Just plain politics at play in at-large caucus site brouhaha

Fri, Jan 18, 2008 (2 a.m.)

So was Thursday’s decision by Judge James Mahan a victory for democracy, enfranchising hundreds, maybe thousands of workers whose bosses want them on-site so they can maximize sucker-fleecing?

Or was it a terrible travesty for Nevada, ratifying a caucus system that was slanted toward the Culinary Union by giving members a disproportionate say in who wins Saturday?

The answer is somewhere between those two extremes as Mahan’s affirmation of the state Democratic Party’s delegate selection plan ended an acrimonious, personalized conflagration that threatened to burn down The Little Caucus That Could. Mahan may have doused the fire but the scorched earth this blaze left behind will leave wounds that will not be soon forgotten. And all of this has clouded what had become a perfect set of conditions for Nevada in its new early-decider role we even have Iowa/New Hampshire-like cold weather! as the Democratic race for the nomination reached new levels of intensity within the confines of the Silver State.

This was never as simple as it was spun by both sides, nor was it as complicated as some might make it. The road to this hellish conflict was paved by people with good intentions who wanted to ensure The Little Caucus That Could had a robust turnout. In so doing, they concocted a legally quirky scheme with the help of casino and Culinary bosses that never would have become an issue if the race hadn’t been tied at one state apiece and Nevada hadn’t been seen as the tiebreaker and momentum bestower.

Does anyone out there no matter whom you support really believe it is purely a coincidence that this lawsuit was filed after the Culinary, doing a better Hamlet than Olivier in his prime, finally endorsed after weeks of dithering? That was the catalyzing event and anyone who tells you otherwise is either hopelessly blinded by candidate love or simply doesn’t know the facts and history.

Indeed, the amount of misinformation disseminated in the past week has been astonishing by both local and out-of-state media outlets. To wit:

Many simply declared the suit was filed by “Clinton supporters.” This is patently false. The plaintiffs were party folks who had been questioning the delegate plan even though they had voted on it but probably failed to realize the potential fallout and the teachers union and its president, who has not taken a position in the race.

But even if you give the plaintiffs the best of it and I do that they were unwitting pawns in a greater scheme and really believed the plan was unfair, you cannot banish the politics so blithely. Two points: Does anyone think the Clinton campaign would be clumsy enough to have its own supporters file the suit? And does anyone really believe teachers union boss Lynn Warne awoke with a start one night, had an epiphany about the so-called unfairness of the plan and decided to file a lawsuit?

I can do plenty of dot-connecting and most of the time in Nevada politics it’s not Kevin Bacon-like degrees of separation, it’s just one or two. Such is the case here and one other question comes to mind: Is there anyone out there who thinks the Clinton campaign would have been so adamant and that the former president would have been so incensed if Hillary had snared the endorsement? If so, I would like to sell you some Fred Thompson-for-president futures.

So is the plan fair? It depends on what the definition of “fair” is.

The plan attempts to mimic state law, which allows greater delegate apportionments for rural areas, which have megaprecincts. The at-large sites essentially are megaprecincts. But that analogy is not perfect the state law deals with registered voters in precincts and the delegate plan deals with attendance at the caucus sites.

The problem is, there was no perfect scheme to apportion delegates if you create these megaprecincts. It may seem unfair to allow a ratio of delegate apportionment that is as much as a 10-1 difference from regular precincts. But does it make sense that a regular precinct is given a fixed amount of delegates whether one person or 800 show up?

Let’s face it: Party politics are ipso facto screwy. So it’s not surprising that this plan has some screws loose. But Mahan’s decision was that’s how political parties operate, and he clearly recognized the lateness of the filing hour.

Whatever the decision actually means and whatever long-term schisms it causes, here’s an idea for the next quadrennial drama: How about a primary, Democrats?

Discussion: 14 comments so far…

By 1950democrat

1/18/08 at 7:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

What a very sensible article! This is really good journalism.

As to next year -- if a conventional primary is too expensive (or would be a problem for workers), then how about a vote by mail primary? Vote by mail is already the normal thing for general elections, in some western states. Ballots are mailed out to all registered voters and can be returned any time within a month. Counting can be done throughout the month, to head off crises like in the Florida 2000 election. If there are challenges, the paper trail is aleady there.
By texex

1/18/08 at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

The truth of the matter is that the suit was an ill-conceived, ill-timed power surge by Clark County Dem Chair John Hunt to take over the state party using good people as stooges and the TEA as the pursebook.

Obviously it totally backfired and instead of actually bringing the "fairness" of the caucusux into quesion, it legitimized it.

As punishment for all these childish games the DNC has already reinstalled another caucusux for 2012 but this time we are gratefully going to be waaaay out of national attention.

Yes, at the end of the day Hairless Reid is still driving the bus as he clearly now owns the bus company.

Thanks, Hunt!
By Ruralsrule

1/18/08 at 9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sound analysis, Jon. Thanks for illuminating these complex issues so clearly.
By Knowzitall

1/18/08 at 5:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Thank you Jon...great stuff
By PAnderson

1/18/08 at 8:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Umm. Mr. Ralston what about Debbie Cahill plaintiff in the suit, Deputy Executive Director of the NSEA, Clinton supporter and member of the campaign's Nevada Women's Leadership Council?

No Clintonians involved "patently false"?

What about the law firm representing the plaitiffs with Clinton contributors and former Rep. Bilbray (a Clinton supporter) in it?

And that was just a quick google using the AP.

Some further explanation is needed Mr. Ralston but given the editorial board and publisher's leanings in this paper, I won't hold my breath.
By Jade7243

1/18/08 at 8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Um, excuse me Mr. Ralston, but I was reading your paper to learn the identities and connections of the persons involved in the lawsuit. If you have proof to the contrary of what was reported on the NEWS pages of your paper as FACT, perhaps you should mosey down the hall and let the real reporters in on the deal. And that other Nevada paper you refer to as "internet illiterate" elsewhere, along with other media outlets, seemed to get the story perfectly straight. And I might AND SO DID YOU -- that is until the Sun ENDORSED Clinton.

Coincidence? we'll be the judge...

The Clintons were involved via their connections to the key players in the lawsuit. And it doesn't take a Yucca Mountain nuclear scientist to connect the dots between no lawsuit pre-endorsement to big-A** lawsuit post-endorsement.

We are not that stupid. Do not play Clintonian games with us. We know exactly in front of whose shoes you and Mr. Greenspun are kneeling.
By Jeffko

1/19/08 at 7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

One More Year
No More Fear

Bush Will be outta Here
The skies will be clear

One More Year
No more NeoCon Fear

Get out today and choose
Make sure the republicans lose

One more year
the whole world will cheer

Bush will take flight
The Dems will make it right

One more year
Time to decimate fear

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Kucinich too
Make those republicans look like fools

One more year
No more fear
By rem123

1/19/08 at 7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jade7243, thank-you, i could not of said it any better. But also want to add to what you said. Prior to the Obama endorsement by the union--the Clinton's said nothing. It wasn't until they endorsed Obama-we saw a rise in the hypocrisy. Ralston aught to be ashamed of himself.
By ARMYSFCC

1/19/08 at 9 a.m.

Suggest removal

Why would anyone support a candidate with such poor decision making skills?
When Clinton cast her vote to support the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, she cast the vote to start the housing decline and the foreclosure frenzy going on now. Her poor judgement in casting her Iraq war vote, has caused her to take more positions on that than the karma sutra. We need a President who can make the right decision at the right time, not a President who can justify making the wrong decision years ago. Judgement Matters!!!!

OBAMA/EDWARDS 08!!!!!!
By prouddemocrat

1/19/08 at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

This article is Clinton camp spin. Did Phil Singer and Howard Wolfson help write this article?
By prouddemocrat

1/19/08 at 10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

jfnikki is a moron. Do you believe everything the Clintons say? Obama applauded Reagan's ability to rally the nation around a conservative agenda, just like Obama has the ability to rally the nation around a progressive agenda. Of course the Clintons are upset because this is sore point -- the reality that Hillary cannot move this nation in the right direction, rather, she would simply pass incremental bills here and there. We need a real change, which requires mobilizing Independents and Republicans around your view, something Hillary cannot do. Thats what Obama was saying and thats why it caused the Clintons to distort his comments, and, apparently, convinced a few morons that Obama actually supports Reagan. Weird.
By denwa

1/19/08 at 10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

The further away you get from Chicago, the more the saintly image takes hold.

Publications like the New Yorker may coo for Obama, but the two Chicago newspapers are much more interested in Obama's close 17-year friendship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a long-time Obama pal and donor, and property developer awaiting trial on charges of attempted extortion, money laundering and fraud. A low-income housing project received more than $14m from taxpayers while Obama was a state senator, but he consistently denied that he had done any favours for Rezko. That was until the Chicago Sun-Times unearthed two letters Obama wrote to state officials in 1998 urging them to grant extra funds for Rezko's project.

Democrats and Republicans alike in Chicago, too, are intrigued by the question of why Obama paid $1.65m for a mansion in the city's south side in 2005 - $300,000 less than the asking price - on the very same day Rezko's wife happened to buy the house next door for the asking price.

Obama is a con man, folks.