Party Leaders To Hear Florida, Michigan Delegate Challenges

RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

NEDRA PICKLER | April 26, 2008 07:54 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Graphic shows Democratic delegate count and margin of victory by state/territory; includes dates of upcoming contests; two sizes; 2c x 5 1/2 inches; 96.3 mm x 139.7 mm; 2c x 2 1/2 inches; 96.3 mm x 63.5 mm

WASHINGTON — A plan to award half-delegates for the disputed Michigan and Florida Democratic presidential primaries will get a hearing before party leaders.

The co-chairs of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws committee sent members a memo Friday announcing a meeting May 31 to consider the idea.

The committee stripped Michigan and Florida of their national convention delegates because they held primaries too early. DNC members in Michigan and Florida have filed challenges to restore the delegates.

Under the challenges, all superdelegates from both states would get to vote. The pledged delegates would only count for half votes.

Hillary Rodham Clinton won both contests and has been pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her rival Barack Obama has said it isn't fair to award delegates based on the votes because all the candidates agreed to boycott the contests and his name wasn't on Michigan's ballot. Most of the Democratic candidates had their names removed, but Clinton left hers on. Forty percent of Michigan voters chose "uncommitted" rather than vote for Clinton.

Obama's supporters have suggested splitting the delegates evenly would be a fair way to handle it, since all sides want to see delegates from the two important swing states participate in the convention.

Both states, knowing the potential penalty, held their primaries earlier than party rules allowed to try have more influence in the nominating process that long has been dominated by early voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Few figured the campaign would last as long as it has, and now that Clinton and Obama are so close in the delegate race, both states want to help choose the nominee.

Michigan lost 128 pledged delegates and 28 superdelegates, for a total of 156.

Florida lost 185 pledged and 25 superdelegates, or a total of 210.

If it were valid, Florida's election would have given Clinton 105 delegates to Obama's 67. Michigan's would have given Clinton 73 delegates, while 55 were uncommitted. That means awarding half-delegates would give Clinton 89 more delegates and Obama 33.5, with 27.5 uncommitted.

The plan would narrow Obama's lead among the pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But Clinton still would not catch him in the remaining primaries.

Obama has a 154-delegate lead among pledged delegates.

The challenges were presented by DNC members Joel Ferguson of Michigan and Jon Ausman of Florida, who also are superdelegates because of their positions with the party. Ferguson supports Clinton, Ausman is uncommitted.

Ferguson and Ausman said in telephone interviews that they think half-delegates should be seated based on the outcome of the state's primary elections. That is not spelled out in their challenges and the Rules and Bylaws Committee could determine how many delegates each campaign is awarded.

"I think the allocation should be solely based on the returns on January 29," Ausman said.

Michigan's case is trickier, since Obama didn't get any votes in the state's Jan. 15 primary. Ferguson said all the uncommitted votes should count for Obama.

"The only thing that hurts my challenge is that I declared that I'm for Clinton, but this has nothing to do with Clinton," Ferguson said. "This has to do with making common sense."

He said it's only fair that the superdelegates be fully restored since they aren't bound by election results any way. The challenges argue that the party doesn't have the authority to strip superdelegates of their votes.

Ausman said as for the pledged delegates, it would be acceptable for the committee either to strip half of Florida's pledged delegates and send the other half to the convention, or to send all and give them half-votes.

The Convention Credentials Committee resolves issues about the seating of delegates, but doesn't meet until later in the summer after all the state nominating contests are over.

The co-chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee did not respond to messages left at their offices Friday. Party officials said it's unclear whether they will make a decision and vote on the challenges at the May 31 meeting or just discuss them.

The Clinton and Obama campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.

___

Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS paragraph 11 to show that Obama's total of delegates from Florida was 67, not 73; and his number once cut in half is 33.5 not 36.5.)

