A dubious lawsuit undermines Nevada caucuses
Late Friday, the Nevada State Education Association, which is backing Hillary Clinton in the state’s upcoming caucuses, filed an interesting lawsuit that deserves a closer look.
The Nevada caucuses are a week away, and the state teachers’ union has decided to throw a monkey-wrench into the legalities of the process. The Nevada State Education Association has filed suit against the state Democratic Party, on the grounds that the nine at-large caucus locations set up on the Las Vegas Strip make it too easy for workers there to caucus, while no similar accommodations have been made for other Nevadans.
Those workers, if they can come out and caucus, are expected to vote heavily for Barack Obama, who won the Culinary Workers Union endorsement this past Wednesday.
“This has been a fully transparent process,” state Democratic party spokeswoman Kirsten Searer told the Las Vegas Sun. “These rules have been approved by the Democratic National Committee and the campaigns have been fully informed throughout this process, which started in May.”
Here’s the deal: the state party created “at-large” casino precincts about eight months ago, so that casino employees (most notably, union members) would be able to participate in the Democratic causes easily and conveniently. At the time, the Nevada Democratic Party said the precincts were designed for the “4,000 or more shift workers per site who could not otherwise take the time off to go to their home precincts.”
The Nevada State Education Association never complained about the “at-large” precincts — until Obama won the support of the Culinary Workers Union, whose members mostly work near these precincts. Given the timing and the circumstances, it certainly appears that the NSEA wants Clinton to have an advantage, so the group is suing to eliminate these precincts, making it harder for other union members to participate in the election process.
This is very disappointing. We’re Democrats — don’t we want to make it easier for people (especially union members and minorities) to vote?
Indeed, the closer one looks at this, the worse it appears.
When the Nevada Democratic Party took up the issue of creating these “at large” precincts last year, the plan passed unanimously. And yet, four Nevadans serving as plaintiffs in the lawsuit were in attendance when the measure was approved. If they didn’t like the proposal, why didn’t they vote against it?
Culinary union secretary-treasurer D. Taylor told the Associated Press that the plaintiffs were using “Floridian Republican tactics to suppress cooks, housekeepers, people of color and women.” That’s certainly harsh, but given what we know, the criticism is not without merit.
Now, it’s worth noting, as Jeralyn does, that these “at large” precincts may, in fact, be flawed. There are legitimate questions about whether workers along the Las Vegas strip are getting an unfair benefit. I’m not an attorney, so I can’t say the extent to which this is legally problematic, or what the appropriate remedy might be.
What I can say is that the timing of this lawsuit looks utterly ridiculous. The precincts were fine right up until another union backed the “wrong” candidate? People who supported the precincts are now going to court to shut the precincts down? One union wants to make it harder for another union to participate in a Democratic caucus?
Here’s the bottom-line question for anyone looking at this controversy: if the Culinary Workers Union had thrown its support to Hillary Clinton last Wednesday, would the Nevada State Education Association have filed a lawsuit on Friday? I think the reasonable, intellectually honest position is pretty obvious.
Josh Marshall added:
When asked why the union had never approached the state party about this issue until Friday, union president Lynne Warne, tellingly replied, “We’re approaching them now.”
If there’s one thing that’s core to the modern Democratic party is that voter suppression tactics are always wrong. Much of the US Attorney purge scandal was at root about Republican voter suppression tactics. I suspect this is doubly wrong — both in the sense that the suit is meritless on its face but certainly also in the sense that you don’t decide how easy to make it for people to vote depending on who you think they’re likely to vote for.
Please leave these shameful tactics to Republicans.
Good advice.
Update: The Daily Background has more, including a helpful FAQ.
One thing not getting attention is that these “at-large” caucuses differ from the others in that people are caucusing with their co-workers instead of their neighbors. So, the union steward will be watching who the worker bees caucus for. Not exactly an oppurtunity for free expression of independent opinion.
Unions fighting over who has clout is nothing new, nor is hardball in Las Vegas. I think it is likely this backfires on Clinton, so it is politically a bad idea, and anyone who claims there isn’t a tactical as opposed to principled motivation is lying.
