Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search


LULAC, Clinton Campaign Thinking of Suing TDP Over Caucus


by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas

Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 08:00 AM CST


Dear Clinton Campaign,

Don't be sore winners/losers. I read this from the Houston Chronicle:

Garry Mauro said the campaign will file complaints with the state Democratic Party's local credential committees, and request hearings. If the campaign isn't satisfied with the rulings meted out by the committees, legal action might follow. "We're not going to give up that option," he said.

Earlier today, the Clinton campaign said it had received hundreds of complaints about voting irregularities stemming from Tuesday night's caucuses. The complaints included Clinton supporters being turned away at the doors and Obama supporters not qualified to caucus being permitted to caucus.

We have reports of complaints of the Clinton camp, too. You all aren't all saints -- as much as you may think you are -- and trying to diminish the results of the caucus just because you lost there is cheap, petty, and underhanded. That's no way to win the Presidency -- not if you want anyone to follow you.

You had a good night. Don't ruin it with nonsense.

Sincerely,

Phillip Martin 

---------------------------------------

Dear LULAC,

I read that you are considering suing the Texas Democratic Party because, as the article said, you are concerned that the voices of Latinos are not being heard. The article also noted that, while your group has not officially endorsed, a number of high ranking officials within your organization support Senator Hillary Clinton.

I'm Hispanic. So is my mother. We voted for Senator Barack Obama. We appreciate your concern, but our voices were heard.

So were the voices of 2.8 million Texans yesterday in the primary vote, and what looks like will be over 1 million Texans in the caucuses. It seems to be that plenty of Texans had their voices heard. The article noted one concern of yours:

"We had reports all night long and this morning of many, many people who couldn’t stay there anymore," says Vera. "It was 9:30, 10 o'clock and they haven’t even begun to vote."

I don't think a tremendous outpouring of democracy merits litigation. I also don't know how late caucuses exclusively hurt Latinos more than any other race, or any other type of Texas voter, for that matter.

As an Hispanic, I'd ask you to not drag me into this potential mess of a lawsuit. My family grew up in El Paso, and I was always taught to respect the rules and the process, when they are fairly created. I don't want to be considered chiple.

The rules for the Texas Democratic Primary were fairly created -- in fact, Garry Mauro (former Executive Director of the TDP) and Bob Slagle (former Chair of the TDP) both had a hands-on role in crafting and maintaining the TDP rules for the caucuses. Coincidently, they both played a prominent role in Senator Clinton's campaign in Texas.

I appreciate the role you play in Texas politics -- protecting the voice of Hispanic citizens. You've done tremendous work with congressional redistricting battles in the past, among other things. But 2.8 million voters in a primary, and over 1 million voters at caucuses, are lots of strong voices making themselves known

Let us stand up on our own. Let us be proud of what we did, and not pretend that we were somehow "tricked" or "mistreated." We weren't -- and continuing to suggest that we were doesn't help the trust -- or lack thereof -- the general public has in our community. There are times when we need legal protection -- and with all due respect, this isn't one of them.

Sincerely,

Phillip "Chato" Martin

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
My experience (0.00 / 0)
I was pleased with how my precinct caucuses went. The chair and secretary were Clinton supporters but the count was 2-1 Obama. Everything was cordial and civil. Only later did I hear (second hand) that one Clinton supporter filed complaints about matters that I consider petty and paranoid. I hope it's not a sign of some coordinated 'kitchen sink' strategy by the Clinton campaign to file complaints about anything and everything, quantity over quality just to throw into question the legitimacy of the caucuses as a whole. That would be a slap at Texas and Texas Democrats.

Is there a publicly available place that documents all the complaints that have been filed?


Terrible... (2.00 / 2)
I'd say you're the sore loser Mr. Martin...

If verifying the caucus results is considered "cheap and underhanded" then I'd say you're the party guilty of trying to trick the electorate.

Isn't this just what the repubs tried in Florida?  You know, they tried the "just trust us everything is fine" argument as well...


people's logic always amazes me (2.00 / 2)
obviously i dont have to defend mr martin as he is quite capable, and while i am not trying to beat up on you, i have to point out you have weird connections in your sentences/thought processes:

"I'd say you're the sore loser Mr. Martin..."
he actually calls the clintons both winners(in the primary) and losers (in the caucus), so thats hardly sore since that is what happened, PLUS since its a delegate count that, well, counts, and mr obama actually seems to have won in that most important regard, you should at least say mr martin is a a sore winner.

"If verifying the caucus results is considered "cheap and underhanded" then I'd say you're the party guilty of trying to trick the electorate."
how is anyone trying to trick the electorate? at the very least, if you are somehow saying mr martin has control of the verification process and/or the courts, would he be trying to trick the party.

and talk about a straw man argument in your last line. (you have a great ig ludicrous one, in case you miss my implication.)

anyway, good luck

-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.


[ Parent ]
I think (3.00 / 2)
There is human error, and that happens. I think both campaigns had supporters that made mistakes at the caucuses.

I also think that 95% of the stories I've heard have talked about well-run precincts. The Clinton campaign is trying to blow this up out of proportion to benefit their campaign. I don't think that's a good strategy -- mainly because of what it could do for Texans.

What happens to the senior citizen who waited until 2am to vote for Obama, only to learn that some lawyers came in and said "you don't count because our candidate didn't win." The world is bigger than Clinton's world, and their campaign would do better to express confidence and leadership coming out of a strong showing in Texas, not pettiness and divisiveness.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
Mario, (0.00 / 0)
Making sure caucus voters were properly verified and allocations were done correctly is something you're opposing?  I actually read the article Mr. Martin referenced and thats all the Clinton campaign is asking.

Like Mr. Mauro says, the Obama campaign is attempting to call the game at halftime...

Good luck with "working the system"...


[ Parent ]
Do Not Abuse the Rating System (3.50 / 2)
1 is for an unproductive comment (i.e. foul language, non-sequitors, hate speech, etc.) It is not because you disagree with someone.  

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

[ Parent ]
wow, again your logic escapes me (3.00 / 2)
first off what is with "the quotes" with which you pepper your comments? maybe they do not mean what you think they mean. they are usually used to directly reference, or "quote" something someone has exactly and literally said or written.

just so you know.

here is my issue with you:
john, why are you for kicking kittens?

well you clearly have said nothing around that issue, and certainly havent "come out" against it, so you are for it. shame on "you."

you see what i did there? useful? no. similar to what you are doing? yes.

look, i think the rules should be followed, and the courts are an excellent way to pursue perceived grievances, so more power to folks who want to do that. seriously.

but my comments to you were specifically about your use of logic, and not a comment on the merits of the mr mauro and lulac's announcement of probable intent to sue, which they are free to do.

again, good luck and good bye.



-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.


[ Parent ]
I love irony... (0.00 / 0)
I use quotations on this message board for emphasis.  In my line of work I would normally use italics but I don't have that particular function on this message board.  More to the point, your not so subtle implication that I'm "stupid" is noted.

Ironically, the thing you accuse me of is exactly what I was responding to in my first comment.  Mr. Martin is attempting to claim that the Clinton campaign is trying to negate the caucuses.  That can't be true because the caucuses are nowhere near being decided and the Clinton campaign has only stated that they want to make sure the results are verified.  

Good luck to you as well.


[ Parent ]
You can have italics (0.00 / 0)
Use the HTML codes for italics.

{i} to turn italics on
{/i} to turn italics off.

So: {i}This sentence would be italicized.{/i}

However, the brackets you see above don't work. Instead, use the angle brackets ("less than" and "greater than").


[ Parent ]
Thanks... (0.00 / 0)
I'll use that in the future.

   


[ Parent ]
Exactly (5.00 / 1)
I complained to the Hillary campaign and to the TX Dem party election night that it was clear and admitted to by the chair and secretary that the caucus goers were allowed to sign in and record a vote even if the only thing they could prove was that they were registered in the precinct.

Also, a significant number of people were signed in prior to the voters rolls even arriving at the precinct and these names were not checked against the roles when they arrived.

I questioned this at the precinct and rather than try to challenge old ladies and African Americans who were on top of the world voting by for Hillary or Obama, we recorded their prefernces. I and the precinct chair agreed that the iiregularities would have to be reconciled by the party with a check of voters against the official roles at a later date by the party.

What in the world is petty or wrong with that! Is ensuring a voter is qualified to vote petty or wrong?

I thought the people on this board were here because they cared about the process. Not partisan gaming the system crap.

Your experts at your caucus may have been able to run a great caucus, didn't happen in my precinct and by God the results have to be confirmed. Not thrown out, confirmed.

In the immortal words of Satan, trust but verify.


[ Parent ]
Spot on sir... (0.00 / 0)
the Obama partisans who are up in arms about this issue do their candidate a disservice.

[ Parent ]
Good thing that you reported the irregularities (3.00 / 1)
Let's hope that the people who verify the results are more committeed to fairness and openness and adherence to the rules than they are to wresting out whatever gain they can for their own candidate. The Democratic Party must remain democratic, no matter what.

[ Parent ]
And (3.00 / 2)
These same things were done by Team Clinton in some precincts. Guess what folks -- the world ain't perfect.

There's a process for reviewing what went on, and that's fine. It's the suggestion that a lawsuit would still follow after the normal complaint/review process occurred that is absurd to me.

As I wrote elsewhere, LULAC/NAACP have a different role. Their objective is to get their voices heard. That is their end game, and I respect that more than the Clinton's campaign end game of "win where you can and discredit every place you can't win." That's what they've done in every state Obama won -- "it doesn't matter." I strongly disagree with that role.

I do think it's interesting that everyone is responding to the part I wrote about Clinton, and not LULAC.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
Absurd??? (0.00 / 0)
So lets say the review process is simply a rubber stamp approval of the process.  Do you still think the Clinton campaign should just accept that?

[ Parent ]
So two wrongs make a right? (0.00 / 0)
Clinton did it too is pretty weak.

I simply suggested that the results should be trusted but verified.

There was enough poor process, not fraud, poor process to ensure that where there are irregularities reported they have to fully checked.

Trust but verify. Or is that petty and absurd?


[ Parent ]
To both of you (0.00 / 0)
It's tempting just not to respond, b/c no matter what I write you'll nit-pick. But I'll bite again, if for no other reason than I feel strongly about this:

"There's a process for reviewing what went on, and that's fine."

That's "trust but verify" -- and that's not just a rubber stamp approval of the process, the review requires constructive analysis and critique to see what all these allegations amount to.

I'm saying "Clinton did it too" because the attitude seems to be that somehow their campaign is beyond reproach. I just got an e-mail that said this:

Clinton [supporter]...and the precinct chair tried to get me to stop counting Obama supporters in the caucus.  told me she and her crew had it. I told her I want to verify for my own personal knowledge, and she proceeded to threaten to kick me out of the caucus.
As I said before, when 1,000,000 people try to do something, there's going to be problems. At some level, we have to recognize that.

Also -- neither of you have any concerns with my LULAC letter, as I said before. No one wants to address that.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
This is futile... (0.00 / 0)
you're making blanket statements about a process that has yet to play itself out (verification of the caucuses).  We have no idea as of yet whether the verification process will be reliable yet you'd ask that the Clinton campaign disavow itself of any recourse.

This is really quite simple.  The unreliable results that are trickling in seem to be favoring Obama.  The Obama partisans (regardless of what the truth is) want this trend to continue and will say anything to prevent an honest assessment of Tuesday's results.  What about unverified precinct convention voters?  What about provisional voters?  We had quite a few in my precinct which was overwhelmingly full of Obama supporters.  

Thats whats really going on here.  Obama's camp knows that theses caucus results are far from reliable and will fight every attempt to verify the result.  It's shameful.


[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
I appreciate you making my argument for me. I want these results to come in and the process to continue -- which includes the verification of the caucuses. I don't want anyone suing over results yet.

I knew you'd see my side eventually!

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
Thats not what the Clinton Campaign said... (3.00 / 1)
you're just making things up.

"Garry Mauro said the campaign will file complaints with the state Democratic Party's local credential committees, and request hearings. If the campaign isn't satisfied with the rulings meted out by the committees, legal action might follow. "We're not going to give up that option," he said."

This is your link.  Where does any represenative from the Clinton Campaign say they are going to sue anyone before they give the verification process a chance to play itself out?  Be specific.

The simple truth of the matter is, in your haste to criticize Clinton for anything, you sloppily attributed the Clinton campaign with something they never said.  Now you just look silly in trying to ask the Clinton campaign to disavow itself of it's Constitutional rights.

Stop while you have some credibility left...


[ Parent ]
This is pointless (0.00 / 0)
I give up. You disagree with me. We'll leave it at that.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

[ Parent ]
You didn't answer the question... (0.00 / 0)
thats really really weak.  Just admit you're wrong and move along.

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
An opinion isn't wrong.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

[ Parent ]
We'll try this one more time... (0.00 / 0)
where has the Clinton Camapign stated that they will pursue legal remedies before an attempt to verify the caucuses is made?


[ Parent ]
Never claimed they wanted to do that (5.00 / 1)
When did I claim that's what they were doing?

Here's what I wrote (and then I'm done with this):

"thinking of suing"

"potential mess of a lawsuit"

"It's the suggestion that a lawsuit would still follow after the normal complaint/review process occurred that is absurd to me."

"I think the Clinton campaign is considering lawsuits"

"I want these results to come in and the process to continue -- which includes the verification of the caucuses. I don't want anyone suing over results yet."

The last comment is the only such "claim" you could try and hold against me, but I said anyone, not specifically Clinton -- I don't want LULAC, NAACP, Obama, Clinton, or you suing yet. So that comment has no direct implication of Team Clinton.

I have claimed -- rightly so -- that they were thinking, considering, and suggesting such a thing. I have a problem with even such a public consideration because I think the TDP is treating the process fairly, and I think blustering about the caucuses (by the Clinton campaign) has more to do with diminishing the current (and projected) future results than anything else.

And on that second point is where we disagree. Which is fine. But let's just disagree, and not treat this like a courtroom (especially when your question has proven to have no merit).

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
Hmmmm... (0.00 / 0)
maybe when you said this...

"I want these results to come in and the process to continue -- which includes the verification of the caucuses. I don't want anyone suing over results yet."

Which implies that the Clinton Campaign is planning on suing over caucus results before the verification process is given a chance to work when in fact, the article you linked showed the Clinton Campaign was actually stating the exact opposite...

"Garry Mauro said the campaign will file complaints with the state Democratic Party's local credential committees, and request hearings. If the campaign isn't satisfied with the rulings meted out by the committees, legal action might follow. "We're not going to give up that option," he said."

Which means you have absolutely nothing to base your claim on.  Essentially, you're asking that Clinton abandon her rights because well, about all I can figure out is you want Obama to win.

I want the interests of the voters protected.  If that means that you have to go to court then so be it.  No one should tell another that they should not assert their rights simply for political reasons.  Thats shameful.


[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
It's amazing that you tried to use a quote against me that I explained upfront.

I want the interests of the voters protected, too. There is, as of yet, absolutely no reason to suggest that "legal action" might need to follow. To suggest otherwise is shameful.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
You didn't offer an explanation... (0.00 / 0)
you cannot point to anything that says the Clinton Campaign was planning or even considering suing before the process was given a chance to play itself out.  In fact, the article you linked said the exact opposite.

[ Parent ]
And I never (0.00 / 0)
made such a claim.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

[ Parent ]
Specifically What? (0.00 / 0)
Obama's camp knows that theses caucus results are far from reliable and will fight every attempt to verify the result.

I haven't really followed this disagreement that closely, so I honestly don't know that much about it.  But, everything I have read suggests that it is a disagreement between Clinton's campaign and the Texas Democratic Party.  I haven't read anything about Obama's campaign being involved in it in any tangible way.  So, let me ask the following question:

What specifically has the Obama campaign done to prevent the verification of the result?


[ Parent ]
They have declared victory in cacuses... (0.00 / 0)
which is untrue.  They are attempting to create a perception that any questioning or complaints about the caucuses is an attempt to negate the results.  This "open letter" is a primne example of what Obama's camp is trying to accomplish.

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
I'm not working for Obama. I'm just a dude with an opinion, who writes for this website. CNN "projected" Clinton's win before all the numbers were in, and that was fine. Obama and anyone else who can count is "projecting" the caucus win before all the numbers are in. The former is OK, the latter isn't, b/c you support Clinton.

This is also an open letter to LULAC. You keep ignoring that, b/c you don't care. You support Clinton. I support Obama.

And we go round...and round...and round...and round...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
We still havent' verified... (0.00 / 0)
100% of the caucus voters...we still haven't counted over 50% of the unverified caucus votes...so, no, regardless of what the Obama Camp says, they have not won the caucus yet.

I'm not ignoring the Lulac letter at all.  It was just as silly.  Whats your point?


[ Parent ]
Phillip's Part of Obama Campaign? (3.00 / 1)
They have declared victory in cacuses... which is untrue.

Declaring victory when you appear to be up significantly is not preventing the verification of the result.  Campaigns frequently declare victory before results have been certified by SOS or FEC or appropriate certification agency.  Many times victory declarations are based upon incomplete election night returns.  

They are attempting to create a perception that any questioning or complaints about the caucuses is an attempt to negate the results.

This doesn't sound very specific to me.  Who in the Obama campaign is doing this?  And what are they doing?

This "open letter" is a primne example of what Obama's camp is trying to accomplish.

I was unaware that Phillip was a part of the Obama campaign.  What's his role?  Furthermore, an open letter hardly seems like an effective method to prevent the verification process.  


[ Parent ]
I think you would agree that... (0.00 / 0)
a determination of the primary vote and the caucus vote are to very different endeavors.  Specifically, this "caucus" is vastly different than other caucuses.  We have to verify that the caucus voters satisfied the first step in voting in the primary.  No one else does it this way thus the results of the caucus are rife with errors which will not be determined for quite sometime.

The Obama Campaign has declared victory in both the caucus and the delegate count.  Both claims are incredibly dishonest.  Like I said before, we won't know the caucus count for quite sometime and "projections" will not be nearly as reliable.  The Obama campaign needed some sort of good news so they just made it up.  Furthermore, the delegates won't be determined until the county conventions thus any claim of a net delegate win is not only a distortion but a straight up lie.

Manipulating public opinion is a great way to disrupt any sort of democratic process.  Create a public perception that the other side is trying to steal an election and you get what you want.  


[ Parent ]
3-Word Answer (0.00 / 0)
What specifically has the Obama campaign done to prevent the verification of the result?

Answer: They declared victory.

But, declaring victory, whether it be premature or not,  doesn't actually prevent verification of the result.  Like every election in the US, there is a verification process and it is not based upon who declares what.


[ Parent ]
Look to my last paragraph... (0.00 / 0)
the strategy is to make any complaints or concerns politically unfeasible to pursue.

[ Parent ]
Nothing Has Been Prevented (0.00 / 0)
There will be a verification of the result, even though Obama declared victory.  So, clearly, it hasn't prevented anything, much less the verification of the result.

[ Parent ]
my 74-year old hispanic mom stood for hours to caucus from Obama (3.00 / 1)
check out my mom, who after a 12 hour day working the polls, stood for 2 more to caucus for Obama in houston:

(she loves having her picture taken, as you can tell : )

and while i appreciate the long and important efforts of LULAC to stand up and protect those who need it, i find it implausible that hispanics somehow were especially dis-enfranchised.

for the record, i am ALL for a serious discussion on re-working the party nominating process. perhaps, LULAC, you can make sure those whom you think might have screwed the hispanic voters have no say in re-writing the rules.


-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.


Mario, your Mom looks wonderful (0.00 / 0)
I am so proud of her for sticking it out at the caucuses after working the polls.  She deserves a big hug.

[ Parent ]
On the other hand... (0.00 / 0)
I don't support challenging the rules after the game is over, but I do question whether the rules governing the caucuses were applied fairly and (with the overwhelming turnout) whether it was even possible for the Party to follow it's own rules.  Take a look at the caucus thread.

Whether a lawsuit has merit I really don't know.  It would be extremely divisive.  I do think that there definitely should be credentials challenges at the SD and County convention level in cases where there appear to have been irregularities in the precinct caucus.


I think (3.00 / 1)
Going forward, we can look at changing the caucuses. Several have already called for that. But complaining about the rules -- when many in the Clinton campaign helped create the rules and the process -- is something that doesn't sit well with me.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

[ Parent ]
It's not about changing the rules (0.00 / 0)
It's about making sure the rules were applied.

[ Parent ]
It sounds like... (3.00 / 2)
...you would be supportive of the people who held up the "Sore/Loserman" signs outside the Governor's Mansion here in Austin in November/December 2000.

If the process broke down, then the Texas Democratic Party should follow up on any specific and legitimate complaints filed by BOTH campaigns and challenges should be made by BOTH campaigns at the county and state conventions.


Here...here... (0.00 / 0)
it's been my experience that those who want to avoid recounts and take a careful look at what actually occurred in an election are usually the ones trying to manipulate the result.

[ Parent ]
I'm one of the people who sued and won in that case (4.00 / 4)
Being supportive of free speech and fairness is something I certainly take seriously. The Bush people had rights to carry those signs, but not any "more equal" than the rest of us who wanted the votes counted.

The reason we won our case is because the Austin APD treated the Bush supporters differently from the Gore supporters, essentially filtering our content.  That's against our first amendment rights.

The TDP laid out the ground rules - both campaigns knew the rules.  Any allegations are obviously going to have to backed up with solid evidence.

I can tell you that as one of the Obama PCT captains that we were taught to follow the rules.  Be above board, fair and transparent.  Because after all the point of an election is for the people who participated in the election to feel it was fair.

Did we have problems due to turnout in the caucus system - yes.  I'd venture to say that the vast majority of them did the best they could in trying to adapt to the large crowds.

Did you help out in your caucus system?  Did you volunteer to inform the crowd at yours about the process?  Did you meet with your PCT chair in advance to make sure the logistics in yours was worked on in advance?

These are the kinds of things that both the campaigns should have insisted on.  I took it upon myself to reach out to our PCT chair who was a Clinton supporter, because I knew that she would be fair.  As most of us would be.  We all have to work together in this state in November.  Let's stop trying to divide us more now.


[ Parent ]
Precinct 342 (0.00 / 0)

Did you help out in your caucus system?  Did you volunteer to inform the crowd at yours about the process?  Did you meet with your PCT chair in advance to make sure the logistics in yours was worked on in advance?

Yes to all questions.  Like you, I'm in Precinct 342 and was one of the Clinton volunteers registering people who came to the caucus.  

Our precinct is primarily anglo, affluent and well-educated with a long history of Democratic participation and organization.  It's no surprise that our caucus went smoothly but it still lasted until 11:15pm.

But if LULAC and the NAACP are reporting thousands of incidents, then they shouldn't be dismissed as "nonsense" like the original poster does.


[ Parent ]
Great for you Jobu (0.00 / 0)
What happened in our PCT should have happened in all 8,000 caucuses but it was probably a question of time since the contested races hit Texas so suddenly.  And both campaigns were in a tight race and there were obviously thousands of new people coming into the caucus system for the first time.

Mary Ann Neely, Ann Kitchen, and our respective campaign precinct captains set the ground rules early.  We agreed everything was going to be transparent and fair and I think we accomplished that.  

I think the appropriate committees should get the chance to review the allegations but lets stop dividing ourselves and casting any aspersions as to the legitimacy of the caucuses.  You do this party great disservice by tearing it down in the grassroots trenches.  If you have ways to improve it, then by all means let's work constructively to do that. My suggestion for example is that we need to encourage more people to vote early.  If more people voted early then the waiting for the caucus to start part, could be cut back.

Somehow we have to find a way to streamline the sign in process but I have no idea how that can be done.  We need to set up a resolutions committee inside of our convention to vet the resolutions.  I think that suggestion that someone made at the end of our convention was fabulous.  We've never had the problem of time before.  We used to read  all of them out loud.  We just didn't have time this convention and with only one set of resolutions, that's pretty hard to do on the spot.


[ Parent ]
I am a precinct chair... (0.00 / 0)
held my election and convention.  

[ Parent ]
Travis 426 (3.00 / 1)
I believe can be considered an old barrio precinct and Hispanics were out in full force.  We made sure that our voices were heard for our preferred candidate.  As Philip said, any legal action to subvert the process is not the way to win and can only serve to harm the party.

Caucus in Houston (3.00 / 1)
I want to reaffirm that the caucus I attended in Houston was completely civilized  and fairly run.  No one was disenfranchised in any way shape or form.  Below is a comment I posted on Texas Kaos yesterday.

I live in Houston in an area populated largely by undergraduate and graduate students.  Three precincts caucused in different rooms of a neighborhood church.  Our precinct was probably the most friendly and efficient largely b/c most of us know one another and although most present were Obama supporters there was no nastiness or hostility whatsoever between the Obama and Clinton groups.  In fact two of my friends/colleagues (white males 40+) whispered to me that they were probably the only two Clinton supporters in the room.  I joked and said I would not tell their wives if they switched to Obama. They in turn promised  not to tell my husband if I switched to Clinton. We all laughed.

We elected the temporary chair to Permanent Chair b/f the process began.  The Chair is a college professor known by most of us in the room and so the level of trust was there. He, the secretary and another volunteer ran a very smooth caucus.  They sometimes had to consult the official rules and when there were unanswered questions the Chair summoned a party official who made himself available to all three precinct chairs. When we ran out of sign in sheets the Chair took a vote to continue the voting on blank pieces of paper.   The vote was unanimous to continue with the voting.

The delegate selection was a piece of cake.  The Clinton supporters had no problem selecting theirs and when the Obama camp had two more delegates than needed, two naturally self-eliminated b/c of time/work constraints.

Over all it was a very pleasant and uplifting experience.  The icing on the cake for we older 40+ fogeys was to witness the enthusiasm  and high level of interest shown by the students in the democratic process.  Some had returned early from their spring breaks in order to participate.  Others had never voted before, much less caucus.  

A couple of doors down from ours the precinct caucus was apparently a bit more tense.  This precinct went 2 to 1 for Obama and there were some unhappy campers in the group.  Nothing out of hand, though.  Just a little predictable anger and frustration.    


NAACP (3.00 / 2)

According the Dallas Morning News this morning:

The NAACP said it is taking thousands of voter complaints to party officials.

So now LULAC and the NAACP are both claiming massive irregularities in the conduct of the Tuesday caucuses.

I think it is an obligation of the Texas Democratic Party to take these complaints seriously and investigate their validity and act on any legitimate incidents.

To dismiss their claims as "nonsense" as you do maybe indicates a lack of knowledge about their history of difficulties in getting their votes counted which continue to this day.


I agree... (5.00 / 1)
And so does the Texas Democratic Party. My strong impression is that they took each and every complaint very seriously, and dealt with each best they could as each was brought to their attention. That said, there's not much they can do about a complaint about Tuesday night that is brought to their attention on Thursday, except move forward and adjust the rules to make sure that all this increased participation is fair, and that the folks who choose to participate have a positive, not negative, experience.  

LettersFromTexas.com

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
It's because I lack knowledge. That's what this is all about.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

[ Parent ]
Please add your link (0.00 / 0)
Jobu it's a good idea when you site a quote from a source that you set the link to the story, so that the rest of us can read the story.

Can you add the link?


[ Parent ]
I am one of those people who complained bitterly that John Kerry (5.00 / 1)
was not aggressive enough in his pursuit of legal objections over the voter suppression and other vote irregularities in Ohio last general election.

I was also one of those people who fully supported Al Gore's use of the legal system (which was unfortunately rigged in Bush's favor) to raise complaints about the abuse of voters' rights in Florida back in 2000.

I have heard stories of voter intimidation and the failure to follow caucus rules.  I have heard these stories told where Obama supporters where the "good guys" and the Hillary supporters were the "bad guys," and I have heard those stories where the roles were reversed.

I am an Obama supporter.

I nevertheless also support Hillary's right, Obama's right, LULAC's right, and the rights of all candidates' supporters to seek legal redress for what they perceive as injustice at the ballot box.


One additional comment (2.50 / 2)
LULAC is considering suing because of the voices of Hispanics. I respectfully disagree with them, appreciate their role, and tried to make an argument why lawsuits are going too far.

Separately, I think the Clinton campaign is considering lawsuits because -- as they have in the past -- they are unhappy with the way the caucuses are turning out. Would they be considering suing if they were ahead? Nope.

The NAACP wants to sue as well. I also think this is unnecessary -- there is a process for bringing up concerns without resorting to lawsuits. But, as I do with LULAC, I respect their role in the process.

That's the key -- what is the role these 3 different groups are playing? 2 are concerned with the voices of minorities. 1 is concerned with winning an election. I have much less respect for the latter, because of their continued demonstration of complaining about those rules -- and only those rules -- that don't suit their electoral standing.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


Time to reform the system (3.50 / 4)
I posted this on another thread, but it seems more relevant here. I don't want to change the rules retroactively for what happened, but going forward I want the delegate selection process to be reformed, eliminating both the two-step process and the superdelegates. We will be electing representatives to the SDEC at the State Convention, so I hope there are some reformers elected who will tackle these issues.

From the earlier thread:

I think we should have a discussion within the TDP about whether we should continue to allocate delegates through the caucus system. I think it is fine to elect delegates and alternates at the precinct conventions, but I am no longer sure that is fair not to proportion the delegates among the candidates based on anything except the votes cast in the primary within the privacy of a voting booth.

A candidate and a candidate's supporters should not be penalized because it is problematic for them to go to the polls twice for one election. I imagine there are many older voters who may have problems getting to the polls in the first place, asking them to come twice or to come near the closing time and stay later for the caucus seems unfair. It also seems unfair to penalize people who work at night (even if there is a law that says employers can not penalize someone for skipping work to caucus). It is also unfair for people in the military like I was at one time, or who live abroad, as I also did at one time, or who are out of town for business or some other personal reason.

More basically though, it is unfair for people who don't "understand" the system or haven't gone through a special "training" to know how to vote for their candidate. A system should not be so difficult that voters have to be trained before they know how to exercise their right to fully support their choice for the nation's president.

I think it is fundamentally unfair both to the candidates and the citizens voting that a person can potentially "win" an election by getting more delegates, even if they lose the popular vote. That reminds me of someone winning the popular vote but losing in the electoral college.


Litigation = a bat to the knees of Texas Democrats... (3.50 / 2)
...at a time when we are acquiring the numbers to present a viable challenge to the Republicans in control of our state.

Maybe the Clintons don't fancy a strong Texas State Democratic party on the ground.  Maybe they fear we will give them more competition at the national level further down the road.

Whatever their reasoning for threatening litigation, I will perceive it as an attack on our legitimate democratic electoral processes.

As far as I am concerned, their threats of litigation mirror the actions of the Republicans in Florida/2000 that resulted in the USSC stepping in to freeze the vote count when Bush led Gore by a mere 200 votes.  

That's exactly what the Clintons are trying to do here -- stop the processes at the only point where she is showing a lead.

HRC casts a long shadow of doubt across her own credibility with these ugly tactics.  Fact is, if she wants to reform Texas electoral processes, she can begin by refusing to accept her portion of the convention delegates.

Litigation replacing processes is something we've seen before.  I want the national candidate to be a product of elections by the People, not of the courts.  



Litigation to ensure the process was followed (0.00 / 0)
This is what the Clinton campaign wants.

I objected at my precinct because the process for ensuring the caucus voter was eligible to be there was shoddy and did not follow the rules. One of the ladies signing people in didn't even know what "EV" stood for on the voter roles.

I don't know if there were more potential problems with Clinton voters or Obama voters. But I do know damn well that the right process wasn't followed.

How about ensuring that all cast votes are cast by eligible voters. Is that a good reason for litigation?


[ Parent ]
No, it is not (0.00 / 0)
If votes were cast by ineligible caucus voters, the verification check against the precinct voters list disqualifies the votes on sight.

Have some faith in your fellow Texans who understand that preserving credibility in our processes is the only way to roll.  

Is it perfect?  Nothing is perfect.  So, the answer there is no, it is not perfect.  Do people game the system -- any system that is advanced -- yes, and they'll find ways to game a newer system too.

Removing the caucus portion actually removes the "people" part of the equation and places the results at a higher, more centralized rung on the hierarchy ladder.  It places the processes further away from the control of people at the local levels.  It would also make the results more vulnerable to illegal alterations, especially if the electronic systems replace paper balloting in the future.

Ironically, the one part of our system that would be the most efficient at combating voter fraud -- the local participation at convention levels -- is under attack.



[ Parent ]
litigation = government held to the principles of its constitution (0.00 / 0)
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

- Thomas Jefferson

http://yanezhoustonjordanfortx...


[ Parent ]
Caucus (0.00 / 0)
The folks running the caucus (Obama supporters) at my site repeatedly yelled out incorrect information to the folks waiting to sign up.  I tried to stop them and give out correct information to the crowd.  Also, Huffington Post actually posted an article by an Obama supporter who admitted that she did not follow the TDP rules.

I want to challenge the mathematics and the delegates at the county convention.  


Kudos to LULAC... (0.00 / 0)
for defending the rights of all voters. I have received hundreds of reports of disenfranchisement and rules violations in Travis County alone.  

We did our best to follow the rules (3.00 / 1)
at our convention and I had both Clinton and Obama supporters checking people's eligibility and doing the tallies. What with the crowd and the somewhat improvised organization of both tasks, it's certainly possible that some things slipped through the cracks.

I have reviewed our roll sheets, but I would hope the state party will do the same and make any corrections necessary.

However, at the end of the day, when all the corrections are made, I highly doubt that it will change the caucus delegate numbers more than perhaps 0.5%, if that. That's just the way things come out in the wash with a sample size as large as one million voters.

I guess my point is that someone could pursue litigation and challenges, but there's a cost/benefit analysis to be done. How much should we pay the lawyers for the sake of one or two delgates?  


Rules Not Followed At My Precinct (3.00 / 1)
As noted in the caucus thread, our precinct chair here in Pearland informed us that our Clinton cohort would likely "not meet the 15% threshold" required to get delegates from our precinct.  I don't know if he misremembered the rules or if someone from the Obama cohort suggested this to him.  Assuming that he knew the rules better than we, and totally stressed by dealing with what the Brazoria County Facts now calls over 1000 caucus-goers for this one location, we went along with with what the precinct chair.

Now, the caucus is over and I understand that the TDP's "EZ-Math" formula was not applied and the rules were not followed in my precinct.  My precinct captain and I have exchanged messages, but we have not yet spoken or decided what to do.  I will ask her if she thinks we should pursue a credentials challenge at the SD-11 convention.  I'm sure she will seek advice from the Clinton campaign.

The process as it was applied and the results it produced in our precinct really are suspect.  Giving people on all the sides the benefit of the doubt, I want to say it was a mistake compounded by a simply impossible and unanticipated situation.

I don't want this to get into the realm of lawsuits, whether from one campaign or another, LULAC, NAACP, or anyone..  That would do a lot of damage to the party.  But I think that y'all need to realize that in the situation we faced Tuesday night, it was impossible to do things "by the book".  The "book" simply was not written for the situation we found ourselves in.  Now we have a mess to clean up, and I hope that the party has a way to do that without compounding problems further.


ya know i read that story... (0.00 / 0)
and i found it dismaying, but not unlikely. BUT, and i know you probably dont mean to do so, you have NO BASIS for throwing in the inflammatory "or if someone from the Obama cohort suggested this to him." that phrase is really uncalled for and i think you should edit that line, or back it up with something factual.

it was tough for some (p461 in south austin was smoooth tho over 400 folke were there) an di appreciate yalltrying to work it out fairly. hopefully someone knows a way to do so.

(and hey johnB, get thee down to pearland and do your pain in the ass semantic games with the known clinton person who might have cost you some delegates. )

-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.


[ Parent ]
He's not being inflammatory (0.00 / 0)
I think if I had been in Robert Angelo's position, with over 150 people on my side disenfranchised by the temporary chair's failure to use the threshold formula, I'd be throwing around verbiage much stronger than "if someone from the Obama cohort suggested this to him."

Instead, Robert writes: "Giving people on all the sides the benefit of the doubt, I want to say it was a mistake compounded by a simply impossible and unanticipated situation."

That's the most reasonable approach, and after all that he's been through, I commend him for allowing all parties involved to work together in fixing the mistake under the assumption that it wasn't intentional (even if he suspected at first that it could have been intentional).


[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)
Thanks Mark.  For what it's worth, I actually stood outside the polling place during the day Tuesday chatting with an Obama supporter.  When someone exited the polls, we both thanked them for voting, reminded them to come back to the caucus, and I repeated my mantra, "When everybody votes, everybody wins."

I'm not being inflammatory.  I just really don't know what went on, and that's what I was getting at.  And yes, I do want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and resolve things in a friendly, well-mannered, and respectful fashion.


[ Parent ]
A Dose of Benefit of the Doubt (0.00 / 0)
What it comes down to is that most of us in Texas had never been a part of this process before, and all we had to go on as far as what to expect was stories from Iowa and Nevada and other caucus states.  

In my precinct (a fairly heavy Clinton precinct in Lubbock Co.), our precinct chair was a strong, die-hard Clinton supporter.  I, and a few others who were very involved in campaigning for Obama in our precinct/county, started out strongly distrusting this Clinton supporter, and he us.  When we stopped distrusting long enough to talk with one another, it was apparent that all any of us wanted was a fair result.

When all was said and done, the caucus wasn't run perfectly, but it was most definitely run fairly, and ended with a 6-6 delegate split.

I have no doubt that there were shenanigans somewhere in the state on both sides, but I think there was far more ignorance of the process than flat-out deception, and I think we need to give each other a little more benefit of the doubt instead of pointing fingers.  All things considered, I think it went pretty well for a process that was so foreign to most of the 1 mil.+ who participated.


One thought... (3.00 / 1)
The Clinton campaign should remember that her delegates are not bound to vote for her at either the county or state conventions and that some could angrily and publicly quit supporting her if a legal action is pursued against TDP.  Rattling your saber -- like some silly corps turd -- ain't gonna help the Clinton cause.

[ Parent ]
Connect With BOR
Your source for Texas politics.

On Facebook: BOR
On Twitter: @BOR
On the Go: Mobile App

Upcoming BOR Events

"Do I Look Illegal?"
Arizona GOP Debate Watch

Wednesday, February 22
6:00-9:00 p.m.
Angie's Restaurant
1307 E. 7th Street
RSVP on Facebook

Save The Date:
Super Tuesday Super Watch Party!
Tuesday, March 6
6:00-10:00 p.m.
Scholz Garten
1607 San Jacinto



Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Shared On Facebook

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- B & B
- Bay Area Houston
- Blue Bloggin
- Bluedaze
- Brains and Eggs
- Capitol Annex
- Collin County Democrats
- Collin County Observer
- Community Forum
- Dog Canyon
- Dos Centavos
- Easter Lemming Liberal
- Eye on Williamson County
- Feet to the Fire
- Grading Texas
- Greg's Opinion
- Grits for Breakfast
- Half Empty
- Houtopia
- In the Pink Texas
- Kiss My Big Blue Butt
- Letters from Texas
- McBlogger
- Mean Rachel
- Musings
- North Texas Liberal
- Off the Kuff
- Panhandle Truth Squad
- Para Justicia y Libertad!
- Pink Dome
- San Antonio Mayor
- South Texas Chisme
- StoudDemBlog
- Texas Clover Leaf
- Texas Kaos
- The Caucus Blog
- There..Already
- Three Wise Men
Best of Texas Right
- Blogs of War
- BlogHouston
- Boots and Sabers
- Lone Star Times
- Publius TX
- Rick Perry vs the World
- Safety for Dummies
- Slightly Rough
- Urban Grounds
Other Texas Reads
- Burka Blog
- D Magazine
- DOT Show
- Statesman Elections
- Strong Political Analysis
- Texas Monthly
- Texas Observer
- The Texas Blue
- Quorum Report Daily Buzz
Around Austin
- Austin Bloggers
- Austin Chronicle
- Austin Contrarian
- Austin Metblogs
- Austin on Two Wheels
- Austin Real Estate Blog
- Austin Statesman
- Austin Texas Bike Shit Stuff
- Austin Towers
- Austinist
- Capital MetroBlog
- Daily Texan
- Do512
- Downtown Austin Blog
- East Austinite
- Elise Hu
-
Flash Mob Austin
- Keep Austin Blue
- M1EK
- Travis County Democrats
- University Democrats
TX Progressive Orgs
- ACLU Legislative Blog
- Atticus Circle
- Criminal Justice Coalition
- Equality Texas
- NOW Texas
- PFAW Texas
- Public Citizen
- SEIU Texas
- Tejano Insider
- Texas AFT
- Texas HDCC
- Texas Watch
- TFN
- TSTA
- TSEU
- Texas Young Democrats
- United Ways of Texas
TX Elections/Returns
- TX Returns 1992-present
- TX Media/Candidate List

- Bexar County
- Collin County
- Dallas county
- Denton County
- El Paso County
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Jefferson County
- Tarrant County
- Travis County

- CNN 1998 Returns
- CNN 2000 Returns
- CNN 2002 Returns
- CNN 2004 Returns
- CNN 2006 Returns
- CNN 2008 Returns
Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Powered by: SoapBlox