Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
If I were the States in question(New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida, South Carolina and Wyoming) I would do my damndest to start lifting the roablocks that impede third parties as a retaliation.The Republican National Committee has punished five states for scheduling their primaries earlier than allowed, reducing the number of delegates they can send to the 2008 convention by half.
Because the canidates don't want to campaign in those states any earlier then they have...historically Iowa and N.H. have set the tone for the primaries, and both are small, insignifigant states where you don't have to convince a huge amount of people to see your point of view.Eris wrote:Forgive my political noobishness, but I can't understand why the Republicans would even want to punish states with early primaries. Is there a reason they want to avoid them, or are they just being generally spiteful towards the electorate for what they know is going to be bad news in 08?
At least the Repubs are letting them keep half of the delegates.Lonestar wrote:RNC Makes Punishment of Early-Voting States Official
If I were the States in question(New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida, South Carolina and Wyoming) I would do my damndest to start lifting the roablocks that impede third parties as a retaliation.The Republican National Committee has punished five states for scheduling their primaries earlier than allowed, reducing the number of delegates they can send to the 2008 convention by half.
Keep Punishing the voters, Republicans!
As a voter whose state holds its primary in May, I say 'fuck Iowa and New Hampshire'.WASHINGTON --
A lawsuit accusing the national Democratic Party of stripping away the voting rights of 4 million Florida Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary was met with apprehension from legal experts as well as some party leaders uneasy about prolonging the family feud.
The suit, brought Thursday by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings of Miramar, contends that by taking away Florida's delegates to the nominating convention -- a punishment for moving up the primary to Jan. 29 -- the national party is imposing ``disenfranchisement on a massive scale.''
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee, naming the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, as chief defendants.
''For the DNC to say to the fourth-largest contingent of Democrats in the nation that their votes will not matter in next year's presidential primary is not only shocking and ironic, but we believe is illegal,'' Hastings said, alluding to the contentious 2000 election in which Democrats fought for vote recounts.
DNC rules allow only four states to vote before Feb. 5. Florida Democrats refused to disavow the Jan. 29 primary set by the GOP-controlled Legislature, triggering the DNC's refusal to seat Florida delegates at its convention.
''Florida officials moved the date of their primary knowing full well what the consequences would be, and the DNC has the absolute right to treat the primary as a mere beauty contest,'' said Donna Brazile, a party strategist who serves on the DNC's rules committee. ``This is a big election, and given the stakes, Florida should be willing to play by the rules.''
EXPERT OPINIONS
Legal experts said courts are typically reluctant to intervene in party disputes.
''It's not a frivolous suit, but I think it's going to be hard for them to win because of some Supreme Court precedents that essentially say the national party has a right of association to set the rules to determine its standard bearer,'' said Guy-Uriel Charles, co-dean of the University of Minnesota Law School and director of the Institute for Law & Politics. ``The national party can say they're not doing anything wrong because they've set fair, open rules and are not engaging in racial discrimination. Florida has decided not to abide by those rules.''
In one landmark case, the Supreme Court upheld national Democratic Party rules that clashed with Wisconsin's 70-year-old tradition of ''open'' presidential primaries. The 1981 decision said the national party could exclude delegates who weren't exclusively chosen by Democrats.
''The court essentially said the state can't force the DNC to recognize delegates,'' said Michael Kang, who teaches election law at Emory University. ``The Supreme Court generally has what we call a doctrine of party autonomy that says the parties can do what they want.''
HOLDING FIRM
The DNC has been adamant about upholding its primary calendar. The four states authorized to hold the earliest primaries (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) pressured the major presidential candidates to pledge to boycott Florida except for fundraisers.
Some Florida Democratic leaders have distanced themselves from the case, saying the party needs to move on to retake the White House. ''Democrats are fighting Democrats,'' said U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, who represents parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties. ``I support what they're doing on the substance, but for me, it's critical to win the presidency.''
NELSON'S VIEW
Nelson defended the suit's legal and political merits, saying it differs from the Wisconsin case because the national party is seeking to control a state-run primary. Alienating Florida Democrats while Republican candidates are courting the state ''would be a travesty of justice,'' he said. ''The worst thing we could do to hurt our own party is to be silent and not stand up for people's rights to vote,'' he added.
The suit, filed by Miami attorney Kendall Coffey, also argues that the DNC's convention ban violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by ''impairing minority voter participation.'' Black voters would be disproportionately affected, the suit says, because most black voters in Florida are Democrats.
The suit also contends that the party is ''imposing the modern equivalent of a poll tax,'' because under the pledge signed by most of the candidates, they can interact with Florida voters only at fundraisers. The top contenders are not expected at the state party's annual convention later this month, and Nelson said even their spouses are reluctant to accept his wife's invitation.
`DEVASTATING'
The suit rails at the national party, arguing that 'in the annals of modern politics, no national party has inflicted so devastating and sweeping a `geographic discrimination.' '' And it notes that by comparison, the Republican National Committee plans to forfeit only half of the state's delegates and allows candidates to campaign in Florida.
Columbia Law School professor Nathaniel Persily, who reviewed the lawsuit before it was filed, said he doubted the DNC would follow through on its zero-tolerance threat.
''I can't imagine they're going to lock the Florida delegation out of the convention hall,'' he said. ``Since we know that's unlikely to happen, this lawsuit may be a way to shame the Democratic party into changing its primary rules.''
To be fair, the Democrats are doing the same; I think they've slapped Florida with the same kind of retalitatory measures.Lonestar wrote:Keep Punishing the voters, Republicans!
They have. I think most of the candidates also pledged not to campaign for the Michigan Primary, either, since the Michiganites bumped theirs up too.MKSheppard wrote:To be fair, the Democrats are doing the same; I think they've slapped Florida with the same kind of retalitatory measures.Lonestar wrote:Keep Punishing the voters, Republicans!
I want both of them to antagonize as many voters as possible. I'm surprise that the Repubs didn't take the smart route and the "higher ground" with what the Dems offered them.MKSheppard wrote:
To be fair, the Democrats are doing the same; I think they've slapped Florida with the same kind of retalitatory measures.