That said, many Democrats, particularly athiests, argued on these and other blogs in 2004 and 2006 that having polling places in churches introduces a suspect bias – I seem to recall there were even some limited surveys to support that notion. And just last month people argued here against the Iowa caucuses that the public nature made it hard for — a specific example was given — a rank and file union member to go against their steward. So I can certainly understand the Clinton team’s concern: we’re going to have polling places in locations out-and-out controlled by the Culinary Workers. (No offense to any Nevadans on here, but given LV’s history, I think a concern about subtle and not-so-subtle coercion in this scenario is not unreasonable). It is pretty hard to feel the playing field is level when the contest is played on the other teams home field; the concept of home field advantage exists for a reason. Progressives on this blog have readily recognized that in many other electoral scenarios. I guess Its Ok If You’re the Transcendent Candidate.
the question: “Here’s the bottom-line question for anyone looking at this controversy: if the Culinary Workers Union had thrown its support to Hillary Clinton last Wednesday, would the Nevada State Education Association have filed a lawsuit on Friday?”
the answer: If the CWU supported Clinton and the NSEA supported Obama… yes it would. it’s called politics.
and if the system, even though it may provide for ease of voting for many, is set up so that it does in fact favor one union over another then it is it truly democratic?
I have to add an “amen” to what Josh Marshall said. Before the start of the year, I told myself that if Hillary were the nominee, I would hold my nose and vote for her. But after this nonsense, and the race-baiting nonsense, it is increasingly clear that Hillary & Co. are employing unadulterated Rovian tactics in their efforts to lock up the nomination. The whole reason I am a Democrat to begin with is because, to put it bluntly, Republicans are all about suppressing minorities and spewing hate, while Democrats are about standing up for equality and keeping bigotry out of the government, be it based on race, religion, gender, orientation, or anything else. If Hillary Clinton cannot uphold those BASIC Democratic ideals, I see no reason to support her in the general election. If it comes down to that, I’m going to write in the name of the only person who truly deserves to be President: Albert Arnold Gore.
Is there any level to which the Clinton campaign will not stoop? Combine this action attempting to ‘suppress’ participation in the voter process with the ‘subtle’ racism emanating from many Clinton campaign associates with all of the reported ‘dropping of hints’ to reporters of impropriety of the Obama campaign by Clinton associates and what do you get?
What you get is the DLC strategy of being more republican than the republicans. What you get is the DLC strategy of being ‘centrist’. What you get is the DLC dream of having ‘the Corporate candidate’.
For a lot of reasons, I have believed that John Edwards was the best candidate for working Americans. However, I fervently wish that John Edwards would read the writing on the wall and leave the campaign trail to support the candidacy of Obama.
4 years of Bush & 8 years of Clinton & 8 years of Bush = 20 years of the screwing of American workers.
My nightmare scenario remains a repugnican deadlock & the coronation of Jeb Bush at the repug convention to run against Hillary ‘Corporate Democrat’ Clinton!
Karl Rove… like him or hate him… did a damn good job of getting candidates (most of ’em unqualified) elected. The “Rovian” tactics were despicable and hateful… everything from using homophobia against Richards, using racism against McCain (fathered a child out of wedlock… his adopted Bangledeshi daughter), fear-mongering with 911, the disgusting list goes on. The lawsuit in Nevada is politics… it’s about getting your candidate elected. It is far from “Rovian”.
First of all, the NV State Education Association has NOT endorsed Clinton – it has, as an organization, endorsed no candidate. It is true that some of its top officials have endorsed Clinton, but a personal, individual endorsement is not the same as an organization’s endorsement.
Second, no wonder Obama worked so hard for the Culinary Workers endorsement – you can’t tell me he and his campaign did not know that the combination of casino caucus sites AND the endorsement would not give him a windfall of votes. I suppose it’s fair that he worked the system to his advantage, and if the teachers have been left out in the cold on caucus day, well, I think their beef is with their state party.
What Clinton knew or didn’t know about all of this is less important than wondering why the Nevada Democratic party was not paying more attention to the rights of all of its voters, and not just the ones working the casinos.
I can understand the Clinton campaign’s desire to win, particularly after all the hard work that it has put in. However, using these kind of tactics (if the Clinton campaign is in fact behind this) is abominable. This is what REPUBLICANS do!
While there may be a valid argument to be made in support of the lawsuit, I think the article is right in calling its timing into question. To me, it just seems like more justification to switch to a long-term mail in primary during which a series of town hall meetings are held for those interested in participating.
There is some good news in all of this bad news.
The Clinton machine has decided that the bridge to Obama was worth burning.
