« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Genuine Question re: DNC MI/FL legal memo: If the 50% sanction is mandatory...
I haven't had a chance to fully analyze the DNC legal memo that is setting up the Rules & Bylaws Comm meeting, but a nagging question keeps popping up:
--If the RBC can only reduce the 100% sanction re: MI&FL to the 50% sanction that was "automatic" under the Call To Convention, why wasn't that 50% mandatory sanction applied to the other states that moved in front of the Call To Convention calendar? New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina (but not Nevada) ALL moved their primaries/caucus ahead of the Call To Convention calendar.--
The legal memo seems to state that the RBC's hands are tied because of the automatic/mandatory sanction. What I am unclear on is whether the RBC removed that sanction from IA/NH/SC at that 12/3/07 meeting.
Anyone?
(The memo does seem to answer many of the gaps in my previously-posted analysis - http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/change-the-rules-which-rules-a.php . I touched on the IA/NH/SC issue in that post, but the new memo seems to bring it to the forefront.)
Comments (9)
My understanding is that it was decided by the DNC to add South Carolina and Nevada as regional early primaries, to diversify from Iowa and New Hampshire. Part of that was guaranteeing that those four would cover before any other primaries. So when Florida and Michigan defied the calendar, it was already pre-agreed that those four could (although it looks like that wasn't mandatory) move up themselves without any penalty. One of the things defiant states would thus not be able to accomplish was ensure that they could get ahead of the chosen 'regionals'.
May 29, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, ktmseattle. But, actually, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina ALL moved up their primaries (caucus) AFTER the Call To Convention specified the dates. So, those three plus Florida and Michigan should have had the 50% sanction applied?
May 29, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the DNC delgate rules there is an exception rule that covers all four states so that they may hold their positions as the first primaries and caucuses. What the cannot do and did not do is break the days in between each.
May 29, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I thought, too, jsfox. Until I looked at the wording. Rule 11A, Call To Convention: http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf
IA was supposed to hold its caucus(per the Call To Convention) "NO EARLIER THAN (JAN. 16) 22 DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST TUESDAY IN FEBRUARY."
NH was supposed to hold its primary (per the Call To Convention)"NO EARLIER THAN (JAN. 24) 14 DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST TUESDAY IN FEBRUARY."
SC was supposed to hold its primary (per the Call To Convention)"NO EARLIER THAN (JAN. 31) 7 DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST TUESDAY IN FEBRUARY."
Actual caucus/primary dates: IA - Jan. 3; NH - Jan. 8; SC - Jan. 26
Iowa was 13 days early.
NH was 16 days early.
SC was 5 days early.
May 29, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Azpaull, all those "permitted" dates -- set in 2006 -- would fall after the date Michigan had deliberately selected for its primary (Jan. 15).
As I point out below, following the pre-set dates would have conflicted with the underlying principle that those states were formally being allowed to go first.
When there is conflict in the rules, the RBC has to adjudicate. That's what it did.
May 29, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a massive thread over at DailyKos today, all based on the faulty premise that the rules and bylaws committee MAKES the rules.
It doesn't, of course. It interprets the rules, decides if a violation has occurred, and imposes sanctions.
Like Azpaull, I'm unaware of exactly when the ruling on the early states was made; I believe the RBC met on this issue in both August 2007 and December. (I could be wrong.)
But I can see how it could logically rule that the four states were not subject to the mandatory penalties.
The calendar had been set up in part to ensure they went first.
Once it became clear Michigan and Florida were determined to jump the gun, despite the threat of sanctions, that created a conflict in the rules.
The RBC had to decide what took precedence: the principle that those four states could go first, or the calendar that stated the starting dates?
The RBC ruled for the principle, basically deciding the four states moving ahead of Florida and Michigan did not violate the rules.
I suspect the four-state exemption may be mentioned in passing at tomorrow's meeting.
But note that specific RBC ruling is not being challenged, just the imposition of sanctions on Michigan and Florida.
Those state Democratic parties will no doubt claim they were innocent bystanders to the moving of their primary dates, and so should not be penalized at all.
It's a totally bogus argument that the committee will reject; Michigan for one has been trying to move up for years.
I think the states will accept half-delegate compromises; if Hillary opts to challenge even that, her support will evaporate like mist.
At least, that's my hope.
May 29, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strong post, acanuck. Thanks.
I can also see how it could logically rule that IA/NH/SC (and NV) were not subject to the mandatory penalties. YET - and I'll have to review it more closely tonight - the DNC legal memo seems to say that the RBC CANNOT change the FL/MI automatic/mandatory (I think they used both words) sanction. Thus, there would seem to be a conflict if they were permitted to REMOVE the mandatory/automatic sanction from the Blessed Four.
May 29, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
For "tomorrow's meeting," read "Saturday's meeting."
You can see how keen I am for this root canal to be over.
May 29, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't catch that wishful posting, either. As for keen, you and me both - and probably everyone else, too!
May 29, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment