Clinton prepared to sue over Texas caucuses?

February 29, 2008

Texas Democrats will go to the polls on Tuesday in a key contest, but it won’t be as easy as simply watching a primary or a caucus. Texas, just to keep things interesting, has a hybrid system that includes both a primary and a caucus.

It’s complicated, confusing, and frustrating, but those are the rules, and they’ve been in place for years. The candidates knew what they were getting into long before now; it’s not like Texas’ odd system just snuck up on anyone.

It’s surprising, then, that the Clinton campaign is reportedly contemplating an 11th-hour lawsuit.

The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for next Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Clinton threatened to sue over the party’s complicated delegate selection process.

In a letter sent out late Thursday to both the Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party lawyer Chad Dunn warned a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats’ effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers. […]

“Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign,” said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

Another Democratic official who was privvy to the discussions confirmed that Clinton representatives made veiled threats in a telephone call this week…. The source, who asked not to identified by name because he did not have authorization to speak about the matter, said Clinton’s political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle.

It’s not exactly clear what a lawsuit, if it occurs, would seek to do exactly, or what behind-the-scenes discussions might hope to accomplish.

…Adrienne Elrod, Clinton’s top Texas spokeswoman, said campaign and party officials had merely discussed election night procedures and that the campaign was merely seeking a written agreement in advance. She could not elaborate on the details of the agreement the Clinton campaign is seeking.

I’m afraid I’m at a bit of a loss on this one. The campaign sought some kind of agreement? That they don’t want to talk about? If anyone can explain this, I’m all ears.

Either way, the state party seems concerned.

“If it is true that litigation is imminent between one or both of your campaigns and the (Democratic Party), such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated democratic process that is involving a record number of participants here in Texas and across the nation,” Dunn, the state party lawyer, wrote.

I guess we’ll know more soon enough, but especially after the Florida and Michigan controversies, it’s my sincere hope the Clinton campaign wouldn’t try to change the rules in the middle of the game.

That said, if everyone can agree that the current process of picking a nominee is a mess, in serious need of systemic reform, that’d be great, too.

What the hell is she doing? How can attacking Texas’ way of doing things possibly help her? What is the point of all the bizarre moves lately from her camp?

Something in the gears of her campaign must be seriously melting down.

  • Over at The Field (Al Giordano) the word is they (Clinton) want to stop the caucus’ from reporting the delegate distribution. Apparently as a way to spin the win/loss margin? Maybe something to do with the new Clinton spin where Obama fails if he doesn’t convincingly win all four contests?

  • It’s surprising, then, that the Clinton campaign is reportedly contemplating an 11th-hour lawsuit.

    It’s not really that surprising. In fact, it’s nearly predictable at this point.

  • They’re seeking to delay the report of the caucus results because they want to report a win of the popular vote as a win. They could also be seeking a delay of the popular vote results until after the caucuses are concluded.

    Th telephone conversation should be available at some point, as there were a lot of parties involved in it.

  • Or as Tom Cleaver would say “This is the inner OODA Loop irrational melt-down”, though what he would say would make much more sense. (G)

    I am no Tom Cleaver, my inner Lloyd Bentsen tells me.

  • Pingback: www.buzzflash.net

  • There are going to be a lot of disaffected Democrats if Clinton pulls this nomination out with legal tactics. If I were an independent I wouldn’t want this party to be running the country.

  • Why is Hillary planning to sue? Maybe she didn’t think it would work to cry again.

    What is also strange about this is that a few weeks ago I read about the complexities of the Texas primary/caucus system and how Obama might wind up getting more delegates even if he lost the popular vote. I don’t know for sure what the Clinton people knew when, but from their public comments on the primary I got the impression that they weren’t aware of the situation until well after I was. I would think that the actual candidates should understand all the peculiarities of every state well before this material is being posted on blogs. Similarly there are the stories that they don’t have a full slate of delegates in Pennsylvania. These things just don’t make it look like they were really ready for this campaign, or really were ignoring everything after Super Tuesday.

  • Callimaco@2

    Thanks for the link. The Texas system has been in place and now Little Miss SoreLoser cries “foul.” That’s a guaranteed way to win support – for Obama.

