‘Florida doesn’t want to vote again. So we won’t’

March 18, 2008

If Florida’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention aren’t seated, about 1.7 million voters who participated in the state’s primary will, in a way, be disenfranchised. If Florida’s delegates are seated, millions of Democrats who would have voted but didn’t because they’d been told in advance that their vote wouldn’t count, would also effectively be disenfranchised. (As the estimable Carl Hiaasen put it, “It’s like Major League Baseball waiting until midseason and then declaring that spring training games will count in the final standings.”) Either way, Democratic voters in one of the nation’s biggest states would be screwed.

Florida Dems could have another primary, but there are some major legal and financial restrictions. They could try some re-vote-by-mail process, but no one is confident in the integrity of the system. Everyone has been trying to think of something, but to no avail.

So, yesterday, Floridians gave up.

Setting the stage for a contentious fight well into the summer, Florida Democrats gave up Monday on redoing their Jan. 29 presidential primary, leaving it to the national party or rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to hammer out a solution to make the state’s delegates count.

Florida Democrats, who had already closed the door on holding a full-scale conventional election or a caucus, scrapped the controversial vote-by-mail primary they had proposed less than a week ago as their best option, saying it just isn’t possible.

“While your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn’t want to vote again. So we won’t,” Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said late Monday in a letter to Florida Democrats.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is still pushing a proposal to have the DNC simply cut the state’s delegate totals in half (instead of eliminating them altogether), but the Clinton campaign is reportedly opposed to the idea.

Obama supporters are offering an alternative, but it also seems a little too controversial.

[Allan Katz, of Tallahassee, who supports Obama] is recommending that the [Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws committee] give Florida its delegates back — but award half to Clinton and half to Obama. Florida activists would be allowed to participate in the convention, but the ground rules for the primaries wouldn’t be changed after the fact.

“Fifty-fifty is the way to do it, and I don’t think there’s any other fair conclusion,” Katz said. “Everyone agreed — Hillary Clinton agreed, Barack Obama agreed — that we weren’t selecting delegates in the Jan. 29 election, so how can we do that now?”

That has some advantages — Florida’s delegates would at least be seated and recognized — but there’s no way on Earth that the Clinton campaign would approve of a solution that erased her margin from the primary that wasn’t supposed to count.

And what about Michigan?

Michigan Democratic party leaders on Monday proposed legislation to conduct a new primary on June 3 to allocate the state’s 156 delegates. The election would be run by the state but be privately financed.

Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has agreed to the plan; aides to Mr. Obama, of Illinois, have refused to commit to it. It is more uncertain than ever that he will: The party’s rules may disqualify anyone who voted in Michigan’s Republican primary from voting in the Democratic primary — including those who may be Obama supporters who voted Republican because his name was not on the Democratic ballot.

Michigan Democratic officials said the plan for a revote could not move forward unless both campaigns agreed to the proposal in the next day or so.

The Michigan Legislature then must approve any plan to conduct a statewide election, and state lawmakers are scheduled to begin a two-week recess on Thursday. Even if the Obama and Clinton campaigns endorse the proposal, it still must win two-thirds support in both the State House, controlled by Democrats, and the Senate, which has a Republican majority. The plan is also dependent on state party officials raising an estimated $10 million to pay for the new election.

I’d just add that top Clinton strategist Harold Ickes blasted the Obama campaign for its hesitation to support the Michigan re-vote, insisting that the “right to vote is the foundation of our democracy,” and Michigan voters “deserve to have a voice and a vote in the Democratic Party’s nominating process.”

Ickes, of course, is one of the DNC members who decided to strip Michigan of its delegates in the first place.

Get the sense that the campaigns, while touting principles, are really looking at this from purely self-serving interests? I do.

Would it be principled for Obama to agree to a rule change in the middle of the game that gives him a disadvantage? The principled solution is real simple. Don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Everyone knew the rules before the game started. They just didn’t know it would be a close game.

  • “…really looking at this from purely self-serving interests….”

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

    I favor not seating Florida at all. Maybe shunning will get them to finally grow up and fix their lousy election procedures, which among other things brought us the Shrub.

  • I appreciate the hedging in your use of the term, but the idea that Florida voters are being “disenfranchised” under either scenario is a bit of a stretch.

    They’re not being denied the vote in any meaningful sense of the term. There’s no absolute right to a primary vote in the Constitution — just the 24th Amendment’s note that if you have a primary vote, you can’t deny it to people because of the poll tax, and the 14th Amendment rulings in Smith v. Allright etc. that if you have a primary vote, you can’t keep it whites only.

    The only way you can be “disenfranchised” from a primary is as an individual. If all the primary voters of a state have their votes ignored or disallowed by the national party, then there’s no voting rights issue. The individual selection processes for national conventions are already arbitrary — some use primaries, some use caucuses; some allocate delegates based on a district’s past voting performance for the party; some states get more delegates than others; etc. etc. The national party can decide to allocate and accept as many delegates as they want from a state party, or tell them to go to hell for breaking the rules.

    There’s no disenfranchisement here. And saying there is only downplays the examples where there really *has* been disenfranchisement, like in 2000 when Katherine Harris wrote tens of thousands of black voters off the rolls because she claimed they were felons. That’s true disenfranchisement.

  • This wouldn’t be an issue if Ms. Clinton had not reneged on her agreement to abide by DNC rules and decisions, which one of her associates helped to make. If the Clinton side is so committed to “the right to vote is the foundation of our democracy,” it should not be trying to put barriers in the way of voters in Michigan who chose to vote in Publican primary because at that time the Democratic primary was perceived to be useless, since only one candidate was listed and the results were not going to result in actual convention votes.

    Obama would probably carry Michigan if all the voters were allowed to vote; Clinton might still carry Florida. Easiest way to resolve the problem would be to split the delagates of both states 50-50. This would not resolve the problem of states trying to jump ahead in the nomination process – but that problem can’t really be dealt with until after November.

  • “Get the sense that the campaigns, while touting principles, are really looking at this from purely self-serving interests?”

    No.

    I have no doubt that the Obama campaign would support a fair re-vote in both states. The problem in Florida, from the point of view of Floridians and both campaigns, was that the only affordable option (mail-in primary) would also be riddled with issues that would call into question the integrity of the process. In Michigan, the issue becomes whether supporters of either candidate gave up their right to vote in a new Democratic primary when they voted in what they thought would be the only primary that counted (the Republican primary).

    This is what happens when you try to change the rules in the middle of the game. All Democratic candidates, including both Clinton and Obama, supported the DNC’s decision to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. By violating the DNC rules, the two state parties disenfranchised their own voters, not the candidates or the DNC.

    Hillary’s claims that she “won” both states are ludicrous. The only reasonable action is to split the delegates evenly among the two candidates to allow these delegates to be seated at the convention.

  • Floridians have chosen to stay the course; they can suffer the consequences of steaming into the iceberg with no lifeboats. Michigan, however, is a wee bit more complicated—but just as silly.

    Were the people of Michigan even able to vote for Obama? Were they allowed to even write-in his name?

    The solution must allow for this—and allow that people who would have voted for him the first time, but were denied, be re-granted that right. They must, effectively, be “re-enfranchised.” If Michigan and the Clinton campaign do not agree with this, then let them twist in the wind with their cohorts in Florida. Fortress Clinton’s only goal in this is to prevent Obama from garnering more delegates. It’s not about Florida and Michigan; it’s about Hillary wanting the WH. That’s why she’s against the revote.

    “Magnanimous in Defeat” she ain’t….

  • Damp (#1),

    Would it be principled for Obama to agree to a rule change in the middle of the game that gives him a disadvantage? The principled solution is real simple. Don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Everyone knew the rules before the game started. They just didn’t know it would be a close game.

    The rules of the game are that if you hold a primary/caucus before super tuesday, it doesn’t count. Holding one before super tuesday and then doing another one afterwards seems to fit the spirit of the rules. I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be allowed. It would show that the DNC is capable of using both carrot and stick. Break the rules and you get stripped. Come back to the fold and you get counted.

    I really think it’s a bad move for Obama to oppose this. His lead is so huge he can afford to take the high road. He’ll need Michigan in November!

  • The principled solution is real simple. Don’t change the rules in the middle of the game.

    /agree

    The process was agreed to long before Michigan and Florida decided to bully their way to the front of the line. It is absolutely in the best interests of all Democrats that the DNC have the power to set the primary schedule, and not individual states–it is the only path to unlocking the stranglehold Iowa and NH have on the primary process.

    Senator Clinton’s campaign has shown a great deal of contempt for the DNC and the process (which they had agreed to), especially as of late. Basically she’s being a Billy Martin and trying to bully the umpire, when her team is being out-played in the field. I can’t wait for her to get ejected from the field.

  • Here’s my personal conundrum. I believe in democracy, so I think everyone should have a vote that matters. But I also believe in the rule of law, and I think the past eight years (indeed, the past twenty or so) have done massive damage to it. Changing the rules in the middle contributes to the breakdown in respect for the rule of law. The incredibly transparent effort of the Clinton campaign to rewrite the rules they already agreed to — rules, as you point out, that some of them had a hand in setting — tells me a lot about what a Clinton administration would be like. We really don’t need four or eight more years if “anything I do is legal” thinking.

