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.

Teachers' Attempt at Voter Suppression in Vegas Thrown Out in Court

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted January 17, 2008.


A federal judge turns back a last minute lawsuit in a ruling that is seen as benefiting minority voters and the Obama campaign.
Advertisement

The Democratic Party's plans to hold presidential caucuses in nine large Las Vegas casinos were upheld by a federal judge Thursday, who rejected arguments from the Nevada State Teachers Association that sought to shut down the caucuses or at least change the way those meetings will award delegates to the party's state convention.

"The national party says we want to increase political participation in under-represented groups. I don't think it is up for me to upset that," said U.S. District Judge James Mahan, ruling from the bench. "It is something that the parties decide."

Jill Derby, Nevada State Democratic Party chair, said the casino caucuses will be held as planned on Saturday and there will be no change in the allocation of delegates.

"The Court validated the plan we had," she said. "We are going forward with that plan."

The ruling is seen as a boost to Barack Obama's campaign, because most of the attendees of the casino caucuses are members of the Culinary Worker Union local 230, which has endorsed his candidacy. The state education association, some of whose officers are supporting Hillary Clinton, filed its suit after the Culinary Union endorsement.

Lynn Warne, NSEA president, called the ruling unfortunate. She also said she had hoped that the court also would have found a way for some of its members -- who open schools and staff the caucuses -- to take a break to participate in their local caucuses. She said the NSEA suit was not filed on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

The Obama campaign praised the ruling in prepared statement.

"We're glad that the Nevada court upheld the Nevada Democratic Party's caucus plan which encourages voter participation," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "While the Clinton camp clearly believed the voices of workers should be silenced in service of their perceived political interest, they enjoyed a twenty five-point lead two months ago and have much of the party establishment in their camp. So, despite their inherent advantages we are pleased this should be a close and competitive contest Saturday."

The Clinton campaign issued a statement criticizing the ruling.

"Make no mistake, the current system that inhibits some shift workers from being able to participate, while allowing others to do so, would seem to benefit other campaigns," the campaign said. "More importantly it is unfair... The Obama campaign has been clear in its belief that whoever wins the culinary union endorsement will win Nevada. We will leave it up to the people of Nevada to make that decision."

THE COURT HEARING

Judge Mahan's ruling came after a hearing where both sides accused each other of disenfranchising likely Democratic voters.

The NSEA lawyers said Nevada's Democratic Party did not fully disclose that it would be awarding one state convention delegate for every five participants in the casino caucuses. In contrast, throughout the rest of Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, only one delegate would be assigned for every 50 participants, they noted.

"These rules are not fair, they violate equal protection," said Mark Ferrario, NSEA attorney. "There was something wrong with the process that led up to the adoption of the at-large precinct caucuses."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: las vegas, james mahan, minority voters, barack obama

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election," with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

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:
Another election going to the courts
Posted by: carbon-based on Jan 17, 2008 6:22 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, Clinton has been "outclintoned" - Bill better pay off someone real fast.

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

Bill needs to go home
Posted by: Sissy on Jan 18, 2008 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think at this point Mr. Clinton needs to take the "rest of the campaign off"! His little hissy fits are starting to wear thin and any one who is on the fence right now for support of his wife will take a pause and wonder, "do I really want to deal with him for another 4 or perhaps 8 years?"

You know what? I'm seriously thinking NOT.

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

» RE: Bill needs to go home Posted by: jmooney
"THIS COUNTRY is a one person ONE VOTE country! Or don't you believ in that?!
Posted by: Prairie Waif on Jan 18, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That ignorant and pompous positioning by Billy Bob for the reporters after the court upheld the Nevada Democratic Caucus Statutes was beyond the pale.

They obviously KNEW the rules of ALL the states in which they entered the race and have either played, if to their advantage, or shouted FOUL when it is not.

Isn't this the same rhetoric and behaviour we have been subject to under King George the II for the last 8 years? Do we REALLY need another round of being berated for OUR stupidity at asking that the rule of law be followed?

I believe not.

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

Mistitled...Who writes your headlines?
Posted by: odcherenow on Jan 18, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article, to accurately reflect the legal action of the teachers union, should have been "Teachers Challenge of Voter Suppression" because that is what the case was about.
The teachers were not attempting to suppress voters. They were challenging the Democratic Party's attempt to limit access to caucuses by those not working in a casino.
What a miscarriage of voters rights!
And you went right along with it.
Who writes your headlines????

