Culinary leader: Closing sites on Strip would strike at caucus’ heart

[babylonsister]

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


Culinary leader: Closing sites on Strip would strike at caucus’ heart

By J. Patrick Coolican, David McGrath Schwartz, Michael Mishak

Sun, Jan 13, 2008 (2 a.m.)


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.

By Taylor’s logic, the lawsuit could threaten the future of Nevada’s early presidential voting status.

“This is an attempt to wholesale disenfranchise people who are largely women, largely people of color, and people who do the kind of work that makes this town go,” Taylor said. The campaigns and senior Democratic officials “have to condemn this. Anything short of that will clearly be a sign that they obviously think it’s OK to disenfranchise voters.”

The Clinton campaign, which unsuccessfully sought the 60,000-member union’s endorsement, declined to take up Taylor’s offer.

“Not for us to decide,” said Rory Reid, Clinton’s state chairman, in an e-mail to the Sun. “We just want the process to be fair.”

The campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who received the endorsement last week, quickly condemned the lawsuit.

“We believe as a party, and a country, we should be looking for ways to include working men and women in the electoral process, not disenfranchise them,” said David Cohen, the campaign’s state director.

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.

snip//

Taylor said eliminating the at-large sites would be unfair to workers on the Strip, and called the lawsuit “Republican, Floridian tactics for voter suppression.”

He continued: “The reason why the caucus came here was for union and minority representation. In this swipe, they are negating the exact reason they would bring the caucus here. It is very telling if they don’t absolutely condemn it. If the lawsuit goes through it will completely discredit the legitimacy of the caucus.”


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

[Colobo]

1. Clinton and Reid will pay for this. The backlash is coming.

[elizm]

5. Yet another example of Hillary's brilliant 'judgment'....

Who is she not willing to throw under the bus?

[Colobo]

8. Those who support her are safe from Madame President's wrath!

[Omaha Steve]

2. Labor on the front page

I wish it was more positive rather than being about a candidate that doesn't want workers votes. And my own international union is on board. I'm ashamed of this entire matter and AFSCME over the election process.

[burythehatchet]

9. Steve, your endorsement of Edwards means a lot to me.

[Yael]

25. And to me as well.

Thank you.

[Barack_America]

3. But if they're not going to vote for Clinton

Then they don't deserve to vote, right?

Remember that person (Hispanic, FWIW) whose house she went to and he said that he was going to go against the Union and vote for her?

She thanked him. And now, her campaign is probably taking away his vote. Classy.

[elizm]

6. Wonder if he knows that? nt

[bunnies]

4. I agree with Obamas statement...

and I hope Edwards does something similar.

[Gman]

7. Of course we all know what the culinary union is doing

stacking votes for Obama.

We did that once for the general election at one of our locations that had a very large number of union members. We persuaded the county elections administrator to have this building as an early voting place. That location went hugely Democratic that year even though it was in a very heavy Republican area. The Republicans at the courthouse screamed bloody murder. That was the only year they let us do that.

So it's no secret why these "at large" precincts are being done and this has absolutely nothing to do with Democracy. It has everything to do with votes for Obama.

[KingFlorez]

10. You're right

It is very obvious what the motivation is.

[cali]

16. no. these caucus sites were created 10 months ago

and Reid, high ups in the teachers union and Clinton thought it was all hunky dory until CWU endorsed Obama.

Care to revise your opinion?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

19. So? Wrong is wrong

eom

[KingFlorez]

23. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it

The only reason there is any concern over this is because some think it might take away Obama's advantage. If the situation was reversed and another candidate was losing a potential advantage, the people in an uproar about this now probably be singing a different tune.

[cali]

26. no, actually, I'd be against this obvious vote suppression if Obama

did it and HRC had received the CWU endorsement. In fact, I can't imagine I'd continue supporting him. Hell, I'm disappointed that he hasn't condemned Jackson for his disgusting remarks about Clinton. Some of us actually have an ethical core.

[Usrename]

32. Sorry, but everyone else, including cali, is right this time.

The plan was drawn up with the help and consent of the parties that are now speaking against it.