 
 

Comments
229
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
- Repub4Obama See Profile I'm a Fan of Repub4Obama permalink

I hope somebody somewhere starts a third party. Maybe Barack can run as a "Nationalist" or as a "Whig" or something else for his re-election in 2012. I bet he could start the party and take a good 25% of congress with him in a hearbeat. That would shake things up a bit. Pehaps it's time that the Democratic party withers and dies, and something new (and effective) takes its place.

For all I don't like about the Republican party, at least they are efficient at what they do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 AM on 04/28/2008
- dumboldfarmer See Profile I'm a Fan of dumboldfarmer permalink

Folks, the DNC rules are on the DNC site for anyone to read:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

The pledges that the candidates signed had them promise to not campaign and recognize that the voting would not count.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 04/27/2008
- Chapmanp2 See Profile I'm a Fan of Chapmanp2 permalink

The rules are the rules.
Any solution that rightfully attempts to include Michigan & Florida VOTERS (who did nothing wrong) is welcomed so long as it DOES NOT AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE RACE. That is the only acceptable outcome based on every measure of fairness.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 PM on 04/27/2008
- ManInNC See Profile I'm a Fan of ManInNC permalink

thepointof seatng the delegates for FL and MI is to give the voters of these states the right to express their opinion.

If you advocate seating them without allowing them to have an opinion, all you are really doing is allowing the delegates to attend a party in Denver. That really doesn't do anything for the VOTERS of these two states.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:30 PM on 04/27/2008
- abigail1 See Profile I'm a Fan of abigail1 permalink

I am sorry, but the super delegates from the state of Michigan should NOT get to vote at the convention. They are the ones who messed this whole thing up. They are the ones who played chicken with their constituents votes and lost. Give back half the pledged delegates with 55% going for Clinton and the rest for Obama, fine. I am an Obama supporter and live in Michigan and think that he could have beaten her here, but that is water under the bridge and counting the votes as they are won't change anything. But the party leaders who are the super delegates from this state should not get rewarded for screwing up our primary and then refusing to fix it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 PM on 04/27/2008
- Repub4Obama See Profile I'm a Fan of Repub4Obama permalink

I don't think that 50/50 is fair, and Hillary will certainly never accept it. What might be more fair is to allocate at the percentages that they have earned overall in all contests in all states so far. Hillary would unfortunately not accept this either, because BHO would end up with 52.8% of all delegates to Hillary's 47.2%.

I would like to see it if ALL delegates were given a WHOLE count, not a half, and that Barack conceded to Hillary a 60/40 split in her favor. What would this mean to the count after ?

BHO ends up with (including endorsed SD's) 1902. Hillary would have 1729. This brings BHO only 123 delegates from the requiremed 2024. There are 408 pledged delegates left and 225 SD's. I think he could somehow manage to garner 19% of the remaining.

Again, if you look at the math, it's pretty clear that HIllary is just talking to talk, and by actually getting FL and MI seated would make her downfall happen more quickly.

I'm so sick of listening to her. The math just doesn't add up. But of course, I can add and subtract and think critically, so that probably makes me 'elitist' anyway, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 04/27/2008
- ManInNC See Profile I'm a Fan of ManInNC permalink

once you add FL and MI back, the toal required isn't 2024 anymore. The total needed goes UP. It was adusted to 2024 to reflect the fac that MI and FL were not counted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 04/27/2008
- ManInNC See Profile I'm a Fan of ManInNC permalink

It's interesting to read these comments where so many posters are pontificating about the rules who have apparently never read the rules of the DNC and don't actually know what the rules are.

One poster here claims Clinton broke the campaigning rules in FL and Obama never set foot in that state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Other posters claim everybody knew the rules going in, when the posters don't even know the rules.