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

I HOPE
Posted by: steven w on Jan 18, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope Edwards wins just to proove to the media and corporations do not always control the independent thinking citizens who once made this country great- people who do not fall for their emotionally appealing distractions. That is why the Republican Party is so screwed up. People are just stupid enough to fall for their BS propoganda.

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

TEACHERS UNION ATTEMPT AT LEVEL PLAYING FIELD THROWN OUT BY BUSH-APPOINTED JUDGE
Posted by: xbj on Jan 18, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Teachers Union argued, unsuccessfuly against Federal Judge James C. Mahan, appointed by George W. Bush in 2001 and rubber stamped by the Republican controlled Congress in 2002, that all Nevada workers deserve a level playing field, free of intimidation, peer, union, and even GOP casino owner pressure.

Only Nevada casinos workers, most of them Culinary Union, which has endorsed Obama, will NOT have to leave their workplaces to caucus, and will do so in FULL view of their coworkers, fellow union members, and casino managment, and their bosses.

Every other worker in Nevada will have to take off work, leave their workplace, for at a minimum, 2 hours, up to three hours, and travel to their local public caucus locations, free of workplace pressure.

This lawsuit had nothing whatsoever to do with disenfranchising of voters as the GOP and Obama campaign are spinning it; on the contrary, it had everything to do with giving ALL voters the freedom to vote their conscience without workplace and union pressure.

All workers in Nevada deserve a level playing field; all workers in Nevada should have to leave their workplaces to caucus so that they can vote freely without fear of intimidation, reprisal, or ridicule; all workers in Nevada deserve the same rights and privileges and access to intimidation free caucuses as any other.

This will not happen now; this is NOT the case in Nevada.

It is generally held in Nevada that this quite effectively hands the caucus to Obama, and the question no one but I seem to have been asking and that no one seems to have an answer for:

Just exactly WHAT would a GOP George W. Bush appointed judge have to gain by handing the election to Obama?

Why, I'd especially appreciate an answer from the author of this article.

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

» You're being paranoid. Posted by: idmaster2000
WHAT IS OBAMA AFRAID OF?
Posted by: xbj on Jan 18, 2008 12:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why Obama is fatuous at best, at middlin' disingenuous, and at worst, GOP

A true, REAL candidate of reconciliation, of truth, who "wanted to clean up Washington", who wanted "fairness for all", who actually was a Democrat, would have taken part in that lawsuit. In fact, he would have decried those special casino hotel caucuses, because he wouldn't want to EVER win any election by cheating or by having an unfair advantage.

Obama and the Obama campaign CLEARLY understand what a tremendously unfair advantage this is, and should be taking every step possible to insure that it either doesn't happen, or they should turn down, officially, loudly, and publicly, the endorsement of the Culinary Union because of the unfair advantage this setup provides.

In fact, the Obama campaign should be doing all it can to see that these location are either closed or not counted, because it is only fair that all workers have to leave their workplace and go to a safe public place, free from union, peer, management, and superior pressure, to get counted in the caucus. Workers that cannot leave their workplaces for the requisite 2-3 hours; their votes will not be counted. This is clearly an unfair advantage.

Now is the chance for Obama to stand up, step up to the plate, and prove he really is what he says he is, and not some Rove shill either suiciding himself against a racist America so the GOP candidate can win, or worse yet, Rove's covert secret GOP mole if the openly GOP candidate somehow miraculously loses.

If Obama and the Obama campaign accept this unfair advantage; if they try to spin it in any way other than exactly what it is, as all the GOP have been doing, then they might as well be GOP, and every single word coming from that campaign and out of that man's mouth has been every bit as much complete and utter bullshit as when George Bush or any of his speak.

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

I Call Alternet to change the title of this article to "Teachers Attempt at Voter EQUALITY..."
Posted by: xbj on Jan 18, 2008 2:42 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the title is obviously wrong and 180 degree spin of the actual facts of the case, I challenge alternet to change the title of this piece so it accurately reflects the true facts and the article itself.

As the author has posted, he didn't write the title, so this should be a no-brainer. To continue to leave the title as-is is to foster inaccuracy and dubious spin.

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

Sexists Against Hillary
Posted by: SparkyClinton on Jan 21, 2008 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you can't support a woman for president, then just be "man" enough to call yourself a sexists, because that's what you are!

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