Those of us who worried that if she won, he might sign on as her veep, and contaminate himself with the Clinton radioactivity, need not worry that now.
Obama will not carry water for the Clintons.
I think it is safe to say:
That bridge is gone forever.
One more thought:
Bill Clinton is all over the place these days. Wagging his finger at the Dem faithful. Telling them that they need to accept BET’s Bob Johnson’s word. Bill, I took you at your word a long time ago. Defended you in multiple situations and will never forget the morning I woke up and learned you had lied, and I was a chump. And now you want me to take Bob Johnson’s word? A guy, that even a casual web search exposes as a exploiter/goon?
Man, you are one sick dog!
Here is what is really sad: Bill Clinton is still a voice of authority in this primary.
He can swing this thing in his wife’s favor. When he speaks: Dems listen. That gives Hillary a natural advantage. But here is the thing: Come the general election Bill will be a monster liability. They will do there best to hide him in some closet somewhere. Who wants to be reminded of Monica gate again and again?
How ironic is that?
This proven liar has undue influence in the primaries, but will have to hide himself away in the general like a common criminal?
Isn’t this like what Obama did when it complained about letting Stephen Colbert into the SC primary?
I’m already holding my nose so much that I may pass out before I have a chance to vote.
While the Clintons are trashing the workers’ attempts to vote, how about trashing the whole “super delegate” notion? Why should some animals on the farm be “more equal” than others?
At the rate things are going, a lot of people in this country are going to be looking at whoever the GOP nominee is, and saying, “Well, at least he’s honest enough to admit he’s a Republican.”
Clinton, on the other hand, seems to be morphing into something unholy. She won’t openly denounce the subtle race-baiting—and it is equally likely that she will not denounce what can only be described as an intentional voter suppression tactic.
Maybe she should just change her name to Putin. After all, she’s certainly reading word-for-word from his playbook….
I wish the culinary workers would lose their special caucus sites and Clinton would be blamed for it. She would probably not win another state after that.
Anne:
What Clinton knew or didn’t know about all of this is less important than wondering why the Nevada Democratic party was not paying more attention to the rights of all of its voters, and not just the ones working the casinos.
Wake up.
They were paying attention when they debated and made the rules:
The vote is on Saturday. The busiest days for casino workers.
Teachers are at home that day and can more easier find the time to vote.
Also getting to the caucus sites is no problem for them.
Also get the facts on who is filing the lawsuits:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/tough-guy-pol-1.html
It is the Clinton machine through and through:
But the lawsuit, filed by six Nevada Democrats and the Nevada State Education Association teachers’ union — whose deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, is a member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council — seeks to prevent those At-Large Districts from meeting in next Saturday’s caucuses.
The lawsuit was filed by the firm Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Senior partners Michael Bonner and Christian Kaempfer have donated money to Clinton in the past, and Clinton ally and former Rep. James H. Bilbray, D-Nev., is an attorney at that firm.
Wake up.
The only spin you can put on these tactics is that this is good old hard boy politics.
Being naive about it just looks silly…
nobody said: “This is what REPUBLICANS do!”
hmmmm… I think it was in one of Obama’s early races in Illinois. He challenged a candidate who was very much respected in democratic circles. His way of winning was to use a technicality and challenge petition signatures. He was successful. Does that make Obama a republican? No. Does that make him a bad person? No. I think that it makes him a good politician.
“Mistakes” will be made by all the candidates. And as much as I do not like some of the over-the-top reactions, the hyped-up rhetoric and spin… I will still proudly vote for any of the dem candidates.
Hillary Clinton is a republican anti union corporate crony. We don’t want her. I want Edwards or at the least Edwards to join Obama.
sarah – apparently you missed the memo. it doesn’t matter what Obama does, he is pure, virginal and holy, and can by definition do no wrong. it doesn’t matter what Clinton does, she is evil, satanic and likely secretly Karl Rove’s long-lost sister, and can by definition do no right.
