A serious question about the Nevada lawsuit

[dsc]

Does anyone know just how big a difference there is in the value of votes in normal precincts and those in at large ones? I have seen several articles posted on this but they all say something along the lines of "complicated mathematical formula". It can't be that complicated. At most it has to involve multiplication and division, and its solution would be the same. Any idea, maybe a Nevadian knows.

[Adelante]

1. The Nevada caucus was modeled after the Iowa caucus

Except it's a different day of the week and workplace caucuses in casino ballrooms were added for people who work on Saturdays. I'm not a Nevadan, I too would love to hear from some on this controversy, but that formula, as I've read about it, is similar to Iowa's. In Iowa precincts there is also weighting done for delegate assignment, say between urban centers and rural districts. You're one of the DUers I rely on for mathematical truths, so I wouldn't speak to the nature of the formula itself.

[dsc]

2. My best guess

is that the complaint is that the at large precincts are overweighted relative to their population but, typical of our press, they don't bother to state what the overweighting is or where it comes from. Thanks for the compliment.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. It would be very useful to have the minutes for those meetings

Obviously, this issue was discussed in depth, since it goes to the essence of a caucus process. It's interesting that the filing states that SOME provisions were finalized after the initial discussions, but it does not - as far as I can tell, and please correct me if I'm wrong - state that THAT provision was finalized later. Since it appears to be the only worthwhile substantial argument in the bunch, it seems to me that it WOULD specify that the weighting provision was decided later if it indeed was.

Obviously, there are good reasons for weighting caucuses. Indeed, Hillary's relative success in the rural counties in Iowa probably bought her two or three more delegates with the uneven weighting there. I want to know what the reasoning was in Nevada, and what the various options were, and who agreed to what.

[cloudythescribbler]

14. speaking of minutes of those meetings, GET A LOAD OF THIS!!!!:

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

[Adelante]

4. Here is the lawsuit if you haven't seen it (PDF)

http://vegaspundit.typepad.com/vegas_pundit/files/filed_complaint.pdf

[dsc]

5. Thanks

this does seem like a very serious issue. I can't quote from PDF but paragraphs 40 and 41 set out the case. Apparently people in those precincts will be upto 100 times more powerful in their vote than others. Clearly much will be determined by showing up as always. And it probably is legitimate to assume that more of the workers will show up than other precincts but a ten to one margin seems out of line.

[Adelante]

6. One issue

Reading through it, I don't see non-union and other workers considered. The workplace caucuses are not to accommodate casino workers only or union workers only, but any workers who can identify as would be otherwise on their jobs during caucus hours with an hour at either end for travel. So if I worked in a dentist's office on that Saturday and my boss provided some sort of certification that I would miss the caucus if my regular work schedule held, and I couldn't reach my home precinct in time, I could walk into one of these workplace caucuses and participate. A cab driver could park and go in, and so forth. Yet part of the objection seems to be that teachers and other educational workers would be deprived of their voting rights if they work on Saturdays. That didn't make much sense to me.

[dsc]

7. I actually read it to mean

that one had to be employeed by certain companies (over 4000 employees) and the dentist employee wouldn't be permitted to vote.

[Adelante]

9. The 4000 employees trigger

determined whether a workplace caucus could be established in a location. But once there is a workplace caucus it's not limited to workers employed at that location. I will look for where I read about this.

[dsc]

11. well that would be different

My major problem is in the delegate allotment. If it really is such a huge disparity, and depending on turnout it could be, that would be a real problem. I am not a fan caucuses for lots of reasons many of which are on parade here.

[Adelante]

12. Yeah, like I said, the formula boggles my mind

My main problem is more political. If this lawsuit had come up any time before the Obama endorsement, and not a week before the caucus, but anytime in almost a year since the rules were set down, I probably wouldn't be objecting. Four of the plaintiffs, however, took part in the planning and approved it in a unanimous vote in favor. All of the candidates' campaigns were involved. If the union endorsement had gone to Clinton, there would be no lawsuit, in my opinion. I'm no good at math, but I am retired from the political department of a labor union. These things don't just happen. I'm wondering if Chairman Dean gets pulled into this. He's done a lot of work in Nevada and it is a federal lawsuit. Poor guy, it never ends.

On the other issue of workplace caucuses and outside workers, I found this, but there was another piece that explained it in more detail. If I can remember where I saw it, I will post it later. :hi:

In a first-of-its-kind arrangement, executives at culinary union-backed casinos have largely been cooperating with their employees to allow them to take a break just before noon Saturday - when the caucus begins - to participate in the political event. The teachers union contends this set up is specifically for just those union workers.

But those sites are also open to any shift worker, from cab drivers to employees at non-union casinos, on duty midday Saturday within a 2-½ mile radius of the nine casino caucuses. They must present identification showing that they work on or near Las Vegas Boulevard, as the "Strip" is officially titled.

However, the logistical reality of the casino haven - where mega-size casinos can be a half-mile long and the Strip is clogged with cabs hustling gamblers around town -- is that it will be very difficult for workers in non-union casinos to be able to take the time to walk or drive to the casino caucus sites.

There will be 10,000 delegates to the state nominating convention available to the candidates among the more than 1,700 normal precinct sites, but as many as 650 delegates will also be up for grabs in the "at-large" sites inside the casino ballrooms that are being retrofitted into political halls for the caucus. Some estimates are that these casino precincts could produce 10 percent of the total statewide participation in the caucuses.

The state party quickly dismissed the lawsuit. Going back to last spring, every presidential campaign was involved in setting up the unusual casino caucus sites while state party officials and the Democratic National Committee ironed out the details. "This is a fair, legal and proper way to choose delegates under established law and legal precedent that has been reviewed by attorneys....The time for comment or complaint has passed," the party said in a statement.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/post_271.html

[spooky3]

15. I don't think that's right; I think dsc is right - see points #28-29

28) "Only shift workers employed by entities that have at least 4,000 employees scheduled to work on January 19, 2008 will be able to caucus away from their home precincts."

29) "Other registered party members scheduled to work at that time in locations away from their home precincts will have no ability to caucus at another precinct."

So, if you work for a dentist office on Saturday morning, you are out of luck unless that dentist has 4000+ employees.

These are allegations in the lawsuit--obviously I don't know if they will be proven true.

[Adelante]

16. Those are the allegations, yes

I don't think they are correct based on what I've read in the press.

[Adelante]

18. Spooky - the workplace caucuses

Nevada’s largest and most politically active union fired back Saturday at an attempt to shut down caucus sites on the Strip intended to allow its workers to caucus Jan. 19, when state Democrats make their choice for a presidential nominee. Culinary Union Secretary-Treasurer D. Taylor demanded that Nevada’s Democratic elected officials and the presidential campaigns denounce a lawsuit that would eliminate the nine “at-large” caucus locations designed for shift workers, both union and nonunion. Shutting down the sites, which allow anyone who works within 2 1/2 miles of one to caucus there, would undermine the legitimacy of the caucus, he said.

-snip

Hart said attempting to uncover the suit’s origin missed the point of the complaint: The at-large precincts are unfair to Democrats who are not Culinary members.

That assessment drew the ire of the state Democratic Party. In a statement, the party made it clear that any shift worker union or nonunion within 2 1/2 miles of an at-large precinct location may participate in the caucuses, including dealers, gas station attendants, construction workers, retail workers and hospitality workers.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/13/culinary-leader-closing-sites-strip-would-strike-c/

[spooky3]

20. I know that is what the press report says, but this is a question of

fact. And here you have one fact being alleged by newspaper reporters, who (I presume) are not lawyers and may not have read the law or the lawsuit, reporting what Taylor is telling him/her, vs. a different fact being alleged by lawyers, who have more expertise, and presumably have read the law that they are challenging. Now, the lawyers may be judged to be mistaken about what the law specifies (by the court), but in any event, it's incorrect to describe the reporters' version as right and the plaintiffs' lawyers' position as wrong.

[Adelante]

21. It's a pretty bald statement, though

Either a dental assistant working within 2-1/2 miles of a workplace caucus can caucus there or not. Why would they say such a thing, not the reporter, but the State Democratic Party? It makes no sense. They're the ones who set it up. They're the ones in charge of carrying out the rules.

[spooky3]

22. Why would a lawyer allege something that is clearly wrong in a

lawsuit he/she hopes to win? The State Dem. Party could just as easily be wrong. They may have intended one thing, but written another. And, I believe that the culinary union treasurer, rather than the State Dem. Party, was being cited as the source of the info.

Per your quote: "Culinary Union Secretary-Treasurer D. Taylor demanded that Nevada’s Democratic elected officials and the presidential campaigns denounce a lawsuit that would eliminate the nine “at-large” caucus locations designed for shift workers, both union and nonunion. Shutting down the sites, which allow anyone who works within 2 1/2 miles of one to caucus there, would undermine the legitimacy of the caucus, he said."