That was back in March 2007 and, according to the lawsuit, it continued to be revised until Sept 2007. Nobody complained.

It was only AFTER Hillary failed to get the nomination of the culinary worker's union that any complaint was filed.

Two or three days ago is when the lawsuit was filed, and only AFTER Obama got the nod from the union.

So, the facts are the opposite of what you are saying. The EXACT opposite. You couldn't be more wrong about this if you tried.

[rox63]

28. If they had a problem with it, they had 10 months to say something

Now they are trying to disenfranchise people who've believed for months that they'd be able to vote near where they work. The only reason some folks think it's a problem is because of Obama getting those union endorsements.

[bunnies]

11. You DO know...

that these sites were arranged BEFORE the Culinary union endorsed Obama. Right?

[Gman]

18. Yeah, like the leadership didn't know what they were going to do.

It doesn't work like that. They didn't just wake up one morning after everything was set and say, "Gee, I think I'll make motion to endorse Obama!".

Puhleeeez!

[bunnies]

24. These sites were created 10 months ago.

Seems theres been plenty of time for decision making.

Keep clinging to your vast anti-Hillary conspiracy theory though. Its amusing. :thumbsup:

[Yael]

27. There you go again. Confusing people with facts.

They LIKE the world they live in. Why must you complicate it so?

:P:

[cali]

12. wrong. dead wrong. these at large caucus sites were created

long, long before the CWU endorsed Obama, and Reid and Clinton were just fine about it until CWU did endorse O.

You don't even have the most basic facts right about this.

[Colobo]

15. Facts? The only fact is that Hillary must be president

and if rules have to be "modified" to make that happen, so be it...

[Gman]

21. I don't think you understand how these things are done

At the very least, the culinary union decided to take advantage of the situation.

Of course, to them I say, good move. Again, none of this has anything to do with Democracy and everything to do with raw politics.

[cali]

31. I understand. Unlike you I'm not in denial. Everyone involved

knew that the CWU would be endorsing a dem candidate. Many assumed it would be Clinton, and then she didn't get it....

[Gman]

33. What you don't understand is that

the CWU are trying to get access to who they hope will be the next president while screwing the other unions who did not endorse Obama. It's blatant, raw politics. CWU by far has the most union members in the area. If the CWU is affiliated with the LVCLC, someone should file charges agains the CWU.

What's hardily laughable is the facade people are putting up that politics had nothing to do with it. Maybe some naive kids here may believe that, but there's a whole lot of us that have seen stuff like unions screwing other unions before and know what that causes in the long run. Memories are VERY long in the labor movement.

Too bad CWU's gamble is a bad one. I wouldn't blame Hillary one bit for when she's president and the international president of the CWU calls and she says, "Who?" CWU better hope Obama gets the nomination or they're dead political meat and their own members can blame their shortsighted leadership.

This is the bullshit that tears up the labor movement and pisses members off. This is also why no union should endorse before the convention.

[burythehatchet]

13. Funniest. Post Ever.

:lmao:

can you define "stacking" votes?



Is that when a .... uhhh .. like a voter.... uhhh .. votes for somebody?

[Barack_America]

14. Trying to make sure their members can vote.

How dare they.

I thought that Unions were supposed to stand up and make sure their members voices were heard! Oh...wait...

[burythehatchet]

17. I wanted to respond twice just to acknowledge the sheer entertainment value

:rofl:

[gkhouston]

22. "Psychic Stackers" -- it was supposed to be the new Xmas toy, but

got postponed due to toxicity. ;-)

[sandnsea]

20. This was before Dec 2006

The only one who was running for sure at that point was Hillary Clinton.

[Bullet1987]

29. I PRAY this comes out during the debate...PRAY!!!

There will be a boatload of backlash for this shit...trust me.

[Vinca]

30. That's what I was thinking. nt

[Nedsdag]

34. I hope so.

Can voters ask questions during the debate or is it all Williams and Russert?

[mckeown1128]

35. man, this is disturbing... nt