A ruling has come down in the Nevada caucus lawsuit, which was filed by the state teachers union against the special caucus locations set up for Las Vegas Strip workers. U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan ruled in favor of the state and national Democratic Party's plan for the caucuses. "State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said in his ruling.The ruling should definitely be seen as a win for Barack Obama. Leading figures behind the suit have links to the Clinton campaign, and none other than Bill Clinton has publicly defended the lawsuit - which was itself filed only days after the Culinary Workers Union, whose members will make up the vast majority of participants at the caucus locations, voted to endorse Obama. As it is, the net effect of this suit might only be to rile up union members against Hillary.
This decision will likely be controversial among those people who wanted to change the rules at the last minute to help their candidate, but thankfully the judge saw this lawsuit for what it was: an attempt to stop people from voting.
If anyone really had a problem with this they had 9 months to bring it up. Not to mention the fact that 4 of the plaintiffs originally voted for the plan.
If anyone really had a problem with this they had 9 months to bring it up. Not to mention the fact that 4 of the plaintiffs originally voted for the plan.
I don't think anyone can reasonably deny the motives behind this lawsuit. The only question now is, what effect will today's decision have on Saturday's caucuses?
You continue to campaign for Obama using negatives against Hillary Clinton. And again, you're hurting Obama. If you need to attack another candidate just to push your candidate, it looks desperate, and your candidate looks weak.
Anyway, congratulation to Obama. Sympathy to NV voters/delegates in other county precincts who won't get a fair number of delegates.
Also, you're mistaken about the judge's reasoning. Judge James Mahan said the party could set up its caucuses however it saw fit and would only have been interested if the proposals had discriminated against a protected class (sex, ethnicity, religion or disability). The only class of people the rules appear not to favor are those who want to see Hillary win even at the cost of making it difficult/impossible for others to vote.
Accusing others of making personal attacks is a great way to put them on the defensive, but reading back I see you've done this so much, on so many different issues, that this seems to be a hallmark of how you conduct a dialogue.
I really, honestly think you need to re-read your posts going back awhile, and show a little more restraint about how often you throw up your hands and yell "attack! attack!" Please take this as earnest, constructive criticism.
Lowell, I know Dianne has been very critical of the way that others have conducted themselves on this blog, and you've been gracious in how you've moderated these comments. I'd be interested to know your thoughts about when people throw out "attack, attack" in an attempt to chill perfectly fair criticism?
I just want those who support Obama's victory to take a different tack, especially here on RK where most of us are Dems. Obama is younger than Clinton and Edwards and is going to be up for "evaluation". So diaries about what he's done, how he has brought people together, what he's accomplished will convince those you want to convince. At least that's the way I see it.
I like your comment!
Who makes these supposed rules? Do the Democrats stand for slime, smears, mud, and double standards, or for the truth? Why are potential voters of any party allowed to tell the truth about everybody except Hillary Clinton? To what standard do we hold Clinton and her supporters, including and especially her most prominent supporter, an ex-President? What have these people done to earn a free pass from anybody?
Is the lawsuit driven by the right kind of motives? If so, there needs to be a case made in defense of the lawsuit. Dianne does this -- although I don't think she represents the facts of the case accurately.
The judge did not toss out the suit because there are different rules that apply to caucuses and primaries.
The judge tossed the suit because he stated that state and national parties have the legal right to set rules for the way that conduct party elections. As long as those rules are consistent with relevant federal and state laws, the rules are valid -- as they were in this case.
On the other hand, if the lawsuit is designed to disenfranchise legal voters who are likely to vote for an opponent (a tactic not unlike voter caging in its impact), then it is completely above board to raise the criticism. It's problematic that the Clinton people engaged in a similar tactics in Iowa when they attempted to prevent out of state college students from participating in a party election.
Dianne is entitled to her opinion, as are you. In the end people will make their own judgments.
There's been a lot of talk here in Iowa about how a caucus can't be bought. And it definitely seems true that it is harder to buy a caucus. Only a small percentage of the population attends a caucus. It takes, in some cases, hours. Voting (at least in the Democratic caucus) is entirely public. Only the heartest of registered voters are willing to take the time to present their choices publicly.
While there are concerns about such a small percentage of the population going to the caucus, I am not so troubled about the fact that this small percentage represents the heartiest of voters -- those who have chosen to inform themselves and care enough to sit through the public process. And in such a process that seems to discourage the uninformed, it is harder for slick advertising to win the day.But there's a downside -- there are no absentee ballots for the caucus -- and the caucuses occur at a specific time and may last a while. This excludes a number of persons from participating. I have spoken to a number of voters, however, who are primary care givers -- or who are themselves sick -- and therefore unable to attend the event. And there are a host of other voters who cannot caucus because of job requirements: deployed soldiers, emergency room doctors, gas station clerks, and police officers, just to name a few. The process that opens the contest up to the under-funded (a most decidedly good thing) comes with the downside of effectively precluding a host of persons from participating regardless of their degree of interest.
This has left me to wonder if proxies are workable in a caucus -- or if this would destroy the very system that encourages more than a cursory glance at candidates.
Once caucuses were the only method available for selecting a candiate.; but early in the last century, beginning with Florida, primaries were chosen by most states, reasoning being that primaries are democratic and caucuses are not.