Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

Democrats : Rules :: Oil : Water

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama nor any elected, appointed, or self-appointed Democrat that I recall raised any objection when the Democratic National Committee voted to deprive Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates if they violated the DNC ?rule? against moving up their primaries. None of them complained about ?disenfranchisement,? ?unfairness,? etc.

Now that those delegates might actually be important, however, the hue and cry has been raised. Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania asks, ?How can the Democratic Party go to Denver and deny the people of Michigan and Florida, two crucial states, a voice in this, in this nominating process?? Gov. Granholm of Michigan says it would be ?reprehensible? and ?intolerable? not to seat the delegates already selected by the voters in the Florida and Michigan primaries.

My favorite recent comment, however, comes not from these johnny come latelys who bled for the poor disenfranchisees in Florida and Michigan only when their candidate needed them. It came yesterday from none other than the ?rule? instigator, DNC Chairman Howard Dean himself:

Everybody, including me and, I think, both candidates, wants to find a way to seat Florida and Michigan,? Dean said on CBS? ?Face the Nation.? ?But it has to be done in such a way that you don?t change the rules in the middle of the game.?

So, Dean and the DNC impose a ?rule? that states lose their convention delegates if they move their primaries up to earlier dates than the DNC wants. Florida and Michigan move up their dates. Now that the delegates are needed Dean wants to find a way to seat the delegates without ? chang[ing] the rules in the middle of the game.?

The only way I can see for him to accomplish this is by doing what I suspect he and the Dems will do: change the rules at the end, not the middle, of the game.

ADDENDUM: A Do-Over?

Everyone seems to think that the only problem with Florida and Michigan imitating Bill Clinton?s well-known fondness for mulligans and simply voting again is the money ? who would pay for the expensive new primaries? But I wouldn?t think that would be an insurmountable problem.

We?re all familiar with corporations putting up enough money:

Nearly all new stadiums nowadays are named after whatever corporation bids the highest price for the naming rights, whether or not there is a strong connection to the city.

It would seem to be a simple matter for, say, a George Soros to buy a couple of state Democratic parties (if he hasn?t already), put up the money, and simply rename the state parties to the ?George Soros Democratic Party of [Michigan/Florida].?

A bigger problem, I would think, is that even this solution would seem to reward the states for breaking the DNC ?rule.? Their new primaries would immediately be elevated to the most important of this campaign season, millions more dollars would be spent in the two states than would have been spent if they?d followed the rules, etc.

Full post as published by Discriminations on March 10, 2008 (boomark / email).