Let's get into the facts about the Nevada lawsuit

[Herman Munster]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/12/133648/896

In the wake of the Nevada Culinary Workers' Union endorsement of Barack Obama, and the Nevada Democratic party's creation of at-large precincts inside Las Vegas strip hotels, the Nevada Teachers' Union and six Nevada voters have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to ban the Democratic Party from holding the newly created caucuses.

The suit alleges that the newly created voting places inside hotels violates the "one person, one vote rule" and equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment by creating at-large precincts based solely on employment. A copy of the complaint is here (pdf.)

The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.

As to the party's decision to establish the precincts inside hotels:

The at-large precincts are being established because thousands of hotel workers cannot leave work to participate in the midday caucuses in their home precincts.
More...


The teachers union says many of their members will be unable to vote because at caucus time they are required to assist with caucuses being held at the schools they work at, even if they live in different precincts, which will prevent them from voting at their own caucuses.

By the numbers (from the lawsuit)

The new plan drawn up by the Democratic party calls for 1,754 caucuses at which 10,446 delegates will be chosen. 7,224 of them will be from Clark County, which includes Las Vegas. Clark County has more than 4,000 registered Democrats.

Unlike primaries in which people can vote all day, caucuses in Nevada, as in Iowa and elsewhere, require voters to show up at a specified time. To enable participation by those voters who will be working at the scheduled caucus time, the party created the new precincts using a formula based on districts with more than 4,000 shift workers who could not leave work to vote, rather than one based on residency.

The new at-large precincts are all inside the Las Vegas Strip hotels. Workers attending the hotel caucuses will have to provide identification showing them to be a shift worker and sign a declaration stating they can't attend their "home" caucus because of their work schedule.

The teachers, and other workers who can't attend caucuses because of work, are not being provided special caucuses and thus they won't be able to vote.

The lawsuit then analyzes the effect of the new "at large" caucus votes and alleges that the plan gives the hotel workers a disproportionately large number of delegates. Go read the lawsuit for the exact numbers but essentially it concludes the new system will create an additional 720 delegates for Clark County, which in turn will dilute the value of a delegate assignment and the voice of the other Clark County caucus participants.

The lawsuit also says the same procedure will carry through to the state convention and the selection of national delegates and thus diminish the impact of the votes of all Democrats in Nevada, not just those in Clark County.

There are no direct ties between the Clinton campaign and the lawsuit. However, the Times notes,

The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.
I don't think Hillary's campaign is behind this lawsuit. Hillary has consistently expressed her disapproval of a caucus system that requires presence at a certain time, thus preventing workers whose employers won't give them time off to exercise their right to vote. It was a problem in Iowa.

In thinking about other remedies, I'm wondering:

Why not a quickly passed law requiring employers to allow employees leave time for caucus voting? Would it help if caucus day were a state holiday?

What about allowing proxy voting at caucuses? The employees could group at work by residential caucus and give one designated member a declaration stating their preference, along with proof that they can't personally attend due to their work shift. The employer would agree that the designated members can attend their residential caucus to present his or her vote along with those of the other workers with proper certification. This would be applied to all workers, including teachers and hospital workers, not just casino workers.

I recognize that neither of the above is likely to be considered a feasible solution. Which leaves the question, should one group of workers be given special voting privileges just because there are so many of them?

I don't have an answer, but it does seem there is a problem.

[origin1286]

1. Don't caucuses happen at night?

"The teachers, and other workers who can't attend caucuses because of work, are not being provided special caucuses and thus they won't be able to vote."

Um...if teachers are teaching at 7 PM (I'm basing it on the time of the Iowa Caucus which IIRC was 7), sounds more like they volunteered.

Oh, and because all can't be included in special precincts doesn't mean no one should. As many voters as possible should be accomodated.

[sandnsea]

3. Saturday at noon, I think

It was all built around the Vegas service workers who were supposed to turn out big for Hillary.

[Herman Munster]

6. no

it starts at 11AM.

http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=26&extmode=view&extid=2

[origin1286]

7. Oh yeah, but it's on a Saturday. Teachers teach on Saturday?

[kikiek]

11. There are other democrats who work on Saturdays other than teachers. They aren't

being allowed to vote is the complaint. Also they said the agreement was changed and not the original one set forth.

[MADem]

15. Per the cited article

The teachers union says many of their members will be unable to vote because at caucus time they are required to assist with caucuses being held at the schools they work at, even if they live in different precincts, which will prevent them from voting at their own caucuses.

[MADem]

12. The teachers are being told they have to assist at their schools and cannot attend their own, is

what the article said.

Caucuses are fucking IDIOTIC. The more I see of them, the more stupid I think they are. They're the most undemocratic process ever.

One person, one vote, with provisions for absentee ballots--that's democracy. Not this "gaggle and peer pressure" bullshit.

[Orangepeel]

18. who's telling them they have to assist at their schools?

Who could make them do that?

[MADem]

24. School boards/superintendents, perhaps? Whoever signs their paychecks, I'd say.

They perhaps want the teachers taking positive control over their classrooms/workspaces...?

[Orangepeel]

26. I don't know Nevada law and I'm not a school teacher....

but I'd be shocked if their bosses can coerce public school teachers into participating in a political event. If so, that's what ought to be going to court.

Maybe the union and or the Democratic party was counting on them to volunteer to make the caucuses go smoothly. But that doesn't really make sense either because if that is a problem for the union/party, they can find other people.

[MADem]

27. Well, they aren't asking them to "participate" really--the teachers are griping BECAUSE they CANNOT

participate, actually. Where they work and where they live and caucus are two different places.

