Ruling on Strip voting looks likely today

6 percent of state delegates could be at stake

Thursday, Jan. 17, 2008 | 2 a.m.

2008 Caucus Coverage

Caucus Guide: Biographies, Issues Overview and a how to caucus video.
Political blog: Continuous updates
Interactive: Candidate Selector and Trivia Game
Caucus Locator: For Democratic locations, or GOP sites.

The dispute threatening to undermine Nevada’s caucus is likely to be ruled on today as a U.S. District Court judge considers a legal challenge to plans to provide at-large caucus sites designed for workers on the Strip.

The state Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee filed legal arguments Wednesday opposing the lawsuit, which seeks to prevent nine casino caucus sites from operating during Saturday’s Democratic caucus because they give casino workers, mostly members of the Culinary Union, an unfair advantage over other caucusgoers across the state.

The state party and the national committee are fighting the lawsuit on several grounds, including the last-minute nature of the challenge. “By sitting on their hands until a few days before the caucus ... plaintiffs have forfeited any claim,” the response said, citing a doctrine that bars abusive 11th-hour challenges.

The response also notes that four of the plaintiffs voted in favor of the plan to create the at-large sites. The lawsuit was filed by five Democrats and the Nevada State Education Association, the teachers union.

The state and national parties also argue that political parties have a right to structure their own delegate selection procedures.

The case will be heard by Judge James C. Mahan.

William Curran, attorney for the state party, said he expects the judge to rule today.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit Friday, two days after the Culinary endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. The union represents many Strip workers.

Former President Clinton stepped up his criticism of at-large precincts Wednesday, arguing that votes there would be worth five times those at off-Strip sites. He repeated that neither he nor his wife’s campaign had anything to do with the lawsuit.

The state party said it expects 6 percent of the total delegates in the state the numbers of which will determine winners and losers in the caucus to come from the Strip sites.

Discussion: 9 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

By Gamblndan

Jan. 17, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Do we really want the Scandel ridden Clintons back in our white house...Just remember..Ken Starr, Monica Lewinsky, Linda trip! Nafta...that took all of those American jobs away!

Bill got oral from an intern in the oval office...He lied under oath " I didnt have sexual relations with Mis lewinsky" and was up for impeachment!

They are liars and power hungry!

The problem is that George Bush has been such a total disaster, that he makes the Clintons look good by comparison!

Do we really want these people representing our country to the rest of the world. They are not change..they are the same tired BS! Lets go forward, not backwards.

I want a man of character, and class. A man who is inspiring, and hopeful for our future.

Obama is the clear choice, and could take our country in a new direction that we havent seen in 40 years.

Please vote with your heads, and think this through!
By BritCat

Jan. 17, 2008

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

If the Teachers Union, or anyone else, had had genuine concerns about the integrity of the caucus, they had nine months in which to challenge these at-large caucuses. This is nothing more than an attempt at voter suppression by Clinton supporters, some of whom actually approved the provision of these temporary caucus places.

I never thought I would see the day when the Clintons, whom I used to respect, would resort to Karl Rove tactics.

People, please use sense and send a clear message to the nation that 11th hour interference with the vote will not be tolerated. If the court rules against at-large caucuses, do all you can to help your neighbors get back home to participate.

As for me, my vote is with Obama.
By eades

Jan. 17, 2008

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

The judge's decision today to go ahead with the caucus as planned is great news. This lawsuit was a groundless waste of time, taxpayers money, and union members' dues: A last-minute attempt to change the rules so that the Clintons could have a better shot at winning. I hope they pay dearly for their arrogance and their insistent meddling. Go, Obama!
By skywater

Jan. 17, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yesterday, Bill Clinton said that Hillary Clinton is the Insurgent and Obama represents the Establishment. Yes, he actually said that yesterday. Do you think the Clintons are the Insurgents in this presidential election or part of the established Democratic Party? I suspect that the Clintons are part of the establishment.

The establishment at large, including the mass media, wants to see a Clinton versus McCain presidential election. The reason is that both of these candidates are part of the establishment as well. This means
business as usual, the business of making money, not for you or me, but for themselves.

The establishment has been trying influence these elections on many levels, not just through the media.

The Democratic Party on a national level has super delegates consisting of high level Democrats who are part of the Democratic Party establishment who get an entire delegate vote all to themselves. Its very unfair, anti-democratic, yet not against the law. According to CNN right now, Hillary Clinton has 166 super delegates committed to her, more than twice her nearest competitor, Obama. Bill Clinton
himself is a super delegate.

In a similar manner, at the local level in Nevada the Democratic Party establishment weighted the newly created casino caucuses to help the establishment nominee, in this case Clinton, win. Unfortunately for
her this backfired when the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama. The establishment quickly filed suit through their proxy the teachers union. Bill Clinton has spoken out against the casino caucuses as
being unfair. I agree. It is very unfair, anti-democratic, but it is not against the law.

I would love to ask the Clintons, "Now that you know super delegates aren't fair just like the casino caucuses, will Bill give up his super delegate vote?" or will both of you remain firmly entrenched in the
establishment, playing politics, business as usual, making money, not for you or me, but for the establishment.

This is a race between the establishment Clintons and the candidates for change Obama and Edwards. Which do you want?
By markkraft

Jan. 17, 2008

9:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Hey Latinos.... Bill Clinton didn't want you to vote, because he thought it would hurt his wife's chances to get elected. But can you vote?!

"Si! Se puede!"