    Is the Obama campaign equally transparent in backing rules that, it turns out, currently favor them? Yeah. So what? They played by those rules and those rules were set up long before Sen. Obama had such a strong position. The rules weren’t put in place to favor him; they just happen to because of how things broke in the game. If the case were reverse — if Obama had “won” Michigan and Florida in the way that Clinton has “won” them — would their positions be the polar opposite? Would Obama’s campaign be calling to “enfranchise” Florida? Maybe — but maybe not, and people aren’t (or shouldn’t be) judged on hypotheticals but on evidence.

  • @5: I have no doubt that the Obama campaign would support a fair re-vote in both states. The problem in Florida, from the point of view of Floridians and both campaigns, was that the only affordable option (mail-in primary) would also be riddled with issues that would call into question the integrity of the process.

    My understanding is that the (Republican) Secretary of State would refuse to verify any mail-in ballots.

    @7: The rules of the game are that if you hold a primary/caucus before super tuesday, it doesn’t count. Holding one before super tuesday and then doing another one afterwards seems to fit the spirit of the rules. I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be allowed.

    I agree with you in principle. But, as it has been played out, its clear that the Michigan Democratic Party had no back-up plan and basically (like Florida) went about this all half-assed. Now they are scrambling against the clock to come up with a workable plan that all sides can agree on–and I can understand the Obama campaign’s reluctance to agree to something without studying it first.

  • I said last week I didn’t think either state would get it s**t together fast enough to pull this off.

    Not to praise the Empire, but this would never have happened in the Republican party. The chances of either state violating Party rules in the first place would be slim to none, and if they did, and wanted to re-vote later, I’m certain they would have been told to f*** themselves…

    I expect Clinton’s next argument will be to raise the accepting voting age in the Primaries to 21 (applied retroactively) since young voters obviously lack the judgement to participate

  • Tamalak (7) His lead is so huge he can afford to take the high road

    There is a difference between the appearance of fairness and actual fairness. Counting votes or having revotes only if they won’t matter is truly a disingenuous slight of hand.

  • Of course both campaigns have their self-interests in mind. The difference is Hillary and her surrogates are taking on a position that strains credibility and looks completely foolish. Obama just happens to be on the side of “rules are rules” which is the right place to be.

    Plus, if someone can point to a series of polls or other significant evidence that suggest that Floridians and Michiganites (is that the correct term?) are, in droves, so fed up with the whole process that they just might turn Republican in November, never mind that the more pressing issues of the economy and terrorism mean that McCain is a really bad idea for them, we can then have a serious chat about “disenfranchising millions of voters” in a primary.

  • But Tamalak, Michigan has thus become more important by breaking the rules. Saying, “well, since we’re past February 5th now, all is forgiven,” makes the DNC’s authority practically worthless.

    Allowing this whole debate about Michigan to happen was the problem… it’s already brought too much attention on the state that should simply be the little kid sitting in the corner with a dunce hat on. It was the Democratic leadership in Michigan that chose to do this, and it’s the voters of Michigan that have to pay the price. If the voters can’t deal with the fact that their elected officials don’t know what a calendar is, they need to stop whining and elect new representatives.

    What does need to be made an issue is that Florida’s Dem primary was moved up against DNC rules by the FL Republican leadership… why aren’t the Dems just ripping the Republicans in Florida to shreds over this. Willful disenfranchisement of 1+ million voters and they’re just coasting along while the Dems have a little slap-fight over the issue because both of these candidates want to be the first member of some politically marginalized group to be POTUS.

    FT… I’m going to bed for a month….

  • Voters in Florida should have paid attention to what their state leaders were doing.

    Dems voted right along with the Repubs to move the primary.

    Florida voters can vote in the general.

  • HRC is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game by trying to seat the FL and MI delegations. Nearly everybody recognizes this.
    BO is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game by trying to demand that superdelegates vote according to primary and caucus results, although superdelegates exist to exercise independent judgment. Nearly nobody recognizes this.
    NB is correct in stating the FL dates were set by Republicans, not Democrats.
    Prediction: HRC will succeed in stealing the nomination from BO.

  • TR,

    To begin with you’d have to look into the state constitutions to determine if there was a garanteed right to vote in their primaries, but I understand your argument and agree to a certain extent.

    The problem, however, is that taxpayer money is involved in running these primary elections. Once that line is crossed, I believe there is a somewhat inherent claim to legitimacy of the right to vote meaningfully in the primary.

    Afterall, you paid for it.

