Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Florida Dems Drop Plan to Re-Vote, Is Michigan Next?

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 5:58 AM on March 18, 2008.


Get the sense that the campaigns, while touting principles, are really looking at this from purely self-serving interests? I do.
apclintonobama070615ms

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

If Florida's delegates to the Democratic National Convention aren't seated, about 1.7 million voters who participated in the state's primary will, in a way, be disenfranchised. If Florida's delegates are seated, millions of Democrats who would have voted but didn't because they'd been told in advance that their vote wouldn't count, would also effectively be disenfranchised. (As the estimable Carl Hiaasen put it, "It's like Major League Baseball waiting until midseason and then declaring that spring training games will count in the final standings.") Either way, Democratic voters in one of the nation's biggest states would be screwed.

Florida Dems could have another primary, but there are some major legal and financial restrictions. They could try some re-vote-by-mail process, but no one is confident in the integrity of the system. Everyone has been trying to think of something, but to no avail.

So, yesterday, Floridians gave up.

Setting the stage for a contentious fight well into the summer, Florida Democrats gave up Monday on redoing their Jan. 29 presidential primary, leaving it to the national party or rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to hammer out a solution to make the state's delegates count.

Florida Democrats, who had already closed the door on holding a full-scale conventional election or a caucus, scrapped the controversial vote-by-mail primary they had proposed less than a week ago as their best option, saying it just isn't possible.

"While your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't," Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said late Monday in a letter to Florida Democrats.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is still pushing a proposal to have the DNC simply cut the state's delegate totals in half (instead of eliminating them altogether), but the Clinton campaign is reportedly opposed to the idea.

Obama supporters are offering an alternative, but it also seems a little too controversial.

[Allan Katz, of Tallahassee, who supports Obama] is recommending that the [Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee] give Florida its delegates back -- but award half to Clinton and half to Obama. Florida activists would be allowed to participate in the convention, but the ground rules for the primaries wouldn't be changed after the fact.

"Fifty-fifty is the way to do it, and I don't think there's any other fair conclusion," Katz said. "Everyone agreed -- Hillary Clinton agreed, Barack Obama agreed -- that we weren't selecting delegates in the Jan. 29 election, so how can we do that now?"

That has some advantages -- Florida's delegates would at least be seated and recognized -- but there's no way on Earth that the Clinton campaign would approve of a solution that erased her margin from the primary that wasn't supposed to count.

And what about Michigan?

Michigan Democratic party leaders on Monday proposed legislation to conduct a new primary on June 3 to allocate the state's 156 delegates. The election would be run by the state but be privately financed.

Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has agreed to the plan; aides to Mr. Obama, of Illinois, have refused to commit to it. It is more uncertain than ever that he will: The party's rules may disqualify anyone who voted in Michigan's Republican primary from voting in the Democratic primary -- including those who may be Obama supporters who voted Republican because his name was not on the Democratic ballot.

Michigan Democratic officials said the plan for a revote could not move forward unless both campaigns agreed to the proposal in the next day or so.

The Michigan Legislature then must approve any plan to conduct a statewide election, and state lawmakers are scheduled to begin a two-week recess on Thursday. Even if the Obama and Clinton campaigns endorse the proposal, it still must win two-thirds support in both the State House, controlled by Democrats, and the Senate, which has a Republican majority. The plan is also dependent on state party officials raising an estimated $10 million to pay for the new election.

I'd just add that top Clinton strategist Harold Ickes blasted the Obama campaign for its hesitation to support the Michigan re-vote, insisting that the "right to vote is the foundation of our democracy," and Michigan voters "deserve to have a voice and a vote in the Democratic Party's nominating process."

Ickes, of course, is one of the DNC members who decided to strip Michigan of its delegates in the first place.

Get the sense that the campaigns, while touting principles, are really looking at this from purely self-serving interests? I do.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, obama, democratic party, florida, michigan