Here are some actual FACTS based on a reading of the DNC's rules

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/24/a-talking-points-memo-rules-provide-for-the-florida-and-michigan-delegations-to-be-seated/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:56 AM on 04/27/2008
- dumboldfarmer See Profile I'm a Fan of dumboldfarmer permalink

If you want the rules, they are on the DNC site:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 PM on 04/27/2008
- Chapmanp2 See Profile I'm a Fan of Chapmanp2 permalink

I have no doubt that (since Terry Mcauliffe is a Clinton backer & former head of the DNC) that rules may (I said my not are) be stacked in favor of Clinton receiving a favorable outcome (a poison pill inserted somewhere to try to guarantee a favorable outcome)which may explain Clinton NOT removing her name from the Michigan ballott (as pledged) & rushing to Florida for fundraisers just before their vote (but not "campaigning") I think the Clintons using the system they helped create probably viewed this as one of her ultimate firewall strategys. It completely destroys the spirit of fairness in our Country & if it succeeds & throws the race to her People will see it for what it is (a slap in the face to good & decent law abiding citizens). Talk about elitism that's pretty much the definition. We want transparency.
We want a level playing field. Is that really too much to ask??? Bottom line & we all watched it un-fold
Florida & Michigan were told if they jumped the gun they would not be seated. Yes the DNC may allow for them to be seated after the fact but doing so in a way that ultimately swings the outcome to either Clinton or Obama is completely de-void of any moral compass.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 PM on 04/27/2008
- ManInNC See Profile I'm a Fan of ManInNC permalink

Another earlier post I forgot to address is one claiming that Clinton wanted a revote in MI where only democarats could participate, where no one who voted in the republican primary could participate and even those who voted uncommitted in the dem primary could not participate and that this is the reason that Obama wouldn't agree to the revote.

First, none oft he rules about who can participate in a revote are Clinton's rules. Those are rules of the DNC.

Secondly, these rules for revoting NEVER excluded anyone who voted uncommitted in the earlier primary, only those that voted in the republican primary.

Lastly, the DNC said at the time that THEIR rule excluding dems that voted in the republican primary could be changed to accomodate the MI revote.

So again, we have an uninformed poster spouting off Obama talking points about why he wouldn't accept a revote in MI that everyone else had agreed to.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 AM on 04/27/2008
- luvthelaw See Profile I'm a Fan of luvthelaw permalink

There were many problems associated with a recount, not the least of them being who would pay for it. There is also the question that McAuliffe himself faced in 2000 when he said allowing this kind of date change would destroy the party if it was allowed. Michigan had been trying to change the date at least since 2000. I'm quite sure the people of Michigan must have been aware of it. If so, they should have told their party leaders to stop. People who don't like the way the party is run should get involved and change it, not sit at their keyboards and complain. Go to precinct meetings, ward meetings, or at least take 5 minutes and call your local party office. Really folks, these rules have been in place since befire Bill Clinton ran. Why are Hillary supporters so outraged now?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 04/27/2008
- hank48188 See Profile I'm a Fan of hank48188 permalink

Obama stopped a re-vote in Michigan and florida because he would lose big in both States, he is trying to run out the clock. Obama won in the early caucuses because voters thought he was a "Tiger Woods" type but now they see he's more like Louis Farrakhan. Obama is now damaged goods and the 527 groups would crush him, he would be riding the swiftboat with Rev Wright, Tony Rezko and the WEATHERMEN TERRORISTS.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:56 AM on 04/27/2008
- CTmom13 See Profile I'm a Fan of CTmom13 permalink

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/25/165935/668/909/503541

AcAuliffe himself said MICHIGAN will not count!!!!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 AM on 04/27/2008
- Countdown09 See Profile I'm a Fan of Countdown09 permalink

50/50 split or the MI & FL delegates can stay at home!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 AM on 04/27/2008
- Vern58 See Profile I'm a Fan of Vern58 permalink

The answer is so simple. You decided to ignore the rules, then you have to pay the price. That is the simple truth. If you want to play with fire do not be suprised if the whole house burns down.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 AM on 04/27/2008
- blubastian See Profile I'm a Fan of blubastian permalink

Wrong:
The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.

http://tinyurl.com/52ejhn

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:06 AM on 04/27/2008
- Chapmanp2 See Profile I'm a Fan of Chapmanp2 permalink

