Editorial:

What’s fair? What’s legal?

Lawsuit poses legitimate questions as Nevada’s caucuses are coming down to the wire

Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2008 | 2 a.m.

The interest that has been building over the past several months as Nevada voters awaited the Democratic presidential caucuses now has a companion emotion tension.

A new development, at least for most voters, has sparked a lawsuit and a debate about whether the caucuses are going to be fair to all candidates or weighted toward Sen. Barack Obama.

The issue involves “at-large” precincts, which had gone virtually unnoticed until the Nevada State Education Association and six individuals filed a lawsuit Friday against the Nevada Democratic Party.

At-large precincts were created and approved by the party early last year, ostensibly for the benefit of shift workers at Strip hotels. But do they really benefit the workers or do they benefit the Culinary Union, to which most of the workers belong?

On Wednesday the 60,000-member Culinary Union endorsed Obama. The special at-large districts will enable union officials to monitor whom their members support an advantage that gives the union a big edge in ensuring that its endorsement carries influence, which translates to power.

The lawsuit argues that the nine at-large precincts all located in hotels contravene Nevada law, which assigns voters to precincts based on where they live, not where they work. The suit also contends that because the at-large districts will be much more densely populated with eligible attendees than average neighborhood precincts, they will be sending a larger number of delegates to the county convention all to the advantage of their candidate.

Also addressed in the lawsuit is fairness. The biggest criticism of a caucus vs. a primary is that it excludes those who must work when the caucus is in session.

We agree on this point: Why should one class of workers those who work shifts on the Strip have a larger say than others?

Mentioned in the lawsuit were those school district employees who will be working Saturday the day of Nevada’s caucus to monitor school buildings where many precinct caucuses will be held. No at-large district is available to them.

The union argues that Nevada moved its caucuses ahead expressly so that labor and minorities could have a bigger say in who becomes president. That’s correct, to a point. As we see it, the caucuses were moved up so that all labor organizations and minorities in the state could get a bigger say, not just the Culinary Union.

Discussion: 11 comments so far…

By KidFromVegas

1/15/08 at 7:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh Brian, your Hillary is showing...
By JenniferM

1/15/08 at 9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

It's obvious that Hillary has the press in her pocket. Well, who is going to help out the Culinary Workers who want to caucus, but can't? Who will speak for them as they are denied access to the caucuses? You know very well that these arrangements for at-large caucus site were made months ago. Where was your outrage during these months? Clearly, you side with Senator Clinton by participating in her marketing effort to disenfranchise voters and position their right to caucus as some kind of sinister, unfair act. Give me a break. Nevada citizens--not judges and lawsuit outcomes--should decide Nevada elections. Shame on you. Shame on you for pandering to a politician that rarely steps foot in Nevada--instead of furthering the best interests of the voters of Nevada who live and work here.
By samisacd

1/15/08 at 9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

These so-called "at large" districts sound illegal to me.
By CynicalObserver

1/15/08 at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

It's clear from JenniferM's comments that she's an illiterate idiot...at least from the point of view of understanding the U.S. Constitution, the Nevada Constitution and the Nevada election law.

She says "You know very well that these arrangements for at-large caucus sites were made months ago".

It does not matter who agreed to what. A bunch of people (like the cigar smoking good old boys who used to run the Democratic party in Alabama) cannot prejudice the voting rights of ALL of the Democrats in the state.

By the structure of the Strip caucuses, it's very clear that each vote at those sites will count far more, in terms of choosing delegates, than my vote will count because I have to vote at my local elementary school.

Let's say I want my caucus vote to have more power. If I get in my car, park at one of the 9 casinos, go up stairs, show my Voter Registration Card showing I'm a Democrat, the people running the Caucus will refuse to let me participate, because I don't work on the Strip.
By eades

1/15/08 at 11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

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.
By InTown

1/15/08 at 3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

What everyone should understand here is that the Culinary Union was NOT suppose to endorse a candidate. By doing so they tried to take advantage of the system and to one up the other unions in the state.

