9 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2008 | 10:18 a.m.
Updated Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008 | 2:14 p.m.
The lawsuit challenging at-large caucus sites on the Strip will go to a hearing in federal court in Las Vegas on Thursday.
The lawsuit, filed Friday, seeks to block the state Democratic Party from opening nine caucus sites on the Strip. Those sites will make it easier for employees working Saturday to participate in the caucus, which begins at 11:30 a.m.
Each site will be open to anyone working within a 2 1/2-mile radius. All other Nevadans must report to a caucus site near to their homes.
The the Nevada State Education Association, which represents teachers, and five activists challenged the at-large sites, arguing that they give an unfair advantage to members of the Culinary union, which represents most rank-and-file workers on the Strip. Employees elsewhere in the state who work Saturday will have to take the time to drive to their neighborhood caucus site if they want to participate.
U.S. District Judge James C. Mahan scheduled the hearing for 10 a.m. Thursday.
To Messrs. Schwartz and Ralston: If you can get copies of the defendants' reply pleadings, please post them here so all can read them. I suspect that Judge Mahan set a time deadline for the defendants to file them, i.e. in enough time for Judge Mahan to read them.
I truly want to see how lawyers for the Nevada Democratic Party are going to argue their way out of this colossal blunder. I know lots of lawyers are high level Nevada Democratic Party officials, but most lawyers are rusty on their constitutional law. It would be hysterically funny if the Democratic Party had some serious election lawyers look at the Strip caucus plan months ago, and those lawyers either said "It's not kosher" and were ignored or they missed the over weight voting issue completely.
Also, is Judge Mahan the Federal judge negatively profiled by the L. A. Times a year or so ago? If yes, it might be worth posting a link to that article, as a means of full disclosure, because whoever loses is going to start trashing the judge's reputation.
Not only is Judge Mahan the Judge portrayed in the LA Times, he is a Bush appointee.
The lawsuit filed by Clinton allies in Nevada against planned "at-large" caucusing Jan. 19 on the Las Vegas Strip is beginning to look a lot like voter suppression. As we know, the plan was drawn up and approved unanimously early last year by the Nevada Democratic Party leadership, with input from the presidential campaigns, to enable caucusing by Strip workers unable to leave work to caucus in their home precincts. Indeed the plan's creators include several of those who are now plaintiffs against it. What changed their minds? Barack Obama's endorsement Jan.9 by the 60,000-member Las Vegas Culinary Workers' Union changed their minds. When the plan was approved, Hillary Clinton was presumed to be the "inevitable" Democratic frontrunner. Iowa changed all that, and Obama's subsequent endorsement by the culinary workers has brought a Clinton win in Nevada into serious question. Since it is largely members of this union who would be caucusing in the casinos, the plan is clearly no longer in Clinton's best interests. Hence the lawsuit against the plan, filed just two days after the Obama endorsement and scarcely a week before the caucus by Clinton allies from the leadership of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), on the grounds that it would be unfair to workers in other areas. Why didn't they think it was unfair earlier? After all, the plan was approved nearly a year ago in the very name of fairness, to enable participation by those who would otherwise be unable to caucus. The answer is simple: Because the lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness, and everything to do with stacking the deck in favor of Hillary Clinton. The Clintons themselves are not official parties to the suit, but both Hillary and Bill Clinton have spoken in support of it despite the fact that their campaign and others were included in the at-large caucus plan from its inception. They, like their friends in the NSEA, have had more than ample time to consider and reconsider the plan, but appear to have deemed it unfair only since the culinary workers endorsed Obama. While the judge in this case obviously has every reason in the world to throw it out of court, I don't expect that even if it prevails the culinary workers will allow it to prevent their members' caucusing. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to see chartered buses from the union shuttling members between the Strip and their home precincts to caucus, a lot of pressure on Strip employers to comply, and a lot of anger at the Clintons and their allies for this seedy attempt to change the rules at the last minute. The whole affair seems likely indeed to do the Clintons far more harm than good in Nevada; and as we know, what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas.
I trust the judge will review and throw out the casino caucus sites. I read the complaints and find the whole effort by the party and culinary union to subvert the caucuses and the presidential campaign an outrage. Giving a specific group of workers, via their union, privileged and inflated votes is wrong. This view has nothing to do with any particular candidate. Can anyone really say it is okay for a union to organize caucuses at their work place, give the 10x representation, pull them in from their work to publicly vote in front of their union officials and peers is fair or the American way?! What happens to the lone union member that names the non-union-designated candidate?
This story makes it sound like teachers are worried about miners, doctors, ER workers and casino workers statewide who have to work this Saturday during the caucus. If they care so much , why didn't they file this suit last year or even in September?
What a bunch of political phonies for Hillary Clinton.
They waited to disenfranchise the Strip workers until they knew the sites might help Obama who got the Culinary Union's endorsement last week.
As a non-union strip worker for 15 years, I welcome these caucus sites. Please don't forget that the culinary union is only one part of the strip work force. This is about giving ALL people that make this town work a voice. Shame on the plaintiffs, so they don't like the math now, and they were lazy and didn't review it months ago. This is nothing more than the power elite of the party in a public pissing match. The same power elite that lost the governor's mansion to Gibbons. The same, the same, the same ... we need a change!
The hearing will be in the court of US District Judge James Mahan, a Bush appointee from 2002. He was investigated for corruption by the 9th Circuit Court in 2007 but the investigation was dropped with no action against Mahan. It was about appointing friends and associates to lucrative receivership jobs in bankruptcy cases, with fees approaching $5 million. Investigations are ongoing about similar activity when he was a state judge before 2002.
The text of the initial filing about caucus sites is here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pd...
There is a concept called laches, which relates to negligence in the enforcement of one's rights. It can be a defense if a plaintiff has waited a long time to come foward with a motion or a lawsuit, and if the delay or the late timing might work toward the advantage of the plaintiff. It could allow a judge to rule against a plaintiff if the timing turns out to be an important factor in the overall situation. Not sure if Judge Mahan is inclined to consider that or not.
The caucus rules were set up initially in March of 2007 and approved by the DNC in August. The suit was filed one week before the caucus date of 1/19.
Hey Matthew, ALL of the presidential campaigns, including Hillary Clinton's campaign, helped set this up in March, 2007.
It was done to help ALL shift workers on the strip.
To change the rules at this late date means that shift workers would have to find out their new site, make arrangements for taking more time off work, possibly at a different point in their shift, change child care arrangements, and make transportation arrangements.
Sincere people would have addressed their alleged concerns at a much earlier date so that people could have time to plan -- not a few days before the caucuses and after an endorsement.
But then it is obvious to any reasonable person that we are not talking about sincere people here.
The transparency of this classic “Republican” voter suppression tactic is only eclipsed by the audacity of it.