& let me guess??? The rules & bylaws committee is stacked w/ loyal Clinton followers???
That would be a big surprise. Just because you stack courts & committees, & boards with people favorable to you & your position doesn't make it right & People are watching.
If our Democracy is hi-jacked yet again (as it was in 2000 & 2004) there may actually be repercussions this time People are paying attention & we are wide awake.
These lawyerly arguments being put forth by the Clinton campaign are really getting repulsive to average joe American. We understand that absolutely ANY position can be argued. It doesn't mean that it's in the interest of fairness or justice. Do the wants & needs of the few or priveledged truly outwiegh the wants & the needs of the many???
Let's JUST DO THE RIGHT THING FOR ONCE & FOR ALL!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 PM on 04/27/2008
- disgustedbyitall See Profile I'm a Fan of disgustedbyitall permalink

So Ferguson wants super-delegates (him) seated because there's no rule that says the DNC can deny them.

Then Ferguson wants DNC rules disregarded to seat the rule-breaking Michigan and Florida delegates.

Oh, and he'd like the results of the non-campaign to stand, with Clinton (whom he supports) taking the lion's share of both illegal elections.

I'm confused. Is he for rules or for breaking them? Or just for Clinton?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:03 AM on 04/27/2008
- fungeezer See Profile I'm a Fan of fungeezer permalink

Didn't a judge in Michigan recently rule that the Michigan vote was unconstitutional? And if so, wouldn't that make the Michigan primary null and void?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 PM on 04/26/2008
- Carnacamarna See Profile I'm a Fan of Carnacamarna permalink

No, fungeezer. The judge ruled that only distributing a list of voters in the democatic or republican primaries to ONLY the Dem or Repub parties was unconstitutional. The list shouldn't have had exclusivity and should have been able to be available to any party.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 AM on 04/27/2008
- speciallady2003 See Profile I'm a Fan of speciallady2003 permalink

As a Florida resident, who was informed prior to primary day, that my vote, once again would be worthless--apparently this is bi-partisan as we have been rejected as a state by both parties- and perhaps, as we have taxation with no representation, should succeed from this dubious union-but I digress, I cannot believe that the DNC is giving this any credence whatsoever as the interested parties have already declared that this was a nonissue. To give the loser a hearing is unconscionable and undermines faith in a process that should be honest and transparent. All I see is something horrific and ultimately heartbreaking. To think there is any semblance of a democratic process in this country is a fallacy and anyone who continues to believe our democracy is worth exporting and engaging in military conflict to prove our point is naive to the edge -no over the cliff- of ignorance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 PM on 04/26/2008
- hokulele See Profile I'm a Fan of hokulele permalink

Hi there speciallady2003. First, we are an oligarchy not a democracy. Secondly, Florida and Michigan tried to pull off some kind of political thing that backfired. They should not be seated. The rules of the DNC are clear..... huh? Okay, not super clear in half delegates and spin three times on a stump at midnight on a full moon and give every other nominee a delegate. I don't know. Thing is, can't change the agreement agreed upon in the beginning because of a backfire. We will seat the delegates, but, hey, let's be real here (of course, that's assuming politics is real, which it is definitely not as far as I can tell). Split 'em up to even it all out, seat them and let's move on. Remember, everyone pulled out of Florida, except Clinton, who will do anything, anything to win. She is still the one who has to, has to, has to, be the teacher's pet. Yeah, she was just visiting down there. If anyone believes that, I've got some swamp land for sale at one million dollars a foot. Call me. And Obama not even on a ballot and Hillary preaches how we should count all those wonderful people whom she doesn't give two hoots about because she wants to win, win, win, and to heck with the aftermath.............

