Lawsuit filed to seat Florida delegation

Via Jerome Armstrong, the Miami Herald reported:

Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.

The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates.

The Civil Rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch ''from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system'' to avoid losing its delegates.

''The purpose of this lawsuit is not to support one candidate over another; it's to enforce one of the most basic tenets of our democracy: Count the votes as they were cast,'' Geller said in announcing the lawsuit.

Geller, a Cooper City lawyer, said the Democratic National Committee has repeatedly argued that the reason it is punishing Florida is because it held its primary before the February date authorized by the party and then refused to conduct a post-primary caucus to designate delegates.

Geller argues that a caucus would have replaced the vote of 1.75 million Floridians with an event that was expected to capture only about 100,000 voters at 120 polling sites, thereby disenfranchising thousands of Florida Democrats, including those serving in U.S. military based outside Florida.

See how caucuses disenfranchise voters? Florida provides a significant example, another reason why I give more weight to Clinton's primary victories. Will the Democratic party learn this lesson and change over to closed primaries? One can hope.

Geller is an uncommitted superdelegate. The other two Democratic plaintiffs are also delegates, one for Clinton and the other for Obama.

The lawsuit also says that by penalizing Florida, the DNC is violating the constitutional protection on equal application of the law and a federal law that requires parties to write their own rules and then follow them. The lawsuit argues that DNC rules require it to conduct an investigation into questions involving state action, such as the premature primary date, but the DNC failed to conduct any investigation.

The lawsuit comes as the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is scheduled to meet in Washington May 31 to hash out how to settle the delegate dispute involving both Florida and Michigan.

Geller, and two other plaintiffs, sent a six-page letter to the DNC accusing them of failing to understand the legal and practical problems of stripping the state of their delegates and demanding they restore the delegates to the convention.

Geller believes the strongest argument Florida Democrats have in the legal challenge is how it relates to Section Five of the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 act was designed to protect blacks, primarily in southern states, from discrimination by banning literacy tests, poll taxes and unfair redistricting that had denied them access to the voting booths.

Seems the ball is no longer in Howard Dean's court (pun intended) if the May 31 DNC meeting fails to decide to seat the Florida delegation. How can the Democratic party live up to its name by violating the Voting Rights Act? Did I just hear Donna Brazile's head explode?

Earlier today, BTD at TalkLeft quoted Obama on Florida's delegates:

...Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday that "a very reasonable solution" would be to count Florida's disputed primary votes and cut the state's delegation to the convention in half.

Betcha Florida voters would disagree with Obama's "very reasonable solution" and we will soon discover the outcome from the May 31 DNC meeting. Something tells me the committee will rule against Obama's thievery suggestion. Just guessing.

POSTSCRIPT: This lawsuit on behalf of the Florida delegation wasn't the first.

UPDATE: Edited to reflect that the other two Democratic plaintiffs are not superdelegates. Barbara Effman (for Clinton) and Percy Johnson (for Obama) are pledged delegates.

Florida DNC appeals

Via the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog, Jon Ausman's letter explaining the Florida DNC appeals dated 8 April 2008 (with emphasis):

The staff of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have completed and submitted their review of the two appeals seeking to have 23 superdelegates and 92 pledged delegates award to Florida .

The first appeal notes the DNC Charter states Democratic US Senators, Democratic US House Members, former DNC Chairs and DNC Members “shall” be delegates to the Democratic National Convention. This “bill of rights” given to 23 Floridians cannot be taken away by a subordinate body created by the DNC since that subordinate body does not have the authority to do so.

The second appeal states the penalty for violating the “timing rule” “shall be” a fifty percent (50%) reduction in the pledged delegates and the loss of the three (3) unpledged add-on delegates. This means Florida should have at least 92 pledged delegates.

The remaining 93 pledged delegates and three (3) unpledged add-on delegates I hope to win at a later time if not on this appeal itself.

Review by Co-Chairs, Rules and Presidential Politics

The two Co-Chairs of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) have been reviewing the staff comments and recommendations since 31 March 2008. While the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules provide a strict timeline in many areas when an appeal is made it is silent on how long the Co-Chairs can review the appeals and the staff review.

For those who suggest the Co-Chairs are stalling, or planning to delay hearings until June, I say lets [sic] give them a reasonable amount of time to review the documents. If the staff has two weeks to review and write a report then lets give the Co-Chairs the same two week period of time.

This means the Co-Chairs should make a statement on Monday, 14 April 2008, at the latest.

The Co-Chairs can say one or both appeals are meritorious and grant the sought for remedies, they can deny one or both appeals (which will allow me to appeal such a denial within five days to the DNC RBC, or they can call for a DNC RBC Committee to here argument on the appeals.

I believe we are going before the full DNC RBC and I would like to be there no later than Saturday, 10 May 2008.

Unfortunately, these two appeals involve more than the consideration of what the written rules governing the DNC say. Rather than interpret the rules as written consideration is now being given to what the two Presidential campaigns want (what they want, of course, is what benefits them the most).

I believe one campaign is very interested in allowing the DNC RBC decide the matter while the other is stalling in order to preserve their position.

One would think both parties would see the tremendous advantage of resolving this matter early as it would help improve fundraising for both campaigns in Florida (not to mention DNC and FDP fundraising) as well as allow our attention to focus on getting ready to be [sic] Senator McCain, but short-term views are prevailing over the long-term benefits of ending this running sore.

With respect, I am,

Jon M. Ausman, Member
Democratic National Committee
Florida

What campaign would stall to preserve its position? Sen. Hillary Clinton hasn't enjoyed any pledged delegate or superdelegate counts from FL. So what advantage would she gain from a delay? What say you?