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Latino Migrant Beaten to Death in Penn
A predictable outcome of the overheated immigration debate in this country.
Post by yave begnet. July 24, 2008.
House Hearing on 2004's Lessons Sheds No New Light on Flawed Election
Old arguments and explanations abound about the last presidential election.
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. July 24, 2008.
McCain: Time to Start Rationing Veterans' Healthcare
'McCain received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America.'
Post by Steve Benen. July 24, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What is wrong in Florida?
Posted by: Ellie1 on Mar 18, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They can't even hold an election down there. I am forced to visit for familial reasons, and when I return home I have to wash the sweat of stupidity off of me. Even the "liberals" down there are idiots! And the knuckle dragging Repukes in that state are even worse. Sure glad I am not a resident.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What is wrong in Florida? Posted by: drmflorida
Punish the Party Leaders who made the decision!!!
Posted by: weslen1 on Mar 18, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ALL states have an UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT to participate in electing a PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Party leaders DO NOT have the RIGHT to take that right away from the people of any state.
IF on January 7, Clinton and Obama had been the ONLY candidates still running, and the results had been 55 percent Hillary, 45 percent Obama, there would be no QUESTION who the winner was. 55/45 was the result in Michigan. In Florida it was 50/50.
Michigan: 55 percent Hillary, 45 percent, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel COMBINED.
Florida: 50 percent Hillary, 50 percent, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel COMBINED.
In BOTH states, HILLARY GOT MORE VOTES THAN ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED. THIS IS A CLEAR WIN FOR HILLARY AND SHE SHOULD BE GIVEN HER DELEGATES NOW.
I have NO SYMPATHY for those who stayed home. That was THEIR CHOICE. I along with millions of others voted on the day we were told we had to vote.
If Howard Dean, who lost his OWN run for president due to his own stupidity and angst, wants so badly to PUNISH someone for BREAKING THE RULES, like a child having a tantrum, PUNISH THE PARTY LEADERS WHO BROKE THE RULES AND NOT THE VOTERS WHO HAD NO SAY IN THAT DECISION.
THEN GIVE HILLARY THE DELEGATES SHE CLEARLY AND FAIRLY WON INSTEAD OF STEALING THE HARD EARNED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY TO HOLD RE-VOTES THAT ARE UNNECESSARY AND UNFAIR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disenfranchisement? Really?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 18, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Florida's delegates to the Democratic National Convention aren't seated, about 1.7 million voters who participated in the state's primary will, in a way, be disenfranchised.

In a very strange way, I suppose. The again, the primary/caucus thingeemadoodles that republicrats and demobots engage in every four years is strange in and of itself.

The primary/caucus circus is not an election to choose a national leader. It's nothing more than a little dog and pony show that gets the leading candidates from the Parties of Money Power out there, 18-24 months in advance, to help solidify and perpetuate the two-party political system that the electorate--so far--continues to accept as "duh way things just are".

What about the several million people who aren't party puppets? In my state, they don't get to play in the primary game at all!

My response? Boo-hoo: if you're going to continue to support the dem/rep primary game in advance of our national presidential election, you have to play that game by their rules.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MSNBC is reporting right now
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 18, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that the Michigan re-vote has apparently bitten the dust.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here in Michigan...
Posted by: adp3d on Mar 18, 2008 9:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...my candidate is out anyway, so Clinton or Obama, both sides of the same corporate sponsored coin...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So called work of Clintons
Posted by: angelofdeath on Mar 19, 2008 2:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE TORRES-VIGNALI CONNECTION is explored in detail in a congressional report that resulted from Pardongate, when revelations surfaced that President Clinton granted clemency for Carlos Vignali Jr. — convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison in 1995 — along with other convicted criminals and one-time international fugitive Marc Rich. The granting of clemency occurred after payments were made to Clinton’s brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, the brother of former first lady, New York state senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Released in March 2002 by the congressional Committee on Government Reform, “Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House” details Hugh Rodham’s involvement in the Vignali affair, as well as the long business history Vignali once shared with George Torres.

The report takes to task top L.A. elected officials, including county Supervisor Gloria Molina, then–state Senator Richard Polanco, then–state Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa and U.S. Representative Xavier Becerra, among others, for lobbying on behalf of Vignali Jr., in light of his drug conviction and the fact that DEA agents long suspected Vignali Sr. to be involved in drug trafficking — along with Torres. While a member of the California state Assembly, Villaraigosa wrote the first letter on Vignali’s behalf on May 24, 1996.

In particular, L.A. Sheriff Lee Baca and former U.S. Attorney Alejandro Mayorkas were heavily criticized for lobbying for Vignali Jr.’s clemency. The report found the input of Baca and Mayorkas to the White House to be “instrumental” in the decision to grant clemency to Vignali Jr., who at his drug-trafficking trial in 1994 confirmed a close family association with Torres. Attorneys for Torres told the Weekly in 2005 that the association between the Vignalis and Torres has long since ended

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]