In Nevada, Demos Sue Themselves
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
The net effect of the silliness in a lawsuit against at-large Democrat caucuses in Nevada is that people are basically suing themselves.
It's nutty.[[In-content Ad]]Let's wind it back to the beginning.
Powerful (majority leader) Democrat Senator Harry Reid wanted Nevada to be more relevant in regard to the electoral process. He pushed hard for the Nevada caucuses to be moved up eight weeks or so to early February or late January.
That way, Nevada, which historically tends to swing Democrat in elections, would be right up there with Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina with regard to election status.
(Michigan did the same thing, but the Democrats were mad about that and refused to participate. Michgan's decision was made a little late in the game, I guess, but that's a different kettle of fish.)
So last March the Nevada Democrats came up with a set of rules and set the caucus date as Saturday, Jan. 19 - today.
When they were making the rules they thought it would be a good idea for there to be several - nine to be exact - at-large caucuses in Las Vegas casinos.
This was because there are thousands of people working in casinos on Saturday. These people wouldn't be able to participate if they had to travel back to their precincts to attend a caucus.
The Democrat State Central Committee voted unanimously to approve the plan.
Nobody was opposed to it.
The Democrat National Committee and Reid also approved the plan and it was put into place, officially, on April 23.
All good so far.
But last week, the culinary union endorsed Barack Obama.
Yikes!
What about all those culinary workers in those casinos? They might vote for Obama. Wait. That's not fair!
So a teachers' union and a group of Hillary supporters filed suit to halt the at-large caucuses.
They claimed, suddenly, that the caucuses at the casinos unfairly privilege those caucus goers over others throughout the state.
Named in the suit as plaintiffs were John Birkland, Vicky Birkland, John Cahill and Dwayne Chesnut.
Interestingly, Travis Brock, executive director of the Nevada State Democrat Party, provided minutes of a March 31 meeting of the State Central Committee that showed John Birkland, Vicky Birkland, John Cahill and Dwayne Chesnut all voted in favor of the plan.
Proper credit to those four people. I've been in the newspaper business 28 years and they get the distinction of being the first people I can remember who sued themselves.
"It is my statement that at no time did any of the plaintiffs object to this plan prior to the week before the caucus," Brock said in a sworn statement. "In fact, many of the plaintiffs voted in favor of approving these at-large caucuses that were clearly stated to operate under the very conditions they are just now objecting to."
And I got a chuckle when Bill Clinton got all snooty with a reporter from a Las Vegas television station.
The reporter asked him why the Clinton campaign didn't take a position with regard to the lawsuit.
The reporter knew the Clintons were playing both sides of the fence.
They weren't going to come out against it because it helps them if it succeeds. They weren't going to come out for it because it would look like they were disenfranchising voters.
Officially, Clinton campaign spokesmen simply said they had nothing to do with the lawsuit. I thought that was dumb. I thought they should have denounced the lawsuit, even though it was filed by Hillary supporters.
But far from denouncing it, Bill made it clear he agreed with the lawsuit.
He got pretty huffy with the reporter, accusing him of taking "an accusatory tone."
Then he blathered some nonsense about how votes in the at-large caucuses in the casinos would count "five times more" than votes in other caucuses and how that was unfair.
He said "five times more" at least five times.
He said it was unfair because the number of delegates coming out of the caucuses was based on the number of people who showed up. Since there was the potential for thousands of voters to show up at the casinos, their votes could count "five times more" than voters elsewhere.
When I heard that I thought it was weird. It didn't pass my sniff test. (Of course, very little that Bill or Hillary says ever does, but I digress.) I wondered why in the world the Nevada Democrats would set it up that way? I mean, I know they're Democrats, but come on.
So I checked into it a little bit. It is true that caucus delegates were based on attendance.
But the rules say that the nine at-large caucuses can account for only six percent of the delegates statewide, no matter how many people show up.
That means 94 percent of the delegates will come out of the other caucuses around the state.
I don't know what Bill's deal was, but there's no way a caucus-goer's vote in Las Vegas holds five times the weight of a caucus-goer in Reno.
But then again, Bill had trouble with the word "is."
So on Thursday, U.S. District Judge James C. Mahan rejected the plaintiff's argument, paving the way for the caucuses to go on today unhindered.
Siding with lawyers for the Democratic National Committee - you gotta love it when Demos sue Demos - the judge said federal law "recognizes the parties have the right to determine how to apportion delegates."
But by then, the damage was done. Honestly, you'd think the Clintons would be smarter than this.
By not denouncing the lawsuit, they enraged a whole pile of voters - many of them Hispanic - they were trying to court.
Chris Bohner, a representative of the culinary workers union, told the press the union's leadership was deeply offended by the lawsuit.
"We can't think of a more negative and disgraceful political tactic than publicly supporting a lawsuit that would disenfranchise thousands of workers, bellhops, dishwashers, housekeepers, recent immigrants who've just become American citizens," Bohner said.
And they put out an ad.
"The ad intends to point out the fact that the Clinton campaign supported this lawsuit, which is entirely appropriate, and we completely stand by the ad. We've waited for the Clinton campaign to denounce the lawsuit, and they didn't," he said.
Here's a portion of the Spanish-language radio spot, as translated by the Clinton campaign:
"Hillary Clinton does not respect our people. Hillary Clinton supporters want to prevent people from voting in their workplace on Saturday. This is unforgivable. Hillary Clinton is shameless."
Ouch.
Nobody knows what the outcome of today's Nevada caucuses will be, but seems to me the Clintons didn't hedge their bets very well in Las Vegas.
The net effect of the silliness in a lawsuit against at-large Democrat caucuses in Nevada is that people are basically suing themselves.
It's nutty.[[In-content Ad]]Let's wind it back to the beginning.
Powerful (majority leader) Democrat Senator Harry Reid wanted Nevada to be more relevant in regard to the electoral process. He pushed hard for the Nevada caucuses to be moved up eight weeks or so to early February or late January.
That way, Nevada, which historically tends to swing Democrat in elections, would be right up there with Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina with regard to election status.
(Michigan did the same thing, but the Democrats were mad about that and refused to participate. Michgan's decision was made a little late in the game, I guess, but that's a different kettle of fish.)
So last March the Nevada Democrats came up with a set of rules and set the caucus date as Saturday, Jan. 19 - today.
When they were making the rules they thought it would be a good idea for there to be several - nine to be exact - at-large caucuses in Las Vegas casinos.
This was because there are thousands of people working in casinos on Saturday. These people wouldn't be able to participate if they had to travel back to their precincts to attend a caucus.
The Democrat State Central Committee voted unanimously to approve the plan.
Nobody was opposed to it.
The Democrat National Committee and Reid also approved the plan and it was put into place, officially, on April 23.
All good so far.
But last week, the culinary union endorsed Barack Obama.
Yikes!
What about all those culinary workers in those casinos? They might vote for Obama. Wait. That's not fair!
So a teachers' union and a group of Hillary supporters filed suit to halt the at-large caucuses.
They claimed, suddenly, that the caucuses at the casinos unfairly privilege those caucus goers over others throughout the state.
Named in the suit as plaintiffs were John Birkland, Vicky Birkland, John Cahill and Dwayne Chesnut.
Interestingly, Travis Brock, executive director of the Nevada State Democrat Party, provided minutes of a March 31 meeting of the State Central Committee that showed John Birkland, Vicky Birkland, John Cahill and Dwayne Chesnut all voted in favor of the plan.
Proper credit to those four people. I've been in the newspaper business 28 years and they get the distinction of being the first people I can remember who sued themselves.
"It is my statement that at no time did any of the plaintiffs object to this plan prior to the week before the caucus," Brock said in a sworn statement. "In fact, many of the plaintiffs voted in favor of approving these at-large caucuses that were clearly stated to operate under the very conditions they are just now objecting to."
And I got a chuckle when Bill Clinton got all snooty with a reporter from a Las Vegas television station.
The reporter asked him why the Clinton campaign didn't take a position with regard to the lawsuit.
The reporter knew the Clintons were playing both sides of the fence.
They weren't going to come out against it because it helps them if it succeeds. They weren't going to come out for it because it would look like they were disenfranchising voters.
Officially, Clinton campaign spokesmen simply said they had nothing to do with the lawsuit. I thought that was dumb. I thought they should have denounced the lawsuit, even though it was filed by Hillary supporters.
But far from denouncing it, Bill made it clear he agreed with the lawsuit.
He got pretty huffy with the reporter, accusing him of taking "an accusatory tone."
Then he blathered some nonsense about how votes in the at-large caucuses in the casinos would count "five times more" than votes in other caucuses and how that was unfair.
He said "five times more" at least five times.
He said it was unfair because the number of delegates coming out of the caucuses was based on the number of people who showed up. Since there was the potential for thousands of voters to show up at the casinos, their votes could count "five times more" than voters elsewhere.
When I heard that I thought it was weird. It didn't pass my sniff test. (Of course, very little that Bill or Hillary says ever does, but I digress.) I wondered why in the world the Nevada Democrats would set it up that way? I mean, I know they're Democrats, but come on.
So I checked into it a little bit. It is true that caucus delegates were based on attendance.
But the rules say that the nine at-large caucuses can account for only six percent of the delegates statewide, no matter how many people show up.
That means 94 percent of the delegates will come out of the other caucuses around the state.
I don't know what Bill's deal was, but there's no way a caucus-goer's vote in Las Vegas holds five times the weight of a caucus-goer in Reno.
But then again, Bill had trouble with the word "is."
So on Thursday, U.S. District Judge James C. Mahan rejected the plaintiff's argument, paving the way for the caucuses to go on today unhindered.
Siding with lawyers for the Democratic National Committee - you gotta love it when Demos sue Demos - the judge said federal law "recognizes the parties have the right to determine how to apportion delegates."
But by then, the damage was done. Honestly, you'd think the Clintons would be smarter than this.
By not denouncing the lawsuit, they enraged a whole pile of voters - many of them Hispanic - they were trying to court.
Chris Bohner, a representative of the culinary workers union, told the press the union's leadership was deeply offended by the lawsuit.
"We can't think of a more negative and disgraceful political tactic than publicly supporting a lawsuit that would disenfranchise thousands of workers, bellhops, dishwashers, housekeepers, recent immigrants who've just become American citizens," Bohner said.
And they put out an ad.
"The ad intends to point out the fact that the Clinton campaign supported this lawsuit, which is entirely appropriate, and we completely stand by the ad. We've waited for the Clinton campaign to denounce the lawsuit, and they didn't," he said.
Here's a portion of the Spanish-language radio spot, as translated by the Clinton campaign:
"Hillary Clinton does not respect our people. Hillary Clinton supporters want to prevent people from voting in their workplace on Saturday. This is unforgivable. Hillary Clinton is shameless."
Ouch.
Nobody knows what the outcome of today's Nevada caucuses will be, but seems to me the Clintons didn't hedge their bets very well in Las Vegas.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092