That's why we need for the court to decide.

[Adelante]

24. The other paragraph

Hart said attempting to uncover the suit’s origin missed the point of the complaint: The at-large precincts are unfair to Democrats who are not Culinary members.

That assessment drew the ire of the state Democratic Party. In a statement, the party made it clear that any shift worker union or nonunion within 2 1/2 miles of an at-large precinct location may participate in the caucuses, including dealers, gas station attendants, construction workers, retail workers and hospitality workers.

[spooky3]

26. see my other reply, which I posted around the same time as yours

[spooky3]

25. Also, later in the article you linked:

"Hart said attempting to uncover the suit’s origin missed the point of the complaint: The at-large precincts are unfair to Democrats who are not Culinary members.

That assessment drew the ire of the state Democratic Party. In a statement, the party made it clear that any shift worker union or nonunion within 2 1/2 miles of an at-large precinct location may participate in the caucuses, including dealers, gas station attendants, construction workers, retail workers and hospitality workers."

This doesn't clearly specify whether NON-Employees of the casinos may participate, since (a) they specified that someone must be a shift worker and (b) all of the examples that they gave could be employees of the big casinos. No examples of teachers, dental assistants, who are not shift workers or casino employees.

Although it's a side point, I suspect that many of those casino employees would be just as likely to vote for Clinton as for Obama. I say this as an Edwards supporter who wishes they would all (and the teachers) support him instead.

[bornskeptic]

8. Here are the caucus rules.

http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/images/draftdelselupdated_oct2007l.pdf

From Appendix A the relevant passage for Clark County:

h. In counties in which the total number of registered voters of that party has
exceeded 4,000, each precinct is entitled to one delegate for each 50
registered voters or major fraction thereof.

Since the January 19 caucuses only select delegates to the county conventions, the other sections are not relevant, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

And for at-large caucuses:

Delegate Allocation Formula for At-Large Precinct Caucuses:
• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus
does not exceed 400, divide the total number of attendees by 5. Based on
attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range
from 1 – 80.
• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus
is between 401 and 600, divide the total number of attendees by 8. Based on
attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range
from 50 – 75.
• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus
is between 601 and 800, divide the total number of attendees by 10. Based on
attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range
from 60 – 80.
• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus
is between 801 and 1400, divide the total number of attendees by 15. Based on
attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range
from 53 – 93.
• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus
is between 1401 and 2000, divide the total number of attendees by 20. Based on
attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range
from 70 – 100.
• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus
is between 2001 and 3000, divide the total number of attendees by 30. Based on
attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range
from 67 – 100.
• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus
is between 3001 and 4000, divide the total number of attendees by 35. Based on
attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range
from 86 – 114.
• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus
exceeded 4000, divide the total number of attendees by 50. Based on
attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will be at
least 80.

The apportionment of delegates for the ordinary precinct caucuses is based on the number of registered voters, while in the at-large precinct caucuses is based on number of caucus attendees, so it's hard to say whether the casino workers are over-represented or under-represented, since that depends on turnout.

[dsc]

10. thanks

Honestly it seems to be sort of stupid way to do this. So if a place has 400 show up they get 80 delegates but if 401 show up they get 50? Does that even come close to making sense?

[bornskeptic]

13. I agree completely.

Note that once that 401st person arrives, they can't get back to 80 delegates until 397 more show up. But then 3 more and they're back to 53 delegates. I don't see how they could ever apportion fairly when some caucuses get delegates based on number of eligible voters and others get delegates based on attendance. They should have been able to do better than this nonsense, though.

[Adelante]

17. dsc, here is a little something for you

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Nevada State Education Association and five party activists, claims that those voting in at-large precincts would have too much weight compared with those voting at their neighborhood polling places, violating the equal protection law of the U.S. Constitution. It also claims the at-large precincts violate state law in the way they were drawn.

But a major premise of the lawsuit appears to be false, according to a Sun analysis.

Even if there is considerably high turnout for instance, 10,000 people those at-large precincts will provide just 6 percent of the state’s overall delegates. Because Nevada is holding a caucus, not a primary, the winner will be based on the number of delegates a candidate receives, not the total number of votes.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/13/culinary-leader-closing-sites-strip-would-strike-c/

[killbotfactory]

23. Why would a faulty delegate count be reason to close the strip sites?

Why not just fix the way the delegate are counted?

[Lucinda]

19. HERE IS THE LAWSUIT LINK:

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

[Adelante]

27. dsc, an article about the math

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/13/actual-impact--large-precincts/