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 PM on 04/26/2008
- hank48188 See Profile I'm a Fan of hank48188 permalink

I guess Obama made a bad move to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan and then block a re-vote, you can't get votes if you're not on the ballot. What I don't understand is why the DNC or the Howard Dean should decide the rules for Primaries that the States pay for. If the DEMS want to have phony contests that they pay for, like Wyoming, where 8,900 DEMS voted, out of 60,000 REGISTERED DEMS, then they can make all the rules and stay a loser Party. This Party has had 1 successful President in the last 40 years, BILL CLINTON, but they usually choose people that can't win or fail if they do, Jimmy Carter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 AM on 04/27/2008
- luvthelaw See Profile I'm a Fan of luvthelaw permalink

Um, hokulele, you might want to re-read special's post. She said there should not be a hearing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 AM on 04/27/2008
- Rebelfriend See Profile I'm a Fan of Rebelfriend permalink

The only fair way to resolve this is to have completely new Primaries in both states. As for the Obama people saying they should receive all the "uncommitted votes" in Michigan: That truly takes balls! Yes, Clinton was on the ballot and Obama was not, but John Edwards was still in the race at that point and also not on the ballot -- And I am absolutely confident that many of those "uncommitted" would have voted for Edwards -- particularly in Michigan! Who is to say whether the Edwards voters would now vote for Obama or Clinton? The ONLY way to know that is through a new Primary vote. The voters of these two states should have ALL their votes counted, and it should be through a Primary -- not Caucuses, which are actually very undemocratic. Our General Election is conducted like a Primary, not a Caucus. The fact that the leaders in Michigan and Florida made a stupid decision should not penalize the citizens of those states by not allowing ALL their voices to be heard in this nomination process. If we are to have a fair and honestly democratically chosen nominee, new Primaries in both states are essential. No other means would be honest or democratic. And we will be right back where we were in Florida eight years ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 PM on 04/26/2008
- Marcospinelli See Profile I'm a Fan of Marcospinelli permalink

How about redoes in those states where the Democratic candidates had to drop out by the dates of their primaries? There are voters in states like California, who voted absentee weeks before the primary only to have their candidates drop out by the day of the election, and their vote is wasted.

Imagine that, the biggest state and most populous state, and its citizens have to vote on the sloppy seconds because top tiered candidates had dropped out by the time they got to weigh in.

Life is filled with disappointments, and each state has their own sob story to tell.. Michigan and Florida created this problem for all of us with their outlaw behavior, arrogantly and childishly trying to jockey for first place over everybody else. They were warned of the consequences, and they went ahead anyway. Hillary agreed to the consequences when she thought she had the nomination in the bag.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:34 AM on 04/27/2008
- Marcospinelli See Profile I'm a Fan of Marcospinelli permalink

What kind of a redo? Tell us exactly how you think it should be done.

Should they be exactly as they were, open primaries? Should Republicans be able to vote in them even though the Republican candidate has been decided? How about voters who didn't vote in the first one because they were told it wasn't going to count? Should they be able to vote in this new primary? How about the rest of the Democratic candidates who were still in the race at the time Michigan and Florida held those other primaries? Should they be on the ballot this time? And if not, shouldn't all of the other states get a chance at a redo with only Clinton's and Obama's names on the ballot, too?

And who would be paying for this? Hillary and her friends offered to HELP pay for it (I think they said up to 50%) and only for Democratic voter participation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 AM on 04/27/2008
- fungeezer See Profile I'm a Fan of fungeezer permalink

Rebelfriend, I must correct you. Caucuses have been around since our country was founded. In fact, that was how it was done for many years. It is a stretch to call something that has been a part of our country "undemocratic" simply because you may not agree with them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 AM on 04/27/2008
- Myshkin57 See Profile I'm a Fan of Myshkin57 permalink

Caucuses are undemocratic? It's funny how I never heard that until Hillary started losing them all. But I'm guessing you just read that on the Clinton site.

It's funny, too, because Hillary should have an advantage in them. No one has more free time than retired people and she's got a much larger percentage of retirement age people than Obama. She should have been cleaning his clock, especially since older folk know better how to work a caucus than younger people. Further, caucus states have some of the smallest percentages of Black voters of all the states. Caucus states were made