Zeitgeist, I don’t think anyone on this site is advocating the blind-faith nonsense that you just asserted. All of the regular denizens of this site are rational, thoughtful people, and I have gotten the impression that many of us, myself included, were willing to give Hillary Clinton a chance. Furthermore, I don’t think anyone here is of the opinion that Obama can do no wrong. We are collectively assessing the situation as it unfolds. Speaking for myself, I know that I was particularly unimpressed with Hillary’s performance on Meet The Press yesterday, in which she spent most of the time cutting down Obama, rather than talking herself up. As I stated earlier on this thread, I would have been willing to vote for her in the general election, but she has proven herself to be nothing more than an opportunist. (Yes, I know, all politicians are opportunists. But the good ones offer something positive in addition to pursuing their own ambition). I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt, and she has proven that she has nothing great to offer this country. In my opinion, Obama is the best choice from the current slate (I know Edwards is brimming with populist rhetoric now, but where was that philosophy during his Senate term?) When all is said and done, I still wish Gore had run. But, in his absence, Obama will suffice.
#18: zeitgeist… thanks for filling me in on the missed memo. i get it now. 😉
sarah,
The candidate you are talking about was Alice Palmer. She actually hand picked Obama as her successor when she decided not to run for the state Senate and instead run in a special congressional election in November 1995, which she lost.
At this point, she expected Obama to step aside and let her run essentially unchallenged for the state Senate seat, which he did not do. She then hastily prepared a petition with several signatures which were challenged by Obama’s campaign and found lacking by the Chicago Board of Elections.
Think what you want about Obama’s use of legal recourse here, but it was Alice Palmer who broke the rules and, and I think overstepped in the first place by asking him to step aside after her loss.
zeitgeist, that comment at 18 doesn’t exactly add a lot to the discussion, does it?
I wonder if you’re getting tired of constantly defending the spin, distortion and slimy tactics of your chosen candidate–or rather, “her surrogates,” the SBVT types on the Democratic side. Then again, maybe you believe, as the Clintons Themselves seem to, that their motivations are so unquestionably pure that any tactic can be justified.
Maybe you could point to one of the evidently many examples of supporters presenting Obama as “pure, virginal and holy.” I doubt it, but please, surprise me.
Even better, try defending Her Majesty on the merits rather than making this about Obama.
I didn’t realize that Hans von Spakovsky is now working as a consultant for Hillary. One could easily get that impression.
#21: doubtful…. thanks for filling in the blanks for me. but i still hold to my point that at the time some folks were of the opinion that obama was being too heavy handed and playing hardball. some said that he wasn’t respectful of palmer… wasn’t loyal… i remember those “criticisms” from the news report I heard. i say he was playing the “political game” and played it well. i mean that as a compliment. palmer made her choice and obama made his. obama was in it to win and he worked within the system to make it happen.
dajafi – see most of ROTF’s intentional, unfair linkage of Bill’s controversies and Hillary (you know, the one who was the victim of the infidelities). He still hasn’t explained to me what her “sordid sexual past” is.
Anybody ever notice how Teachers Union “leaders” are always the kind of person-who-stood-in-the-front-of-the-classroom you can never remember as other than an an intellectual black hole? It’s been true everywhere I have been politically active in California – I’ve come to the conclusion the reason Teachers Unions defend keeping the incompetent ones on the job (anti-merit pay, pro-tenure, etc.) is because that’s how they keep a constituency dumb enough to keep them in office.
But let them continue doing this in Nevada , since it just creates more votes against them. I remember how all the Professional Democrat Apparatchiks were out to clobber anyone who wasn’t going to vote for Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and how successful that was. Plus ca change…
Hmm. Maybe I missed both where ROTF is presenting Obama as pure, and where you’re defending what looks like voter suppression on the merits rather than turning to another poster.
Otherwise, I have no knowledge of or interest in Hillary’s “sordid sexual past” (though this Huma woman is seriously hot; if she’s involved, I tip my cap to Hillary). But it’s possible that ROTF is still angry about Bill’s extramarital diddly for the same reason I am:
Millions of us who thought he behaved like a horse’s ass defended him anyway, because what the Republicans were doing was so brazen and awful. What did we get for that defense?
–A 2000 presidential campaign that was substantially about Bill’s sexcapades rather than the issues.
–Very little fight from the Clintons themselves–who were mostly concerned about Hillary, natch–at the disputed end of that presidential campaign.
–Support for Bush’s tragic, stupid war until it was politically unfeasible to continue that support.
–No championing of progressive economic or social policies, or civil liberties… unless I missed Hillary’s full-throated repudiation of the Paris Hilton tax cuts, the giveaways in Medicare Part D, the call for a Hate Amendment to the Constitution, and opposition to the PATRIOT Act.
