Clinton Tries to Delay County Conventions
March 15th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
(Updated below, Update II)
The Associated Press is reporting that the Clinton campaign has asked the Texas Democratic Party to postpone the county conventions scheduled for Saturday, March 29. The conventions are the next stage in Texas’ convoluted caucus process.
In a letter to the party late Friday, the Clinton campaign stated it had received more than 2,000 complaints of violations during the caucus process, in which a million Texans came out. The campaign wants the eligibility of the caucus-goers double checked before the process continues.
With about 41 percent of precinct caucuses reported, rival Barack Obama was ahead with 56 percent to Clinton’s 44 percent.
The party has apparently already told the Clinton campaign it can’t verify the voters before March 29. They have not announced a decision on the Clinton campaign’s request for a delay.
The Obama campaign responded to the request with the following:
“We don’t think that the record-breaking number of Texans who stood up to be counted on March 4th would appreciate the Clinton campaign’s attempt to disenfranchise them and silence their voices just because the outcome wasn’t politically beneficial to Senator Clinton” – said Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer.
For now, it looks like what was a historic night for Texas Democrats could well end up as a nasty court battle.
Update: Below is the letter in its entirety.
Update II: This is an interesting take from the pro-Obama folks at Burnt Orange Report on the implications of the Clinton request.
Mr. Boyd L. Richie
Chairman, Texas Democratic Party
State Democratic Executive Committee
505 W. 12th Street, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Chairman Richie:
We want to congratulate you on the extraordinary turnout of voters across the State of Texas who participated in the March 4 Democratic presidential primary and precinct conventions. We appreciate the unprecedented administrative challenges the high turnout presented. Fortunately, the Texas Democratic Party has under its Rules and the Texas Delegate Selection Plan requirements designed to ensure that the process in which eligible voters participate is fair and one in which they can have confidence, and when there are deficiencies, requirements to ensure that those deficiencies are rectified.
In this regard we are writing to express our concerns regarding the review and tally of the official results of the State Party’s precinct conventions on March 4. As you are no doubt aware, there are significant questions about whether the precinct conventions were conducted in accordance with the Party’s Delegate Selection Plan and Rules. On the night of the caucus itself we brought many instances of these irregularities to the attention of the State Party. The campaign received in excess of 2,000 complaints of rules violations, indicating widespread violations of the Party’s rules, including the following specific occurrences that are clear violations of specific rules:
- Temporary Chair packets were released by the election judge prior to 7:00 pm
- Sign-in sheets were filled out before 7:00 pm
- Precincts were consolidated for purposes of holding a convention
- Precinct caucuses began before polls closed for the primary
- Ineligible participants voted or ineligible delegates were elected, including participants who were not registered voters, participants who did not vote in the primary, provisional voters whose votes were counted, and no verification was made of the eligibility of participants or delegates
- Accurate written records of participants, presidential preferences, and elected delegates were not kept
- Participants’ names and presidential preference were entered on sign-in sheets by someone other than the eligible individual participant
- Results were taken from a head count or hand count rather than the written roll
- Delegate votes were not ratified by the precinct convention
- Failure to follow Robert’s Rules of Order at the precinct convention
We have had several conversations with the State Party since March 4, including conversations with Chad Dunn, regarding the procedures that the State Party intends to follow to insure that the rules were followed and that only the votes of eligible participants would be considered. We understood that we were to receive a memorandum regarding that process, but were advised yesterday that instead we would be invited to a briefing on Monday, March 17.
Last week our Counsel, Lyn Utrecht, was told by Mr. Dunn that the State Party intended to verify the eligibility of participants and that the Party’s IT people were working on a system for doing that electronically. On Tuesday the 11th, when Ms. Utrecht contacted Mr. Dunn to inquire about the status of the memorandum regarding the procedures, she was advised that the State Party no longer intended to verify the eligibility of participants or delegates because the Party would not have the ability to do that before the County Conventions. This was confirmed by Mr. Dunn yesterday.
Therefore, it is our understanding that the results will be counted and delegates awarded based on a count of votes without any determination by the State Party of eligibility of the participants, and without any certification by the Precinct Chairs or County and Senate District Chairs that they completed a thorough review of the eligibility of participants and delegate candidates.
Thus it will be left to the campaigns to file credentials challenges against those delegates awarded based on the votes of ineligible participants, without the State Party making any effort to identify ineligible participants. We were advised yesterday that we will begin to receive copies of the scanned sign-in sheets sometime early next week and that it will not be until the end of next week when we will receive all of this data. In order to review this, the campaigns will also need access to the voter rolls to determine who voted in the primary held that day. While the State Party has indicated that it will request this information from the larger counties and provide it, it is unclear how soon that information will be available. For the smaller counties, the campaigns must request it from each county.
We believe this is in direct contravention of the Rules, which require that the Party determine the eligibility of participants and that only the votes of eligible participants are counted. Moreover, if the Party’s reason for not ensuring that only eligible participants are counted is based on the fact that the Party cannot complete the review process prior to the scheduled date of the County and Senate District Conventions, the campaigns can’t possibly complete this review in a timely fashion. Credentials challenges are presently due March 26.
We believe that (1) it is a violation of the Party’s Delegate Selection Plan and Rules for the Party not to ensure that the eligibility of participants was determined before their votes are counted; and (2) if the Party cannot complete this task in time to hold the next level conventions on March 29, those conventions must be postponed until such time as accurate presidential preference counts can be made based on a review of each and every sign in sheet to determine eligibility of participants and delegates.
It is a violation of the rights of legitimate participants to have their true vote count distorted by violations of the Party’s Rules. It is the Party’s responsibility to ensure the integrity of the precinct convention process by making sure that the Rules were followed and that the final official results of the precinct conventions are accurate and in compliance with the Rules.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the Party explain to both campaigns what procedures will be followed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the precinct convention results and agree to postpone the County and Senate District Conventions until such time as that process can be completed.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that the votes of the people who participated in the March 4 primary and precinct conventions are accurately counted.
Sincerely,
/s/
Garry Mauro
Authorized Representative
Guy Cecil
National Political and Field Director
March 15th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
This, to put it simply, frigging sucks, but consider the source. About like saying that Michigan was a fair election when there was only one candidate (guess who?) on the ballot. Jonathan Chiat in TRB in New Republic was right: by the time she’s done, she won’t be in a position to defeat Hitler’s dog in November.
Verify a million signatures? Maybe by, oh, November. And in my precinct, 4640, the (Clinton) Temporary Secretary turned down my suggestion to do two different counts–one of verified, identified voters (stamped cards or receipts) and one with those plus those who couldn’t prove they voted (we never got the rolls).
March 15th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
As an elected delegate, I am offended at Senator Clinton’s attempt to steal my vote and the votes of the voters that I represent. I trust the State Democratic Party will treat this request for what it is, a feeble attempt to deny Democrats their legal rights.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:02 am
It figures! The Clintons will release their grip on the Democratic party when we pry their cold, dead fingers from it.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Is this really what we want in a President?
Haven’t we had seven years of this in the White House already…?
March 16th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Consider the source?
The “source” is the Associated Press. Do you hate them, too, Wendell, or just Hillary Clinton?
I took part in the caucuses in Dallas. I later read reports that in other precincts, Obama’s “supporters” took the sign-in logs and LOCKED OUT registered voters who arrived at the caucuses to elect delegates in support of Hillary Clinton.
But you wouldn’t have the courts or anyone else investigate these issues, would you, Wendell? No, because you voted for Barack Obama, so all the other candidates should just dry up and go away, wah, wah, wah!
Obama doesn’t need Hillary Clinton to make him look bad. His infantile supporters do a great job of that for him.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:38 am
You may not want the signatures verified, but the rest of us do. This election is too close to allow the possibility of fraud to determine the outcome.
If caucuses are too loose to allow verification, then they should be abandoned as a voting function.
We must be careful to protect our democracy. Too many ways the dishonest may try to manipulate the outcome, if we do not.
Not to say that there has been fraud, but if one cannot verify, then it is not reliable.
I work the polls, and we treat every vote as extremely important, and we do not want to diminish the value of any votes by miscounting.
We check and double check, and then submit the ballots to be rechecked by the main ballot depot.
If caucuses cannot be checked and rechecked carefully, then they are not worth using anymore.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Really? This is so outrageous? Texas caucuses were an entirely farcical excercise where nobody had any idea what anybody was doing. Random people took charge at caucus locations where there was complete chaos with hardly anybody looking for verification, etc. So, yes, we do need to verify who voted. For example, at my location, we didn’t even have ballots–we used campaign material to write voters’ names on it. By the way, since nobody was incharge, my friend, a staunch Obama supporter took over the proceedings. While I have no reason to doubt his integrity, I can hardly say the same about the 1000s others who ran this joke.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:25 am
There should be an investigation. We had reports of Obama supporters harassing Clinton supporters at several precinct locations in Lubbock. There’s also some speculation that the Obama campaign had people bring pre-filled sign in sheets to certain precinct conventions.
This isn’t an attempt to “steal” votes. The 2000 complaints should be investigated to determine if they are credible or fallacious. If the Obama campaign has nothing to hide, then they shouldn’t be concerned.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:32 am
after 33 years of up-close and personal Clinton watching, i should no longer be surprised when they resort to heavy-handed, politically tone-deaf tactics to delay and/or diminish the effects of pending bad news. but i am.
i suppose i can understand it from a purely political perspective, as 2008 is shaping up to be the easiest DEM victory for POTUS since 1932, and for the Clintons it must be incredibly painful to watch as time and tide turn away from them.
during the next five weeks before the Pennsylvania vote, several new numbers will appear in the headlines. Obama’s delegate lead continues to increase as primary/caucus vote tallies are completed and superdelegates make their choices known. and all too soon the number 4000 will again make the Iraq War a front-page news story.
to have the numbers from Texas come out 29Mar showing a definitive Obama victory (in a BIG state) would undermine the Clintons rationale for the DEM nomination, in addition to it’s timing and it’s reversal of 5Mar headlines.
if elections are to be but endurance/perseverance contests to be won by “any means necessary”, then the Clintons would win every time. but a slim majority of the DEM voting American electorate has asserted so far this year, that they desire something better than that.
and the question now comes down for the Clintons to answer: “Why can they not have it?”
March 16th, 2008 at 8:23 am
I am a Texas Dem and attended a caucus. Clinton is doing the right thing. Obama had folks from out of state having voters sign caucus sign in sheets during the day of March 4th. This is illegal. Sign in sheets can only be signed once the caucus begins. Doing this inflates the number of delegates that get assigned to Obama.
I saw the same Obama folks attempt to psychically restrain Obama supporters who were frustrated with the wait to get things started. Clinton supporters left as well - but the Clinton people did not psychically restrain them.
I stayed and hopefully got my vote counted - but left shaken at the brown-shirt tactics of the Obama supporters. I willl never, ever vote for Obama after what I witnessed that night.
In other districts the police were called as Obama supporters grabbed the caucus packets and locked out any Clinton supporters from the room.
Obama is toast in November against McCain. Preacher-Gate, NAFTA-Gate, Rezko. The Republicans will win in a landslide.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Wendell: Your caucus may not have even been legal. People who did not have proof that they voted were supposed to be marked as provisional with a P on the sheets. If your secretary didn’t do that, then they were not even following the caucus rules. If they said they didn’t have the voter rolls to check against then they either started too early or were not telling the truth (without those rolls, how did they ensure that nobody voted twice in the primary)?. All the more reason why the party needs to verify things before March 29.
What county and precinct are you from?
March 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am
DaCoach: Do you really consider a request to verify and count all the votes to be somehow disenfranchising you? Unless you voted illegally, that would be an attempt to PROPERLY ENFRANCHISE you.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Good for Hillary seeking the Truth!
However, Obamabots and supporters are framing it as Hillary “delaying the County Conventions” because she’a mean old (fill in the blank)!!
Please God - save us from empty suit Oblahma!
March 16th, 2008 at 9:40 am
hey texas dem!
with friends like you, who needs republicans?
who do you want picking the next supreme court justices?
preacher-gate? nafta-gate? why stop with just 2?? c’mon, call it rezko-gate? why not, in fact, take ANY silly talking point, no matter how ridiculous, claim that “hey republicans will do this in the general election, so it’s ok if we do it too,” and then just go wild. look at all the potential “gates” out there to be had!! how exciting. do you even have a fucking clue what happened in watergate? to compare ANY of these so-called “scandals” with watergate is just, well, scandalous. and stupid.
please, leave the republican tactics up to the republicans. pull your head out of the sand. look at the makeup of the supreme court and their recent decisions. then decide, how important IS it for a democrat to be in the WH? then shut up, and start fighting for either obama OR hillary to get in.
get some perspective and stop whining.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Clinton is well within her right to see to it that there is some accountability given all of the allegations. I read more than my fair share of disturbing reports of hijinks going on, locking people out, tossing away caucus manuals, etc. It’s about time we get a little transparency with respect to the caucus results.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Hello James C.
I told about what I saw at my caucus and heard about at others around the state. If you don’t like it…good because I don’t either.
I am supporting my canidate which is why I showed up for the Democratic caucus in my district to vote.
The “Gates” are exactly what is going to happen to Obama if he gets the Democratic nomination. Those are not my terms - they are already in use in the press and the blogs. Use Google and see for yourself. If you don’t like it…good…I don’t either.
I think if the Dems nominate Obama we will lose the general election in November. If you think the seat is getting hot for Obama now, just wait until he gets the nom and the republicans get started on him. That’s what I meant at the end of my post. It is exactly what the Repubs do and have done (Swift-boating, Willie Horton, etc). If you don’t like it…good…I don’t either.
The Primary process is not an all out to win the Nomination - but who is the best candidate to win the GE in November. We need to make sure we chose the best one for November. Let’s make sure the Texas caucus voters can be verified. If anyone was using Republican tactics the day of the caucuses - it was Obama’s people.
If you do not see the this affecting Obama in the GE - then you are the one who needs to pull your head out of the sand. - not me.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Speaking of being verified, in Minnesota I took my 18 year old daughter for her first chance to vote, making sure she had necessary documents. Frankly, she could have been 15 and still have voted. No docs were checked.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Clinton won the primary 51% to Obama 47% and she beat him by 100,000 votes. But when the caucuses ended Obama won?
If you take the percentage the caucuses say he “won” by and applied to the day time vote when most of the people voted then he would have won the primary and beat Hillary by 400,000 votes.
That did not happen when the vote was cast by the voters in regulated standard voting proceedure.
But in the highly questionable, unregulated, un representative chaos of the caucuses that night, he wins and then is awarded most of the delegates and declared the winner of Texas???
How can the safeguarded vote of the vast majority of the people in the daytime be overturned and reversed by a few people in an unregulated group of meetings? Looks like material for a law suit to me.
It certainly is NOT the will of the people for Obama to get the Texas win and the delegates that go with it.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Richard…Yes I do consider it disenfranchisement. As anyone can tell you, anything that isn’t a straight up vote by machine is full of confusion and missteps. I don’t necessarily agree that the caucus on top of the primary vote was a good idea. However, that was the decision made by the SDP and we worked with what we were given.
Was it a perfect election. No. However, it did represent the intent of the party. The fact that more Obama people attended the caucus than Clinton people seems obvious. I’m also confidant that there were mistakes made by both Obama and Clinton people.
But the point is, were the results representative of the intent of the party to allow delegate selection based upon caucus attendance. Would you suggest that we negate all elections not 100% according to Roberts Rules? In that case, we might as well stop having any voting.
In my precinct every attendee was verified by both a Clinton and Obama supporter. People with questionable verification were marked as provisional. We don’t have to verify one million signatures. All we have to do is verify that the 9 provisional voters are actually on the voter roll which wasn’t available to us that night.
But make no mistake about it. This is a underhanded attempt by the Clinton campaign to disenfranchise the caucus voters in Texas. It seems they believe a non sanctioned vote in two states is valid but a sanctioned vote with acceptable flaws isn’t.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:32 am
I heard complaints all day on March 4 how Obama supporters were distributing sign in sheets early and later in the evening how confusing the caucuses were and how late they ran.
If Obama is sure he won the caucuses why worry about having the votes verified?
March 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
[…] « Clinton Tries to Delay County Conventions […]
March 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
My Texas precinct caucus was a train wreck, a sham, and more. We can and must do better than this in our political process…out future depends on it. Turn on the bright lights, verify the rolls, and let the chips fall where they may. After my caucus experience, I applaud the Clinton Campaign’s efforts to sort this mess out. For the good of the nation, it needs to be done.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Why are the BO supporters getting so uptight? Could it be that they’re afraid of getting caught redhanded? Seems to me they are! How many other caucuses had the same problems?
March 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
It really saddens me that the Clinton camp is acting the way they are. If they want a recount in Texas then we need to re-do Michigan and Florida. I believe the real issue at hand is that they never expected so many people to turn out for the Texas Caucus, especially in support of Obama. According to records, only 6 people showed up in our precinct in the 2004 Caucus and this year we had 189 voters turnout. Most people there had no idea that they could even participate in the caucus. Go figure. I am a supporter of Obama. Not because he’s a black man, but because he’s the right candidate,with the right credentials, at the right time, for a people who want a “right” America. If not for Obama, I would be voting for Clinton just because she is a Democrat. No other reason.It feeld good to have a choice!!! But for the first time in 21 years since I’ve had the right to vote, I’ve actually gotten involved in the process. It makes me proud to see people get out and exercise their right to vote, knowing that they have a choice and that their voice does matter. No matter what the outcome, I will support Obama to the end. In my life time, I’m glad to have met someone who has had such a profound and positive effect on the American people. To stand in my precinct and see people, young and old, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Middle-Eastern, etc. supporting Obama overwhelmed me. This is what America is supposed to look like. I’m tired of theoretic rhetoric. Let’s not talk about it. Let’s be about it.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
What I saw at my caucus were Clinton supporters on an apparent evidence gathering expedition. They were looking for anything to complain about, not to make sure the process was fair and accurate but so they could do just what Clinton is doing now - tarnishing our process and casting a suspicious light on results that don’t favor her. Because of that, I’m very skeptical of all these reports of wrongdoings by Obama supporters. If you look for something long and hard enough, you’re bound to find it, even when it’s not there.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
[…] was just last week that the Clinton campaign asked party officials to postpone the county conventions — the second in the three-tiered caucus […]
March 30th, 2008 at 11:08 am
[…] The Clinton camp has recently been fighting to challenge the Texas caucuses behind the scenes, while hoping to publicly bring the validity of caucus delegates into question again (see past Nevada caucus legal threat by Clinton camp and camp supporters and her many statements against the caucus process). As usual, they say one thing publicly, that the campaign itself will not be challenging Texas caucuses (this pledge came after some took the Clinton camp to task over the legal posturing they used to try to discredit the Texas process in the first place: from the Burnt Orange Report), but do another privately, train volunteers through campaign lawyers to contest the caucusing process and request a "double-checking" by their camp of those caucusing. […]