We've come to expect Republicans to use various tactics to prevent voters from participating in the electoral process. But, in Nevada, it's pro-Democratic groups that are trying to stop voters from participating.
This all relates to the upcoming Nevada caucus. One thing most people seem to acknowledge as a failing of the Iowa caucus is that it prevents people who work during the caucus hours from participating. That's anti-Democratic and anti-democratic. It's an issue that was raised by
Hillary Clinton in Nevada last week:
"You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton, D-N.Y., said. "That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time -- they're disenfranchised. People who can't be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present."
In Nevada, the Democratic Party tried to solve that problem by establishing caucus sites where many people work. It's been part of the Nevada State Democratic Party's delegate selection plan for awhile now. (A pdf version of the "Official Rules" can be located at the
Nevada Democratic Party's caucus website. Check out "Appendix C: At-Large Precinct Caucus Rules and Procudures" on page 52.) My point is that this process has been known for awhile. It's not something that somebody just cooked up.
In today's
NY Times, we learn that has brought about a lawsuit filed by the Nevada State Education Association to prevent those caucus sites. The Times article calls this a "proxy battle" between Clinton and Obama supporters. But that would mean Clinton supporters are actually working against something that "is troubling" to Clinton.
Caucuses defy the concept of one-person, one-vote. That's for sure. But, filing a lawsuit to prevent access to the process by working people is weak. Very weak.
There's more after the break.
The Democratic Party does have an amazingly complicated system for picking delegates who will ultimately choose the nominee. But, the process is best served by having more Democrats, not fewer. Here's the report from the Times:Filed Friday in Federal District Court here, the lawsuit comes just days after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Mr. Obama, a blow to Mrs. Clinton.
In the lawsuit, the 20,000-member Nevada State Education Association and six residents of the Las Vegas area argue that the Nevada Democratic Party’s decision to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on the day of the caucus, next Saturday, violates state election law and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts.
The suit uses a complex formula to assert that voters at the other 1,754 precincts in Nevada would have less influence.
“It may be well-intentioned,” said Mark Ferrario, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “But good intentions do not substitute for complying with the equal protection requirements.”
D. Taylor, the secretary-treasurer of Culinary Local 226, criticized the lawsuit as “despicable” and “disgusting.”
“I never thought we’d have people in the Democratic Party try to disenfranchise women, people of color and large numbers of working people in this state,” Mr. Taylor said. “I am sure every single elected official in Nevada will renounce it, and so will the Clinton campaign.
Is it possible that the way the Nevada caucus is now set up favors Obama more than Clinton? Sure, it's possible. But the system was set up by the Nevada state Democratic party, which was, in principle, following the rules set down by the DNC (i.e., the Democratic party in Washington). That makes this legal posturing appear as an effort to try to gain unfair advantage - a la Republican - rather than an effort to set things straight.
There is an ugliness brewing in the Democratic campaign that's not good. Disenfranchisement should never, ever be part of any campaign operation.
Read More......