It’s taken as a given by so many that the Clintons are great progressive champions. I absolutely don’t see it. To my eye, Bill was a moderately effective president who deftly managed the economy, outmaneuvered the Republicans on a bunch of issues from 1995-97, and marginally increased opportunity for those at the bottom (or at least ensured that the general prosperity somewhat reached those who needed it most). It’s not a record to be ashamed of–but it’s also not so great as to justify on its face the Restoration they seek.
Very well-put, dajafi! You and I are definitely on the same page philosophically.
I’ve never liked Clinton’s politics. She’s too much a war hawk, too into using right-wing frames and talking points. She actually joined with Leiberman to advocate for stringent laws against video games, a really bad move if you’re trying to win the support of a gamer like me.
A week ago, I resisted the idea that her campaign was using racial talking points against Obama, but black people, who know more about racism than I ever will, are making a good case that there is a definite pattern.
And now this. She may not be personally involved in suppressing this union vote, but it’s her supporters who are behind this. It doesn’t make her look good to see her garnering this kind of backing.
The fact is, a person’s character is shown just as much by the people they surround themselves with as by their own actions. I liked Bill Clinton’s presidency because he was actually quite effective (though he did some things I’ll never forgive him for; NAFTA and DMCA, anyone?). But I don’t like Hillary Clinton’s politics. And I don’t like seeing her supporters work to disenfranchise another group. Even if it is true that they aren’t motivated by political reasons, the timing is much too suspicious.
Have I mentioned in the last 5 minutes how tired I am of the Clintons?
thats ok, beep – i’m about as tired of the Obama Crush, and surely will be long before November. At least a Clinton gave us the only 8 years of Democratic control of the White House in the past 28. to see how some here regard Bill, it appears they’d have rather had another 4 of GHWB and 4 of Bob Dole.
I wonder if a lawsuit would have been brought by Culinary Union if the caucus was at 9am on a Tuesday.
I have no lost love for Hillary. I suspect many of the Rovian tactics attributed to her campaign are true. My own personal example is a call I received from her campaign before the caucus in Iowa. Once I identified I was not for Hillary, the caller directed me to a distant precinct that was not my own. When questioned about the location the campaign worker was animate this was where I should go. I see little difference between Hillary and the Republicans.
You know, at one point in this campaign I supported Hillary, and at the very least I was convincing myself that I should vote for her if she was nominated.
But such transparently REPULSIVE attempts at voter disenfranchisement in Nevada? On top of the subtle race-baiting?
That’s the camel-back-breaking straw for me. The absolute right of people to cast their votes is the heart of our democracy, and essential to that is facilitating the vote for people who have to work, as casino and culinary workers do on the weekends. These rules were agreed-upon by the campaigns and have been in place for months, yet now, only after Hillary loses the endorsement, does she challenge them?
Hillary is not just attacking Obama and Edwards here, she is insulting voters, good honest workers and attacking the foundation of our democracy.
If Hillary is nominated by the Democrats, I will not be voting for in November. I will still support Democrats for Congress, but I will either write in a name on the ballot or even vote for John McCain– something that I have not done in decades (i.e., vote for a Republican).
Politicians have to know that race-baiting and voter suppression are something that will never be tolerated, and if they engage in them, that they will pay a price. If we were merely to forgive Hillary for this, then the same behavior would be encouraged elsewhere.
No, there has to be a penalty for it, and it has to be very severe. And that means the loss of Hillary’s base if she is nominated. That’s the only means to impart our disapproval.
***[Clinton is} likely secretly Karl Rove’s long-lost sister***
Wow. I stand thoroughly humbled in the presence of greatness, zeitgeist. I mean, I usually wish for very, very bad things to happen to ol’ Turd Blossom—my favorite is having him wake up with a bayonet shoved through his skull while laying in a large pond of flaming rocket fuel—but you actually go so far as to wish “Hillary-Blood” into his veins.
Pure, evil genius!
If their complaint is there are too many places for casino workers to vote, couldn’t they sue for ADDITIONAL polling places to make it easier for more people rather than lower the turnout of some Democrats?
Why wasn’t that proposed?
Oh, of course. Nevermind.
I don’t understand why the national media is almost completely ignoring this issue. There was not a single mention of or hint to it in the debate last night.
The timing doesn’t interest me. Its validity does.
Clearly, a strong point has been made.
Manipulating voting ratios is wrong.
What interests me even more is the allegation of voter intimidation, which is another reason why folks should be voting from their home precincts, not from places of employment.
Voter intimidation should not be allowed.