Obama does not want this because he is hoping for voter fraud and intimidation by the Cullinary. Look at fliers they send out spreading false information? Where is the outrage from St. Obama? Missing because he's just like every other politician. Obama will lose if the members of the Cullinary union are allowed to vote the candidate they want..he absolutely knows this ! These sites must exist because they can provide the best ground to threaten their members into doing what they want.
By Matthew

1/15/08 at 4:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

After reading the complaint, it is clear the casino caucus sites should be stopped as they do not appear to follow any number of laws, nor the concept of one-person, one-vote. Rather than blame the messenger, the people who are trying to pull off the fraud and travesty of casino-based caucuses for their union members should be taken to task.
By slbk

1/16/08 at 9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

A precondition of these workplace sites should have been no union endorsements or participation at these workplaces. As soon as the Culinary endorsed any candidate these sites should have been shut down automatically.
By DemOnTheEdge

1/16/08 at noon

Suggest removal

It's clear from Cynical Observers post that this individual is a mean spirited Clinton supporter for attacking that poster (Jennifer) like that.

She has a valid point, this writer wrote only what was necessary to prove their point. No mention of the fact the 4 of the 6 lawyers who approved of the at-large caucuses while Sen. Clinton was showing a national advantage, were the same individuals who raised this lawsuit, your Good Old Boys who consequently work for a Law firm that has long supported Sen. Clinton. It is too much of a coincidence to believe that this has no political intent since it was filed after the Culinary endorsement. They are lawyers for God sakes do you actually think that they had not considered a non-endorsement clause before hand, (that would require the willing suspension of disbelief) to accept, they were judging by the polls and felt strongly that Sen. Clinton would have gotten any endorsement by the Culinary Workers Union. She didn't and now we are having this discussion. The NSEA dispute also doesn't speak for the entire association, as many have spoken out against the lawsuit stating that many in the NSEA leadership are recorded Clinton supporters, and in their opinion this was clearly politically motivated. The posters here act as though the caucuses are only for culinary workers on the strip, thats mis-information actually its for everyone working within 2.5 miles of the strip the most highly populated geographic location in the entire state. Restuarant employees, gas & grocery store employees, postal workers so on and so forth will all be able to participate in the electorial process due to what everyone felt was a satisfactory agreement (without a non-endorsement clause) By the way the Culinary Workers Union is not just made up of blacks and hispanics, nor illegal aliens as many posters here would suggest, you betray your party and seriously hurt her campaign by making that claim. Wakeup, have you not eyes to see look at the News look at what this election has been debased to. Sour milk on hot Nevada sands, this all epitomizes this collapsing party, and the death of all the long sought after democratic principles of inclusion and representation.
change or nothing, if the negativity of this campaign in any way concludes with a candidate winning the nomination due to it, I will step over the edge and vote Republican in the general election in protest and admonish everyone I know to do the same, my family has voted democratic ever since they were first allowed to vote, I want nothing to do with a candidate, party, or any American citizen in general who feels as though this hateful, cynical, pandering, destructive, bias, un-inclusive, slanderous, mud-slinging, immature, and totally un-American way of business could ever make this country a better.
By DemOnTheEdge

1/16/08 at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

sorry for yelling? seriously
By Maggie101

1/17/08 at 8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

The rules were unanimously approved by the state Democratic Party in March and ratified by the Democratic National Committee in August.

But Friday, six Democrats and a teachers union, which has ties to the Clinton campaign, sued to shut the sites on grounds they allocate too many delegates to one group. Of roughly 10,000 delegates to Nevada's presidential nominating convention, more than 700 could be selected at casino caucuses, depending on turnout, which could make them more valuable than some sparsely populated Nevada counties, the lawsuit said. Four plaintiffs are on the committee that approved the sites.

The DNC petitioned to join the suit on behalf of the state party Tuesday.

Hello!!!!! Sounds like voter suppression to me. It's just so funny how Hillary supported this, but turned on it when they endorsed Obama. If they win this lawsuit, it's just another sad sad day in America knowing the rich and powerful can get away with horrible things like this. Sure the Teachers union filed it, but they filed it for Hillary. Oh the ego of the Clinton's, it's quite disgusting. I guarantee you if she wins the Democratic vote, that another Republican will win...Do you honestly think the people who supported Obama or Edwards is going to go with Hillary, hahaha after seeing her dirty tactics, yeah right, they either are not going to vote, or they are going to swing to the Republican side.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question