  • I think this is yet another attempt by Hillary to look tough while ensuring a big loss. I’m not sure why everyone assumed she was this great political mind, as I admit that I fell for the hype too; but it seems that she’s intent on proving otherwise. Every step she makes just seems to be in the wrong direction.

  • I think the campaigns are concerned mainly about the efficiency of the caucus. Obviously, it is quite confusing. Only those who vote in the primary can attend a caucus. Does this mean if Republicans vote on their ballot and not the Democrats during the primary, can they in turn vote in the Democratic caucuses. Good question and probably needs clarification.

    Also, I don’t think either campaign wants what happened in New Mexico to happen in Texas. Gosh, it took two weeks for the final tabulation. They both know there will be a huge turnout, so I suppose they want to make sure the caucus is prepared with having enough ballots and ensuring the eligibility of each voter.

    I think if you had read the original transcript, both campaigns have concerns, so this isn’t one of HRC’s dirty tricks.

  • Carp: Thanks for your comment, it provides a plausible explanation without name-calling. That kind of open-minded civility is always appreciated.

  • Could it be possible that the HRC campaign is worried that an early report of the primairy vote could bias caucus attendence?

  • Does this mean if Republicans vote on their ballot and not the Democrats during the primary, can they in turn vote in the Democratic caucuses. Good question and probably needs clarification.

    Uhm, Carp? Of course you have to have voted in the Democratic Primary to vote in the Democratic caucus. You can read about it here:
    http://www.txdemocrats.org/index.php/282?

    Our system might seem weird, but we’re not stupid.

  • I think if you had read the original transcript, both campaigns have concerns, so this isn’t one of HRC’s dirty tricks.

    And which original transcript are you referring to? The article linked to clearly says that veilled threats are coming only from the Clinton side. And while Clinton’s side disputed it, they did say that they were trying to come up with “an agreement” but wouldn’t say what it was. What’s an agreement? We’ve apparently had these laws for over thirty years. What are they trying to get an agreement on?

    Now while I won’t necessarily say this IS a dirty trick, I fail to see how you are concluding that it’s definitely not one. Is there some other story of this that I haven’t read yet?

  • Carp (12):“Also, I don’t think either campaign wants what happened in New Mexico to happen in Texas.”

    What happened in NM is that provisional ballots were given to Republicans who wanted to vote Dem, even though it was a closed primary (they call it a caucus, but it uses primary rules.). The delay occurred because they wanted to decide whether or not to change the rules and count Republican votes. Ultimately they decided to do just that.

  • BioBrain: In Vermont, I can vote in either primary. When I arrive at the polling place, my name gets crossed off the checklist, then I choose the ballot I’m going to use. I don’t think there is any way for someone to know which primary I voted in. (Maybe there’s another step in the procedure that I don’t remember or hadn’t noticed before. Steve, do you know?) I know other states have different procedures, so in Texas voters must declare a party and there are separate checklists for each? Is there a column on the checklist indicating which primary you’re voting in? Just curious.

  • Tom – I actually don’t know how it works as I didn’t even know we had a caucus until recently. But the rules clearly state that you have to have voted in the Democratic Primary, and seeing as how they’ve been doing it this way for thirty years, I assume they have some way of checking. I just found Carp’s implication as if that this needs to be clarified to be slightly insulting; as if we’re just making this up as we go along. But this is clearly spelled out in the rules.

    Unfortunately, I was going to vote early today, but there were long lines and I didn’t get a chance to see how it’s done. I guess I’ll just go early on Tuesday instead. And I definitely plan to show up to caucus. But again, there are rules about this and I’m assuming they know what they’re doing.

  • Wow! They’re willing to do just about anything to get back in the Oval office. What a rotten pair and such sore losers! Are we to now suspect that this election will be stolen and/or tied up in litigation for months? I already suspect that Ohio will be stolen, as it was by the current administration.

