Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

News


Judge OKs at-large caucuses on Strip

Party has right to set up its own guidelines

Fearing he would set a precedent that affects presidential caucuses across the country, a federal judge refused Thursday to interfere with the Democratic Party's plans to hold at-large precinct caucuses to accommodate Strip shift workers.

U.S. District Judge James Mahan said political parties have the freedom to set up their own guidelines for caucuses if they do not discriminate against voters based on race, gender or religion.

"They have a right to govern themselves, set up their own rules," Mahan said. "If the Democratic Party said, 'We're going to exclude African-Americans, we're going to exclude women or Jews,' I would say you've got my interest."

Before rendering his decision, Mahan listened for two hours to arguments from the Nevada State Education Association and the state Democratic Party regarding nine at-large caucuses that will operate on or around the Strip.


Most Popular Stories
  • LANDLORD: AS TENANT, FLEISS FOR THE BIRDS
  • Experience Ending
  • NORM: Owner Jay-Z says 40/40 Club is fine
  • JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE COMMISSION: Panel suspends Halverson
  • 1958 CRASH: DEATH IN DESERT AIR
  • CALICO BASIN: Tranquillity lost
  • NORM: 'Idol' contestant set to go country
  • NORM: Jackson in action possibly in Vegas
  • NORM: Cruise the object of a twin crush
  • NORM: 'Phantom' sequel set for London



  • The teachers union sued the Democratic Party over the at-large caucuses, alleging the formula adopted to choose delegates at the sites dilutes the votes of citizens at fixed precincts.

    The union also argued that accommodations were not made for other Las Vegas Valley workers, such as school custodians, whose work schedules conflict with the caucuses.

    "I represent the custodians in this case, and they are being disenfranchised," said Lynn Warne, president of the state teachers union. Warne said the many custodians are responsible for opening caucus sites.

    Attorneys for the Democratic Party argued that the union's concerns about the at-large caucus were raised too late. The plan was adopted in October; the lawsuit was filed a week ago.

    They rejected the union's position that the original plan did not outline the delegate-to-voter ratio.

    In at-large caucuses, the number of delegates are assigned based on attendance. At fixed precincts, the number of delegates chosen are based on registered voters in each specific area.

    At at-large precincts, not only does the number of delegates change based on turnout, but the ratio changes. The lower the turnout, the better the ratio of delegates to caucus-goers.

    Attorney Mark Ferrario, who represents the teachers union, said the Democratic Party's formula could provide one delegate to as few as five caucus participants at the at-large precincts, while the other county caucuses will be assigned one delegate per 50 registered voters.

    Ferrario argued that if at-large caucus attendance is low and the participation at fixed precinct sites is high, the at-large participants' votes will, vote for vote, be more powerful.

    He suggested the party quietly changed the ratio formula without proper approval. In the only Democratic Party plan the teachers union saw, all caucuses were assigned one delegate per 50 voters, Ferrario said.

    "I don't think changing the ratio from 50-to-1 to 5-to-1 would be considered minor on anyone's scale," he said.

    The teachers union offered to support at-large caucuses if the 50-to-1 ratio were applied, but the Democratic Party rejected the proposal.

    Mahan suggested that Ferrario's argument was irrelevant, emphasizing that caucuses are not designed to reflect a one person, one vote process.

    "This isn't an election, it's a caucus," Mahan said.

    Attorney Paul Larsen, a member of the Democratic Party's legal team, said the delegate-selection formula was set forth in the party's plan that was first introduced in March. The plan, he said, is posted on its Web site.

    "Anyone who could read and was engaged in the process could have read what was going on," Larsen said after the hearing. "Just because they didn't doesn't make the plan invalid."

    Ferrario told Mahan that no transcripts or meeting minutes showed that the caucus plan was approved by the Democratic Party Central Committee, a requirement under the party's own rules.

    "This is according to their own rules," Ferrario said.

    Although the Democratic Party never produced evidence of such a vote, Mahan did not appear to give Ferrario's argument much weight. The judge also rejected Ferrario's suggestion that state law governs the structure of caucuses and said the law applies to the county and state conventions, not how delegates are chosen.

    Critics of the lawsuit contend the teachers union is more concerned about blocking convenient caucus locations for the Culinary union members, most of whom work on the Strip, than providing the same opportunity for other workers throughout the valley.

    Opponents of the legal action argue the teachers union had aligned itself with Sen. Hillary Clinton and only raised questions about the process after the Culinary union endorsed Sen. Barack Obama on Jan. 9. The complaint was filed two days after the endorsement was announced.

    "That's the great irony: The group that has aligned itself with Hillary is disenfranchising the same group of workers Hillary complained wasn't allowed to vote in Iowa. My head is spinning," said Eric Herzik, chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Nevada, Reno.

    About 80 percent of the Culinary union's 60,000 members work on the Strip. Those union workers represent about half of all employees at Strip resorts and are eligible to caucus at the at-large precincts.