From what the article says, it would appear that the teachers are being asked to go to their schools in the capacity of school employees, to serve as gatekeepers/minders and maybe make sure the caucus-goers don't trash the joint, not to participate in a political fashion.

[Orangepeel]

28. well that's ridiculous if true

if they are being asked to go to work on a Saturday in order protect the school from damage that might occur during a political event, their union needed to pitch a fit (although they seem to be pitching a fit over the wrong thing).

[MADem]

30. Well, it's in the lawsuit, which is posted downthread.

The teachers aver they're being required to go to their workcenters and thus can't caucus at their designated locations.

The lawsuit makes the issues rather plain. The casino workers were being given a perk because of who they were/what their job was. That's not fair.

It's pretty plain, their case. We'll see how the judge rules.

[sandnsea]

2. They added the at-large caucuses to benefit UNIONS

You know, those unions who were supposed to go to Hillary. Those unions the Democratic Party wanted to give a voice to.

http://hill6.thehill.com/campaign-2008/nevada-builds-its-presidential-caucus-hopes-they-will-come-2006-12-13.html

Some people think the Nevada system is better than Iowa.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/9/135050/2591

[ursi]

4. the Nevada caucus was set up by insiders in the Reid party for Clinton

and to benefit future Reid anointed Democrats running for other offices ...they don't want too many people showing up.

Don't forget, teachers get Saturdays off and they are not the threat to Hillary ...casino workers and others are.

This caucus was a cruel joke played on Nevadans. Just like the cruel joke of the failed Faux News democratic presidential debates.

[ursi]

5. I forgot to add that a judge is hearing this lawsuit on Monday

[Drunken Irishman]

8. He won't rule in favor of Hillary's supporters.

And he shouldn't, because it could open up a big window for future lawsuits. Like, you know, since many polling places happen to be located in SCHOOLS. One could essentially say holding these polling locations in schools benefits the teachers and the teacher unions.

[Herman Munster]

9. the problem with a caucus is it is a set time

in an election, you can vote absentee. There is no disenfranchisement in an election.

[MADem]

13. Not if the school isn't at the teacher's caucus location--which the teachers are complaining about

They live in one place and work in another neighborhood and their caucus location is NOT where they teach, and they're being disenfranchised because they are being told they have to assist at the school where they teach, not at their caucus location--per the article upthread.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. And what if a teacher works at the same school she votes at?

I'm sure it happens.

But teachers aren't working on Saturday, many of these people are. I wouldn't care if they held a caucus at a school to help teachers get to the polling place. Yeesh, we should make it easier for people to vote, not harder!

[MADem]

23. Did you read the article?

The teachers are griping because they're being told to come to their schools ON SATURDAY to assist with the caucuses, and the schools are not in their caucus precincts.

Read the article. The information is actually IN the article.

[madrchsod]

10. no one complained until

the union switched when they found out mark penn worked with union busting thugs in suits. well maybe there is nothing to that story.

it`s not "so many..." the is the problem it is they can not have the time off to vote..yes the problem should have been addressed months ago but then again reid saw no problem and neither did the national party. maybe it will be straighted out soon

[Lucinda]

17. And how do you know "no one complained" before exactly?

[madrchsod]

22. i heard it through the grape vine...it`s to late to google

i`ll vote for who ever wins cause any of our candidates are better than the rethugs .but i`ll hold my nose with varying degrees of pressure. i have resigned to the fate because i know dennis hasn`t a chance.

[Lucinda]

33. I think he's going to do well in Michigan. Maybe that will give him some leverage.

I think they will have to seat the delegates, and DK is getting a lot of love from Michigan right now.

[cloudythescribbler]

19. This issue of timing is really crucial -- as the delay means this is at the last minute ...

The Courts have every reason in this situation to use the timing of the lawsuit against the plaintiffs, as the delay is SURELY prejudicial. It's not clear that a solution now is categorically impossible, but the issue is no different in principle from what it was months ago, and the motives of the Teachers' Union in bringing this particular lawsuit are questionable.

Then again, my experience in Courts, especially federal, reveals how totally political agenda oriented they are. The question boils down to what the political agenda guiding the Courts is and whether that agenda is consonant with the Teachers' union or the Culinary Union.

My wild guess would be that the Courts, citing the point I am making about timing in its argument, will rule in favor of the Culinary Union, but given the COMPLETELY political and juridically and morally arbitrary nature of judicial decisionmaking, you can ONLY predict with any degree of certainty by knowing the political agenda governing the Court

[Lucinda]

14. LINK TO THE LAWSUIT:

http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf

[MADem]

29. That's pretty cut and dried. They've laid out the issue quite clearly, certainly.

We'll have to wait to see how the party responds to it, I guess.

[Cameron27]

20. K&R

[Lucinda]

21. ...

[calteacherguy]

25. I guess this must mean that teachers don't work on Saturday.

This news to anyone?

[MADem]

31. In the lawsuit, posted above, the teachers say they are being required to work on SAT

and they won't be able to caucus at their home precincts because they have to work.

[NobleCynic]

32. To start with

Teachers don't work on Saturdays, such an argument is bogus inherently.

It also looks really bad that they wait until after the Culinary Union endorses Obama to file.

Perhaps the greatest point of contention however is that they wait until one week before the caucus to file this lawsuit? The party has been as open as possible about what we have done in Nevada in regards to the caucus. This could have been raised months before, and if they have such noble intentions for their objection, waiting until the last possible moment is negligent at best. Calculating, hypocritical, and amoral at worst.

However, their gripe about the mathematics may be correct.

But considering the precedent of superdelegates, I don't know if the court has any standing to dispute the allocation of delegates in a party primary.

[Lucinda]

34. ...

[cloudythescribbler]

35. OK, let's get INTO the facts of the case, shall we? URL:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4052397