    To the article: As for Ickes blasting Obama for hesitating on the Michigan revote, it’s not surprising that he’s being completely hypocritical, but if Obama is opposed to a revote in Michigan, isn’t that only hurting him? Since he has 0 delegates, he has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

    Ickes is as big of a moron as Penn. If you need two reasons, to avoid voting for Clinton, they are Ickes and Penn, neither of which deserve to be associated with winning.

  • The chances of either state violating Party rules in the first place would be slim to none… -Chicago Pat

    Actually, Florida did violate the RNC rules, and were stripped of half of their delegates.

  • Florida doesn’t want to vote again. So we won’t

    Nobody asked us, if they had we (the voters) would have opted for a fair re-vote.

    We are not being represented well and I’m very disappointed in Florida legislators.

  • And Democrats really expect to lead this country when they can’t even have a proper election? Get real folks …..

  • “And Democrats really expect to lead this country when they can’t even have a proper election? Get real folks …..” (Chris, #20)

    Get logical, Chris. The “they”who would run elections in your conditional clause can’t possibly have the same referent as “Democrats” who will run the country soon in your main clause.

  • TW@ 16:
    “BO is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game by trying to demand that superdelegates vote according to primary and caucus results, although superdelegates exist to exercise independent judgment. Nearly nobody recognizes this.”

    This is painfully silly.

    It’s not changing the rules to tell somebody how you think they ought to vote. Nobody is saying that anyone HAS TO vote in a certain way or they’ll be punished or have their vote canceled. He’s campaigning for their votes. Saying how he thinks they SHOULD vote.

  • NB (#14) – While I agree with what you said, I do have to point out that Florida Dem’s in Congress voted almost unamimously to go along with the Republicans to move up the Primary. Only 2 Dem’s in the only Florida state Congress voted against it. If the Democrats in FL had protested the move by the Republicans, then appealed to the DNC to not penalize them for something the Republicans control, perhaps we wouldn’t be in the mess were in. As it stands, the FL Dem’s are just as much to blame for their problems as the Republicans in this matter.

  • Let’s all just agree that the Fl and Mi state legislatures totally screwed up on this one. I say strip both states super delegates from the convention, they made the decisions, they hurt their states party and primaries, let them forfeit their rights to participate in the National Convention, There MUST be consequences for breaking the rules. Since only one name was on the Mi ballot, either have the expensive re-vote or give 50% to each candidate. And let’s be magnanimous here and let Clinton keep her 55% win and give Obama the other 45% of all other delegates. Since Michigan is trying a good faith effort to now abide by the DNC rules, perhaps Dean can discuss allowing their Supers back into the fold, provided the state party pays for the re-vote. Fla dem’s are being absolutely intransigent about this, yes I realize they do have to deal with a Rep majority in the state, but the dems don’t seem to be at least attempting a compromise with both camps, so keep their Supers stripped.

  • Did the voters of FL and MI decide to break the rules?
    If not, then they are victims here. I don’t care who they vote for, but their vote should count the same as mine did.
    Let the people be heard.

  • Nell @ #25:
    That’s the way a republic works. Voters elect representatives who pass legislation. Sometimes it’s poor legislation, but the voters still have to live with it. The voters of FL or MI may not have decided to break the rules themselves, but their elected representatives did. And the voters have to live with the consequences. Maybe they should elect better representatives.

  • Floridians didn’t “give up”– we voted for a two week early voting period before the January 29th primary at libraries all over the state. All candidates were on the ballot, and we took time off before and after work and in between to participate in what was supposed to be a democratic process. I am disgusted that Obama called Florida a “beauty” contest on CNN the night Hillary won. If he wants the “will of the people” to count instead of the superdelegates, what is he afraid of. I hear his campaign is harassing black superdelegates to switch to him by threatening to run candidates against them. Obama is not credible. Howard Dean is an Obama endorser, so he is qualified to help settle the mess he started. The voters of Florida aren’t responsible for the little child games of the Republican Florida legislature and the inflexible putz that is Howard Dean. If Obama can raise 55 million in a month, then there is enough money to pay for new primaries, or else honor the original ones.

  • Rather than thinking about the general election, Howard Dean and the DNC are more interested in showing everyone that they are 100% right, and that rules are rules. Well, what good are the rules if they end up costing you the eleciton in November, because in a state where Bush won (“officially”) by a little over 500 votes, (recent polls have been showing that Dem Floridians are not likely to support the nominee if their delegates don’t get seated) the Democrats can’t afford to show Florida that they couldn’t care less about the state. The Democratic party is handing over the presidency to McCain on a silver platter

    • Comments are closed.