  • I know other states have different procedures, so in Texas voters must declare a party and there are separate checklists for each? — Tom Bisson, @18

    Don’t know about Texas, but here’s how it went in VA during our dual primary (I worked the polls as Officer o Elections):

    We don’t register party affiliation, so one can vote in either primary. What we had was a double set of poll books — identical, except that one was for Dems the other for Repubs. The only time I can think of, where two sets of books meant that things were kosher 🙂

    When someone came to vote, we asked which primary they wanted to vote in (*not* which party they belonged to). Most wanted to vote in the Dem primary. To make sure that they didn’t vote twice (once in each primary), one worker would check the Repub book. If there was no marking in the Repub poll book, the voter would get a number written next to his/her name in the Dem poll book. Then, that person would get the ticket (green for Dems, cause we’re growing; yellow for the Repubs — needs no explanation), with the same number on as written in the poll book. They’d take that ticket to the person who manned the voting machines (3 in our precinct) and, depending on the colour of the ticket she was handed, she’d cue in the particular slate of candidates — Repub for the yellow tickets, Dem for the green ones.

    We didn’t have caucuses later on but, if we had, I expect it would have been a piece of pie to check which primary someone had voted in. And that’s even though there’d never before been a dual primary (on the same day) in VA, so the procedure was new even to the veteran poll workers. With Texas doing things the way they do for the past 30 yrs, I expect they got everything down pat. Clinton campaign just got caught on the hop, not knowing about it beforehand, is all…

  • A possible Clinton lawsuit sounds to me like a delaying tactic.She isn’t going to get the kind of winning margins she needs, and the press is going to read her her rights — unless something happens to call the results into question. Legal action would keep Obama from claiming his Texas delegates until the matter is resolved, thus allowing her to stay in the race. Unless I’m missing something…

  • Carp:

    As a Precinct Coordinator in Texas, there is no confusion here about whom is eligible to caucus. Upon signing-in to vote, one must declare which party one is choosing to vote for the primary. They must have a voter registration card (and if not an official document is provided if the voter is deemed eligible to vote) which must be stamped for caucus prior to voting. Once that person has declared a party, he/she is supplied a ballot only for the selected party. Only individuals with a valid, stamped “Democrat” document are allowed into the caucus. Thus, only Republicans who vote the Democratic ticket may caucus.

    Early voters were allowed to vote at any early voting location; however, must caucus at their regular polling location. Down here, we have it under control and need no interference from the campaigns. Trust me, it will actually go better without that.

  • Our system might seem weird, but we’re not stupid.

    Texas, dude, your numbers don’t really back that up. I’m sorry. There’s really no evidence to support your allegation.

  • uuuh isnt Barack doing the SAME thing with super delegates? and caucus’s are unfair…

  • Since Hillary won the Texas primary by about 100,000 votes, is her team still suing over the caucuses? Because, at 36%, the numbers are tightening with Obama 52 and Hillary 48 so I’d really like to see the outcome.

    PS: is there a reason why Val Verde hasn’t reported the Democratic primary count? I mean, even if there are no Democrats like some counties, don’t they have to officially say so?

  • Only Hillary, can be an attack dog, and the female victim at the same time. I am so tired of divisive politics. I feel sorry for Obama, he pretty much forced to go negative to wart her negative campaign attacks. The Texas Two Steps has been around a very long time and both campaigns new the complexities. Get over it Hillary, if you want to run with the boys, Women-Up and stop complaining about everything!

  • Everthing is against clinton. Mr. Obama gets all the breaks. Anything he does is nice and dandy. Cnn has all but give him the nomination. Their airagant questions and people who have no respect for anyone. In the second primay debate in texas the women questioning Sentor Clinton was very rude to her and she embarsed me and the entire USA.

    Its all about obama. anything he does is ok. but let Hillary clinton do something wrong and the media is on top of it in a second. When Hillary and obama got together the last time in Texas Hillary Clinton and obama were question by a women. This woman should be fired for he way she was being so disrespectfull to Hillary Clinton. I hope Hillary does sue Texas and wins.

  • I’ll let your capitalization irregularities go as this is a web forum, but if you’re trying to be taken seriously you should at least get your subject-verb agreement correct (“women…was”). I’ll also let airagant (arrogant) slide as it works phonetically and has the right number of syllables, which is more than can be said for the embarrassing “embarsed.” Lastly, you seem to have invented a new tense (“were question”). I like to think that the average Democrat is smarter than GWB, but this post makes me concerned.

    • Comments are closed.