her mania a loophole is all Clinton needs. I will be very surprised if she doesn’t take this all the way to the convention. She’s reached the point where if she can’t have the presidency neither can Obama. Besides, she likes McSame…..a lot.
Pelosi says it’s not happening. See new front-page article.
don’t worry, Hillary will find a way to drag this all through the summer.
anything she can do to destroy Obama for daring to challenge her anointed status, she will do.
this is about her laying claim to what she has thought was hers since 1992.
even more importantly, it is a struggle for control of the democratic party… the DLC (GOP Lite) vs the Obama folk
It just seems like at least some of this is posturing and bluster. It’s like a hog-nosed snake puffing up to look like a cobra. If Clinton (the Clintons) want a political future in the Party, it’s not in their interests to press a case they don’t got.
MI and FL have to take a hit with this, or you’ll be having primaries years ahead of Generals. I’m constantly amazed that even among her staunchest supporters, that they can’t see how opportunistic, cynical and disingenuous she’s being. She doesn’t give a free-falling frig about the ‘poor, disenfranchised’ voters. If she tries to go to court over this she just ends up just causing a lot of needless strife and making herself look like a Machiavellian ass. The voters of NY are watching all this, too.
I also can’t believe how profoundly stupid these “count every vote” people seem to be — they’re coming off like a bunch of retarded lemmings.
Most of them know damned well that she’s being all of those things. They just don’t care. Hillary is a woman who’s been wronged, thus she’s entitled to the nomination and the presidency. “The Order of the Ovaries,” as fabooj brilliantly described it.
The rest, who don’t realize she’s those things, are crazy people of the No Quarter commenter variety, who believe they’re locked in an epic struggle against a dark-skinned Hitler/Stalin/Mao-type figure, and who believe that all this talk of Florida and Michigan not counting is just a conspiracy between Obama and “Big Media” (as Hillaryis44 refers to it). But, even if they could accept the truth, they’d simply transfer to membership of the first group.
Legal question: What would she she use as a legal basis since she signed off on the sanctions at the time?
she doesn’t need a cogent argument, just something to get a court case going. she doesn’t need to win, she just needs to kill time and keep Obama distracted from campaigning against McSame. she isn’t interested in winning at this point, she just doesn’t want him to win.
So as soon as the suit’s filed, the DNC moves for dismissal for failure to state a claim. The judge kicks the case out in a week. Then the Clintons have to deal with their newfound and hard-won official status as Permanent Pariahs.
Courts don’t move that quickly I’m afraid. I’d say if they made the decision within two weeks time they’d be traveling at warp speed. Plus then Clinton just turns around and files an appeal.
They can if they need to. I’m a lapsed lawyer, I’ve seen it. The one I linked to in FLA got batted down in a week. Besides, the suit stays up only so long as it isn’t withdrawn by the plaintiff. I think that there’d be a lot of Clinton supers who’d threaten to walk and a whole lot of behind the scenes stuff from Dean, Pelosi et al. The Clintons’ll drop it if they want to save face. It could get real embarrassing for them.
Meant to link to this, which just got batted out. The Clintons would have to sue in Federal Court and US District judges can move overnight, if the opposing side can show cause and harm. Both present here, plus a very settled body of law. This is 3rd such case in FLA to die on the pleadings this year.
I think your final conclusion is in error.
It seems clear to me that Ickes was NOT answering a question about recourse to a lawsuit, but a question about an appeal to the Credentials Committee and to the floor of the Convention, if necessary. Here is the exchange, played back on Countdown last night:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24864382#24864382
(starts at 1:25)
Ickes, in mid-answer to a previous question that’s not on this clip:
“technically you can go into the Credentials Committee, but we fully expect, and have every hope and expectation, that these issues will be resolved on Friday.
Flournoy: “On Saturday.”
Ickes: “Saturday.”
Wolfson: “Saturday. Resolved in our favor.”
Unidentified journalist on the call: “Well if it’s not resolved in your favor, do you appeal? I mean that’s the signal you’ve been sending so far.”
Ickes: “Well that’s a bridge to cross when we come to that particular stream.”
The “appeal” she is talking about is almost definitely to the Credentials Committee and the Convention, as referenced by Ickes a few moments earlier.
I stand corrected — on what Ickes was talking about.
and I stand corrected too: your conclusion that a lawsuit would not be a big surprise is of course quite accurate. it just might not happen until they get some indication of the thinking of the Credentials Committee, which takes over jurisdiction at the end of June.
Is it just too hard for the Washington Post and others to point out the irony that Ickes is a prominent member of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee? Yeah, no reason to bring that up, no conflict of interest at all, and I mean far be it from the Clinton’s to try and use any means possible to swing things in their favor.