    Warne denied that the legal action was taken because of the Obama endorsement.

    "This has never been about candidate preference," she said after the hearing.

    Mahan's decision was applauded by the Culinary union and leaders of the Democratic Party.

    "We are very, very happy about the results from the court's decision today," said D. Taylor, the Culinary's secretary-treasurer. "It's been very confusing and troubling for our members, but we think now we can concentrate on the guts of the campaign."

    When asked whether he thought the lawsuit was fueled by his union's endorsement, Taylor responded: "The lawsuit came two days after we endorsed Sen. Obama. I'll just leave it at that."

    Mahan's decision should keep Saturday's caucuses tight, Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman, said in a statement. The decision did not appear to stop the two sides from taking last-minute jabs at one another.

    "We're glad that the Nevada court upheld the Nevada Democratic Party's caucus plan, which encourages voter participation," Burton said. "While the Clinton camp clearly believed the voices of workers should be silenced in service of their perceived political interest, they enjoyed a 25-point lead two months ago and have much of the party establishment in their camp."

    A statement from Clinton's camp encouraged Nevada voters to participate in the caucuses and said that Obama's team thinks whoever landed the Culinary union's endorsement would win the state.

    "Make no mistake -- the current system that inhibits some shift workers from being able to participate, while allowing others to do so, would seem to benefit other campaigns," a statement from Clinton's campaign said. "More importantly it's unfair."

    Nevada Democratic Party Chairwoman Jill Derby and Clark County Democratic Chairman John Hunt urged the state's Democrats to reunite and morph into a force to change the country's administration.

    "Some Democrats might have disagreed on the allocation of delegates in this caucus, but this issue is settled and we are unified in our commitment that Nevadans turn out and voice our opinions Saturday to help select our next president," the leaders said in a joint statement.

    That the state's two largest unions are butting heads days before Nevada's first relevant caucuses has raised concerns. The state's strong union forces had persuaded the Democratic National Committee to move up the Nevada caucuses and make them relevant.

    "This is the type of intra-party fight the Democrats don't want and can ill-afford," Herzik said. "The Democrats were rolling along and unified."

    Union representatives said Thursday they plan to move forward and harbor no bad feelings for each other.

    "We never, ever get confused if we have a difference of opinion," Taylor said. "It's our members' kids who are in those schools."

    "The Culinary and teachers unions have had their differences in the past," said Warne, who downplayed the conflict. "It's just the way it is."

    Although the controversy and battle between unions might play out in Nevada for months to come, some think that the rest of the nation -- including the national media that packed the courtroom Thursday -- will forget about the caucus debacle.

    "Honestly, this will be forgotten so quickly," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "That's the beauty of a 50-state election system, you move so fast to the next venue that almost everything is a one-day story."

    Contact reporter Adrienne Packer at apacker@reviewjournal.com or (702) 384-8710.

    Links powered by inform.com


    Leave Your Comment 10 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    precinct 6352 wrote on January 19, 2008 03:43 PM: when I arrived today at my precinct to support Obama, a Mr. Gonzalez at the door said "this table is for Hillary people to sign in, Obama did not send anyone to sign in his people..." then he pointed to a corner of the room where other Obama supporters were seated. Not until someone who knew that EVERYONE needed to be counted and sign in did the process take place correctly, but after much arguing with those at the Dem Party table wearing Hillary shirts. The temp precint chair, "Babs," had no idea what to do. This precinct ran out of ballots and started using scraps of cardboard to count people. THEN Mr. Gonzalez was showing elderly voters the Clinton box and said, "Put your X there" and turned in the ballot!! There was so much fraud at our precinct. Finally, a rep from the Obama and Clinton campaigns took over and did it right - we all raised our hands and were counted. Also, Babs and Mr. Gonzalez told the Obama supporters once the ballot was turned in, they could leave if they wanted to. They told the Hillary people that they needed to stay put until it was all over. This DRASTICALLY altered the vote in Hillary's favor. Obama lost about 30 votes because of these underhanded tactics! FRAUD!


    BC wrote on January 18, 2008 12:22 PM: Well, if any of these candidates gets elected, I think we'd better practice kissing our own behinds. !-)

    Personally, I'm not registered to vote for either wing, so I've got to hope that there is a palatable greenie, libertarian, Bloomberg, etc. I'm not holding my breath, though. Where'd Perot go? He looked (to MANY) like a raving loon, but what he said about responsibility and deficit spending sure sounds like prophecy now.


    zb wrote on January 18, 2008 12:06 PM: BC-

    ... as you know been awake a long time... but there is a choice we have to make between bad and worse... so called independents or say libertarians (who tend toward actually being republicans in many cases) haven't offered up any real alternatives... when i hear quotes from independents that they are undecided between McCain or Obama i've got to believe they are even dumber then the rest of us for not realizing the difference between them...

    faced with bad choices it comes down to a simple choice: its the supreme court, stupid (to paraphrase the quote..). Presidents come and go but those jerks hang around for a long time...

    in the meantime when it comes to Nevada both parties work for the same special interests. They don't work for us. I suspect it is no different anywhere else, (maybe the real quote should be, ..."its the people stupid..." for putting up with and perpetuating it) but that doesn't mean we don't keep trying.

    so how's the view where you are "BC" ;) ?

    zb


    JOHN wrote on January 18, 2008 11:14 AM: IM A UNION MEMBER,AND IM VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON.DONT WANT OBAMAS CHICAGO STYLE POLITICS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.


    BC wrote on January 18, 2008 10:08 AM: zb-

    Look at it from this perspective. You're just one more person that has just woken up to the fact that your party representatives-and those who wish to represent you-don't care about you or your principles, they just want your vote. I encourage you to hold off on voting for a candidate on either side of the same political party (I'm talking about Dem OR Rep-they are one in the same) and start looking into the independents when they make their candidacies known.

    It's a beauty contest at this point, and all the annointed "front runners" are nothing but contestants. Each contestant is "plugged-in" to some degree or another, to the political machine that is the Washington Beltway.

    Whenever some contestant opens their mouths, ask yourself if whatever is spewing forth is good for America, ALL America, or is it just good for the campaign. I think that if every voter did this honestly, we'd have a VASTLY different political landscape.


    zb wrote on January 18, 2008 07:24 AM: While I will attend the caucus, I have resigned in protest as a precinct chairperson based on the outrageous and unconscionable decision by the Nevada Democratic Party to have different rules and provide greater access for different groups.



    This is a violation of our most fundamental principles of equality and democracy. It is the kind of voting methods we expect from a dictatorship and not from a democracy. Shame on the Nevada Democratic Party and shame on those who have turned this into a racial issue.



    It doesn't take a court or rocket science to recognize this is fundamentally wrong. Obviously people who feel disadvantaged by it are going to oppose it and those who feel they benefit from it will want to keep and justify it. Isn't that what happens with all "jim crow" laws? Had the Culinary Union endorsed HRC instead of OB we might very well have heard a different take from the respective parties - as in the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. But that doesn’t change the fact that either way it is still WRONG.



    Given the facts, I would no more think of running a polling place under a dictator or the old south then running one under these circumstances.



    In the meantime, the vitriol against the candidates is really sickeningly out of control. Maybe instead of questioning the candidate’s motives it is time to question our own.



    While it is important that the Democrats win the WhiteHouse, when it comes to local politics I don't see much difference between the parties or the courts. Its all about power and money and they all work for the same special interests (can you say casino/developer). We do need change but it needs to begin right here and this case proves it.



    zb


    zb wrote on January 18, 2008 07:22 AM: While I will attend the caucus, I have resigned in protest as a precinct chairperson based on the outrageous and unconscionable decision by the Nevada Democratic Party to have different rules and provide greater access for different groups.

    This is a violation of our most fundamental principles of equality and democracy. It is the kind of voting methods we expect from a dictatorship and not from a democracy. Shame on the Nevada Democratic Party and shame on those who have turned this into a racial issue.

    It doesn't take a court or rocket science to recognize this is fundamentally wrong. Obviously people who feel disadvantaged by it are going to oppose it and those who feel they benefit from it will want to keep and justify it. Isn't that what happens with all "jim crow" laws? Had the Culinary Union endorsed HRC instead of OB we might very well have heard a different take from the respective parties - as in the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. But that doesn’t change the fact that either way it is still WRONG.

    Given the facts, I would no more think of running a polling place under a dictator or the old south then running one under these circumstances.

    In the meantime, the vitriol against the candidates is really sickeningly out of control. Maybe instead of questioning the candidate’s motives it is time to question our own.

    While it is important that the Democrats win the WhiteHouse, when it comes to local politics I don't see much difference between the parties or the courts. Its all about power and money and they all work for the same special interests (can you say casino/developer). We do need change but it needs to begin right here and this case proves it.

    zb


    Cmayhem wrote on January 18, 2008 07:01 AM: A good percentage of the culinary workers probably are not legal citizens and have no right to vote in America. What a sham!


    helen weils wrote on January 18, 2008 06:45 AM: It seems like the caucus rules of both parties are designed to eliminate the voice of most. Isn't it time we went
    to a general ballot primary so everyone
    gets a voice instead of those who are able to physically attend?
    I would love to be able to vote in this
    primary for Ron Paul but I'm out of town. In this day and age, the rules
    need to be changed to reflect the entire legal population.
    GO RON PAUL!


    feelin3rdworld wrote on January 18, 2008 06:33 AM: Not too many of us realized that 1 vote would ever count for 5, what's up with that? Is that normal practice? If so I think we all need to move and have a po box where this happens so my 1 vote can count as 5. Caucus or not it determines who will run in the end and who will not