« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Change the Rules? Which Rules? A Framework For a Resolution?
OK, the Rules Committee is meeting (again?) next week. And, again, we are talking about "changing the rules." The question is, what were the original rules, have they ALREADY been changed, and can/should they be changed again.
The following is my off-the-cuff-and-on-the-side research and framework for a resolution. In keeping with my journalist background, I have periodically tried to flesh out some of the gaps. In keeping with my political background, I have also brought this to the attention of people on several sides of this intra-party squabble and have brought it to a couple of media outlets, because I thought it could provide a basis for moving towards resolution.
At this point, I am interested in getting feedback on these comments. And, if anyone can fill the gaps or correct any errors, please do. (ping DNC members!).
*********
As we know, the Democrats (and the Republicans) wanted to protect and control the caucus/primary calendar. The Democrats' efforts began (this cycle) with its "Call to Convention," setting forth rules and procedures. In addition to the calendar restrictions, this document set out THE PENALTIES for states that violate the calendar.
Here's the "Call to Convention" (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf)
Rule 20.C.1.a. (on page 24) has to do with challenges for "violation of timing". It states that if a state moves up (or back) its primary/caucus in violation of the desired calendar, the penalty SHALL BE a reduction of the pledged delegate allocation by 50% (exactly what the RNC did to FL and Mich.). And, no unpledged delegates ("super delegates") may vote.
So, did the DNC violate its own rules by ENTIRELY cutting off Florida and Michigan? More likely, the DNC legitimately voted to change the penalty to ZERO delegates. So, even if I'm missing something and the DNC didn't violate the rules, couldn't this be the basis for a resolution - "falling back" to the original rule?
Please note, I have sought, but have not yet seen, the minutes of DNC meetings, at which actions may have been taken to change Rule 20... or Rule 11. (Rule 20 refers to Rule 11, which sets forth the acceptable time frames for the delegate selection process. Interestingly - and perhaps, importantly - Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (but NOT Nevada) also were in violation of Rule 11; so, there likely WAS some subsequent action to permit those three to move up, to refuse Michigan and Florida, AND to change the punishments.
Sure, Rules can be changed. But, the committee that promulgated the initial rules - and the DNC that approved them - initially thought that a flat refusal to seat any of the delegations was TOO PUNITIVE. That might form the basis for returning to the initially-approved penalty of 50% reduction.
*******
So, go ahead and let 'er rip.
Comments (2)
No rules were changed, have been changed, or are being discussed with respect toward changing them. The issue is on rule interpretation and the power of the Rules and Bylaw Committee. The committee will be hearing 2 challenges at their May 31st, one from Michigan and one from Florida. Those challenges do not regard the rules, they deal with sanctions the RBC imposed that are not explicitly stated in the rules.
You're right that as soon as the dates were changed and recognized by the committee to violate 20.C.1, the -50% delegate penalty took automatic and immediate effect (as stated in 20.C.4). But, 20.C.5 gives the Rules and Bylaw Committee authority to impose any further sanctions they see fit. To quote the relevant portion:
20.C.5:
Once again, the committee will not be meeting to change rules. The decisions they make will be whether or not to impose their additional sanctions, reverting back to the penalties as noted in 20.C.1a. If they choose to do that, another portion of 20.C.5 comes into play:
So I think we may see some interesting things happen with Michigan's delegates.
Keep in mind, members of the Rules and Bylaw Committee voted to enact the further penalties. Those who voted to strip 100% of the delegates include:
Harold Ickes (endorsed Clinton)
Donald Fowler (endorsed Clinton)
Allan Katz (endorsed Obama)
Elizabeth Smith (endorsed Clinton)
Hartina Flournoy (endorsed Clinton)
Carol Khare Fowler (endorsed Obama)
Janice Griffin (endorsed Obama)
Alice Huffman (endorsed Clinton)
Thomas Hynes (endorsed Obama)
Ben Johnson (endorsed Clinton)
Elaine Kamarck (endorsed Clinton)
Eric Kleinfeld (endorsed Clinton)
Mona Pasquil (endorsed Clinton)
Mame Reiley (endorsed Clinton)
Garry Shay (endorsed Clinton)
Michael Steed (endorsed Clinton)
Sharon Stroschein (endorsed Obama)
Everett Ward (endorsed Obama)
Sarah Swisher (endorsed Obama)
Martha Fuller Clark (endorsed Obama)
The breakdown: Out of 30 committee members, we have 12 Clinton supporters, 8 Obama supporters, 8 undeclared members, and 2 committee chairpersons who have agreed to remain neutral and only cast votes in the event of a tie.
If matters are not settled on May 31st, the issue goes to the Credentials Committee.
May 21, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment, demosaur, and thanks. I DID get a bit sloppy there by not distinguishing between changing rules and changing sanctions.
May 21, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment