More than 116,000 caucusgoers, lots of chaos

By David McGrath Schwartz, Michael Mishak

Mon, Jan 21, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Caucus confusion

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

The Culinary and The Caucus

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Phudio & Audio: The Voters have Spoken
My Caucus: Share your experience

2008 Caucus Coverage

The Nevada State Democratic Party had its big day Saturday, achieving, by most metrics, an astounding success, turning out more than 116,000 people to caucus.

That’s more than 10 times the number of Democrats who participated in the party’s caucus four years ago.

What’s more, the party apparently picked up 30,000 to 40,000 new registrations on Saturday, said Jean Hessburg, former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party, hired by Nevada Democrats as a caucus consultant. Those new voters could swing the state sharply into the Democratic column in the November election.

Still, many caucusgoers complained to reporters at the scene or e-mailed the Sun after about chaos at many caucus sites. They found long lines. The doors closed early. Once inside, instead of holding discussions about the merits of candidates, supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama typically separated and started jeering.

On Sunday, party officials attributed some problems to enormous turnout and to a steep learning curve for thousands of volunteers responsible for running the meetings.

The party expected 50,000 people at the high end — 75,000 on an outside chance.

In many cases, caucus chairs were simply overwhelmed, said state party Chairwoman Jill Derby. “We feel like we did a lot,” she said, in terms of preparing for the caucus. “But clearly there’s a lot more to do. We will absolutely revisit this based on what we’ve heard.”

Derby said she understands the frustration of many Democrats and expects the issue of what type of nominating contest the state uses — caucus or primary — to come up in the state Legislature. She said she does not favor a change if it would affect the state’s early state status.

“We’ve been very committed to showing well so we could remain in this early window,” Derby said. “People said we were apathetic. We booted that out of the water Saturday.”

The last-minute crunch of a nationally televised debate, candidate visits and a controversial lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of caucus sites on the Strip excited voters, who clogged the phones at Democratic Party headquarters the week before the caucus, Hessburg said.

“I don’t mean to diminish the problems, but even if this was a primary, with that much turnout, it would have been the same grumbling,” Hessburg said. “You’re building toward this capacity issue, and this blew our turnout plans out of the water. I was surprised we didn’t have to put out more fires.”

There were plenty of fires though. Hessburg said 100 hotline numbers for caucus chairs and campaigns were jammed from 10:30 a.m. till about noon.

A few complaints conveyed to the Sun:

• At Rancho High School, precinct chairwoman Thelma Hernandez had to consult the party’s hotline at least three times, including once at 12:15 p.m. when it was discovered that five voters had to be added to the mix because they had mistakenly been sent to another precinct. By 12:36, people started trickling out, impatient with the repeated counts.

• At Doolittle Community Center, at least 100 people waited in line, causing frayed nerves. “This is awful,” Kim Heinrichs said. Though she has voted and been registered at the same address for seven years, when she reached the sign-up desk after waiting an hour, she was told she was not on the rolls and had to reregister.

• Thomas Igo, who caucused at Eldorado High School, said that after he waited in line at the main building, he learned that his precinct was meeting in the gymnasium. By the time he got there, he had to fill out a preference card in Spanish, because all the ones in English were gone, he said.

“I’m 73 years old, and it’s hard as hell sit on a bench in a gymnasium,” Igo said. “I’ve been voting since Eisenhower, and I will not vote at another caucus, this state or any other state.”

Some of the confusion can be laid at the feet of the Clinton campaign, which sent out a handbook incorrectly saying what time doors would shut. “Doors will shut at 11:30 a.m., or as soon as everyone who came at by (sic) 11:30 a.m. is registered,” according to a caucus guide handed out to Clinton precinct captains.

Doors were not supposed to close until noon, and those in line were supposed to be allowed to participate.

The Obama campaign highlighted the discrepancy in a call to reporters on Sunday and said it would ask the party for a full review. But Bob Bauer, Obama’s campaign counsel, also said: “We’re not calling the vote into question at all. Any activity that is disenfranchising is important, and here has emerged a striking one.”

On a conference call with reporters, Robby Mook, Clinton’s Nevada campaign director, disputed that his organization passed out false information. When the handbook was quoted to him, he said: “It was never clear exactly as to when doors are actually closed.” He pointed to conflicting parts in the state party handbook that alternately said doors closed at 11:30 and noon. The party says its handbook made the information clear.

Howard Wolfson, national communication director for Clinton, said the campaign never told supporters to close doors. He and other Clinton campaign staff members criticized the Obama organization for “strong-arm tactics,” tactics the Sun could not confirm despite reviewing a half-dozen cases brought to the newspaper by the campaign.

When interviewed by Sun reporters at all nine at-large caucus sites on the Strip, no Clinton supporters in the Culinary Union complained of intimidation.

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By dannysoapbox

1/21/08 at 4:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

You're a day late and a dollar short when it comes to being impartial, Sun.

Haven't any of you in the media noticed...that a startling disproportion of the bad propaganda and questionable behavior by "surrogates" comes out of the Clinton camp?

If that's the kind of experience you want...same-old, same-old politics (and politicians)...then I hope the Clinton's purchase of your editorial endorsement was worth it...so tepid and bland was your pledged support--I'm not at all certain you didn't have a Clintonian rep review it before going to press.

And what kind of Journalism is that???
By kennekra

1/21/08 at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

As a Precinct Chair in one of the precincts at Cram Middle School. The biggest source of confusion is people did not know what precinct they were in and when they did know their precinct, they didn't know where their precinct was caucusing. There was no master map in a central location and given that people were coming in from every possible entrance it was easy to see how confusion ensued.

I've heard of issues with both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. A friend caucusing at Lied Middle School who didn't know what precinct she lived in asked what precinct she was in, and her answer from someone wearing Obama gear was "well that depends on who your are supporting."

Again, logistically, this caucus was much better than 2004. At least we weren't sent out to a football field because of issues with capacity. It's a learning experience. We don't have the experience that they have in Iowa and Iowa still has issues every time.

Anyone who questions the Sun's objectivity should check out the RJ.
By eldoraldo

1/21/08 at 10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Good job Sun. I thought journalism was supposed to be non-biased. Your endorsement of Clinton and most importantly the editorial on the endorsement was biased. The language used appeared to be that of an attack rather than a constructive critisism in choosing either candidate. Sun stayed biased throughout the remaining days before the caucus and practiced selective journalism choosing headlines that makes no sense and favor one candidate. Three days ago you would not have carried news of such irregularities.

I have decided not subscribe to Sun anymore or read misleading news. I am appalled with the kind of journalism and the editoria board.

You do not have to choose Obama over Clinton, but do not misrepresent facts.
By VegasDem

1/21/08 at 11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Incredible bias here, Sun -- since your own web site gives the same time for registration to end that the Clinton campaign workers used. Have you even looked at your own caucus guide on this site?

The state Dem party site says the same . . . although its own official rules say different things on different pages.

Put the blame where it belongs: Not on the Clinton camp, which asked for exactly what your own guide says to do, Sun. Put it on the state Dem party for being so disorganized that its handbook disagreed with its own official rules.

And do a correction for this story. And provide information on where you got your information for your guide. That might help unravel this.
By ionfield

1/21/08 at 2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

I am absolutely disgusted by the Nevada caucus process. It is ridiculous, confusing, and extremely undemocratic. Saturday, January 19, 2008, was my first and will be my only participation in a caucus.

To begin with, there was grossly inadequate parking available. Many who drove and could not find parking simply turned around and left.

Once I was parked, no one knew to which of the many caucus precinct locations at the school I should go. Many others arriving there also did not know their precinct number. Unaware that I would have to know my precinct number, I did not have it and no one else there officiating was able to find it until after much frustration and wasted time in going from location to location, someone finally went to their car to retrieve a precinct map. Many others just gave up and left.

When the caucus process did get started, attendees whose nominee preference did not meet the minimum requirement for viability left in disgust without having an opportunity to cast a vote for their candidate. I am quite sure they also will not participate in future caucuses.

This whole caucus process is very undemocratic. Other than some Strip workers who happened to live close enough to where they work, others that have to work when a caucus is held are excluded from the process. This affects many minority workers. Certain religious worshipers are also excluded from a Saturday caucus when they have to choose between the dictates of their religion and expressing their political preference.

Others excluded from the caucus are invalids and members of the armed services stationed out of the area and in Iraq. How democratic is it that those fighting for our freedom and democracy are not allowed to cast a vote for their presidential nominee? This is not a democratic process.

Another problem with the caucus process is the lack of voting secrecy. This includes the intimidation by some of the more overzealous participants, and the peer pressure to fit in with the crowd rather than voting one’s own true conscience. It can only be guessed at how many feel disenfranchised and are no longer on speaking terms with their neighbors.

I look forward to massive class action lawsuits against the political parties, the state of Nevada, and any other organization and/or persons responsible for this ridiculous, undemocratic, and unconstitutional process. I will be among those supporting such a lawsuit. If the Nevada legislature and governor feel paying for primary elections is too costly, perhaps after facing and having to defend against a series of multi-billion dollar class action lawsuits, the cost of primaries may look like a nickel bargain.

What we need is new legislators and a governor who support true democracy and will bring back primaries where everyone has an opportunity to cast a vote in secrecy for their choice of candidates.
By noelb

1/22/08 at 9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

I am truly shocked by what appears to be the irresponsible attitude of your newspaper. Like many others I depended on your reports to keep up with the caucuses and I appreciated your extensive coverage. Then, after Obama's campaign made the claims that the Clintons rigged the caucuses by illegally closing the doors at 11:30, you fanned the flames and let that accusation stand without correcting it. Sure enough, on MSNBC yesterday, the claim was confirmed, because, as the guest, Mr. Wolfe, claimed, the Clintons did illegally close the doors and that swung the election, as -- he said -- confirmed by local media.

Yet we see the correction above, which you have apparently ignored. And I have heard the same correction on Las Vegas radio, that both the official handbook and your own voters guide misled caucus-goers and organizers into believing that the doors were to be closed at 11:30, with the official guide in another place stating the noon closing. Are all those people lying? Or is your newspaper going to clarify with a prominent correction about your own role and the role of the handbook in confusing people and adding to the "chaos," as your reporter described it.

If you do not clear this up, the charges of a rigged caucus are going to continue and you will be at least partially responsible for misleading or seriously confusing the public. As an editor, I know the canons of journalism and the heavy responsibility on editors. Isn't it time that your editors do the right thing with a new and separate story or Op-Ed piece?