Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Democracy? Not really

Clinton or Obama — ‘superdelegates’ could sway nomination

It might be the Democratic caucuses and primaries, but that doesn’t mean it’s a democratic process.

The selection of the Democratic presidential nominee could come down to the choices made by elected officials and other party leaders, including those from Nevada. It’s the latest reminder that the parties don’t have to follow otherwise treasured electoral principles when picking their nominee.

Two of Nevada’s leaders going to the Democratic National Convention in August have pledged support for Sen. Hillary Clinton. One is backing Sen. Barack Obama.

Nevada’s five other “superdelegates” — the designation of national party leaders and elected officials — are uncommitted. They have offered few clues about how they will make their choice if the party ends up at the Democratic National Convention without a clear candidate.

Nationally, there are 796 superdelegates, and each will have a vote that carries the same weight as the other delegates’, but the superdelegates were appointed by the party, not elected.

Nevada’s superdelegates say they think — and hope — that by August, when the convention is held, either Obama or Clinton will emerge as the party’s clear nominee.

If not, the superdelegates could sway the nomination away from the candidate who got the majority of delegates determined by primaries and caucuses.

Obama has a slim overall lead in delegates, one Clinton has chipped away at, thanks to her current advantage among the superdelegates, according to tallies by news organizations.

Both, though, still are well short of the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

A scenario in which superdelegates sway the nomination against the majority of pledged delegates selected in caucuses and primaries would be “pretty unfortunate,” said state Sen. Steven Horsford, the superdelegate committed to Obama. “I think that the majority of the delegates — those that are representative of voters of states — should decide who the nominee is.”

Clinton backers in Nevada, not surprisingly, defended the superdelegate system. Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid, who headed Clinton’s Nevada campaign, said the superdelegates represent experience and commitment to the Democratic Party and should have a say.

He criticized Obama’s campaign for now characterizing the process as undemocratic, even though many of the Illinois senator’s wins came in caucus states, where turnout is lower than in primaries.

“Nothing is more undemocratic than a caucus,” Reid said. “To now say superdelegates should not play a role, after what they’ve done with the caucuses, is hypocritical at best.”

There are other examples of how the presidential selection process does not follow the “one person, one vote” standard.

Take Nevada’s caucus results.

Even though Clinton solidly beat Obama in Nevada, getting 51 percent of county delegates to 45 percent, Obama could end up with more pledged delegates to the national convention because he did better in many of the state’s rural areas. Under the party’s math, rural areas have greater clout than urban areas when delegates are apportioned, putting Obama on pace to get 13 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 12.

But that breakdown could change.

County delegates chosen in the January caucus will select representatives to the state convention on Feb. 23. The state delegates then will pick representatives to the national convention.

Delegates can switch allegiances at the county and state conventions, but are legally bound to support a particular candidate once they have been selected to attend the national convention.

Even trying to gauge superdelegates’ support can be tricky. State Sen. Dina Titus and Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas, both support Clinton. Then things get murky.

Former Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates is a superdelegate because of her past position with the Democratic National Committee. Under police investigation on allegations of campaign finance improprieties, she could not be reached for comment. But Gates was an early supporter of Clinton, according to one highly placed Democrat.

That leaves the other uncommitted superdelegates. Sen. Harry Reid, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada Democratic Party Chairwoman Jill Derby and First Vice Chairman Sam Lieberman say they will remain uncommitted until the convention.

How will they make their decisions?

Harry Reid said he will wait for states to finish voting.

“Until then, I’m not going to weigh in on this — at all,” Reid said.

Rory Reid, Harry Reid’s son, said he has not pressed his father on the superdelegate vote. “I haven’t lobbied him,” Rory Reid said. “I think our positions go without saying in the family.”

Derby, Lieberman and Cortez Masto said they would take into account the state’s caucus results, but that it wouldn’t be the overriding issue.

“If it had been a blowout for one candidate, I would have probably gone with the Nevada candidate,” Lieberman said. “Because of how close it was ... it will probably play only a small role in my decision.”

Derby would not specify what criteria she will use to pick between Obama and Clinton, saying simply she will opt for “whoever I think will be best leader for America.”

But she said the superdelegates are a legitimate part of the process.

“The nominating process is a party process, so it’s fair enough that party leaders get a vote in the process,” she said.

From a historical perspective, voters getting a significant say is a relatively new part of the party’s nominating process.

The old process of party leaders gathering in the cliched smoke-filled room to pick the nominees “used to be worse,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor specializing in elections at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

After chaotic, contested conventions, there was a move to democratize the system. The superdelegates are a remnant of the party establishment holding onto its power, Hasen said.

Stephen Hess, a senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution, said the superdelegates represent an active, committed part of the party.

“This is what the parties were initially all about,” he said. “If it’s a question of fairness, what’s the definition? A person who has worked their whole life for a party, is a chairman of a party, or someone off the streets who spends two minutes voting? It’s a balance.”

Sun Reporter Lisa Mascaro in Washington, D.C., contributed to this story.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy