This morning the Advisory Committee on the Texas Democratic Party Convention/Caucus System met at Austin Community College to, according to an email from the Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd L. Richie, "studying the current convention/caucus system. Furthermore, based on the testimony taken at these meetings, the committee will then consider this feedback and possibly make recommendations for changes."
This has been a difficult issue for this blogger to take a firm position on, in part because that the caucus system is one of the reasons that I became involved in Democratic politics. However, it would be disingenuous of me to ague a position without honestly examining the system and giving an honest assessment. Which has led me to this position: the Texas Democratic Party primary system of caucuses and ballet voting is a flawed misstep.
and complete the questionnaire there for endorsement purposes. If you have a photo suitable for the Web and a short bio, upload it as a part of the survey and we'll include it in your endorsement. When the Campaign for Change endorses you we will also post your information on the website, which you may download, print, e-mail or otherwise use to advance your candidacy and campaign.
The sooner you submit the questionnaire, the sooner we can endorse you, and the sooner we can help you publicize and win your race!
Individuals selected for endorsement will be given an opportunity to speak at the Progressive Populist Caucus on Friday June 6, from 10:30 until noon, Level 3, Rm. 9, A-B-C.
(Bill Dingus it the Democratic nominee against Tom Craddick. At least I think. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
A Message to House District 82 and All Texans
Why it is necessary that I sue the Texas Democratic Party.
From the beginning of this campaign, I have said that I am running to give the people of House District 82 a choice in who represents them in the Texas House.
And from the beginning, the Republican Party - with Tom Craddick operating in the background - has worked to deny the voters a choice.
As you may recall, when I filed to run for State Representative an attorney advised me that I could continue to serve on the Midland City Council because a federal court ruling superseded provisions of the state constitution. However, a federal judge later issued an order counter to this attorney's advice. The judge's ruling did not remove me from the ballot, but it has left my campaign in legal limbo.
After the ruling came out, the Texas Republican Party issued a press release crowing about its "victory." In my book, denying the voters a choice is not a victory, but a suppression of democracy.
Believing the judge in error, the Texas Democratic Party appealed that decision last Friday. However, my campaign is still in limbo and it is now clear that I can only resolve this issue by going to court.
I must act quickly, as there is a deadline looming - August 22. If the Republican leaders were to succeed in kicking me off the ballot after that date, the Democratic Party would be unable to replace me, and the Republican Party will have succeeded in denying the people a choice.
After lurking and commenting for ages, I finally have my first diary on Burnt Orange Report. Hi, everybody!
In 2006, I had reached a point in my life where just voting wasn't enough. Reading the League of Women Voters Guide to learn about the candidates wasn't enough. Telling my friends and family to vote wasn't enough.
I was appointed to a vacant Precinct Chair slot after calling the Travis County Democratic Party to volunteer for something, anything... I hadn't expected to become a precinct chair, but when I was told that there was a need for one in my precinct, I stepped up.
The more involved I become, the more involved I want to be.
When I found out that there was a Senate District level of government in the Texas Democratic Party, I decided to check it out. I have been going to the meetings since January of 2007. What I've learned is, in a nutshell, I can, and want to do this.
I'm Susan Shelton, and I am running for the SDEC Committeewoman for Senate District 14. I'll explain why after the jump.
(Beginnings of a long, needed conversation. - promoted by Phillip Martin)
Two days after the big meltdown here in SD10, and already those of us who served on credentials and had a hand in running the convention are trading emails speculating on how we can prevent things from spiraling so far out of control again. After all, we want our conventions to be meaningful and well-attended, from the state convention all the way down to the precincts. We have to fix some things to make that truly possible, though.
Go below the fold to find out what we've thought of so far.
There is method to the Clinton campaign's mad preemptive sword rattling over the Texas primary/caucus. They want to delay and disrupt the reporting of the delegate count. They hope that if they win the popular vote, they can avoid, at least for one news cycle, news reports that even if they do so they will very likely lose the delegate fight in Texas and fall further behind Obama in the national delegate contest.
This is not speculation. This has been the subject under discussion. While I have not been part of that discussion, plenty of sources last night and this morning confirmed this as the core of the dispute.
It is widely assumed that Obama's organizational advantage will achieve in the caucus portion of the Texas election just what it has achieved in earlier caucuses: a significant victory in delegates. There are 67 delegates at stake in those caucuses. The Clinton campaign would like to delay the reporting of the caucus results, and that is why they have continually "reserved the right to challenge" Texas law and Democratic party procedures.
Throw the Texas delegate results in dispute, and win or lose the popular vote, they will have advanced their case that the contest remains close and should go all the way to the convention if necessary.
The campaign in Texas is close. Delegates selected by popular vote out of the 31 Senate districts will probably be split more or less evenly. This is due in large part to the fact that 15 of those districts have 4 delegates to award. A candidate would have to get more than 62.5 percent of the vote in those districts to win a 3-to-1 split. The most likely outcome is a 2-2 split. In addition, Obama may have a slight advantage in that the districts with the largest number of delegates, Austin and inner city Houston and Dallas, are viewed as Obama strongholds. Still, just about every model shows an even split of primary vote delegates, no matter who wins or loses the popular vote. This is just because the vote will be close.
The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.
The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election -- except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained-- but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.
Texas' hybrid primary/caucus would not be questioned were it not that one candidate appears to have an advantage in caucus settings. Or that in a close race, the popular vote in senate districts will probably translate into an even split of delegates. Consequently, the Clinton campaign finds Texas to be a poor place to build a firewall or mount a comeback. That's an historical accident. Attacking the state party here would be irresponsible and damaging to Democratic prospects here in both the near and long term.
The overwhelming numbers of Texas who have voted early in the Texas primary is symptomatic of the changing political tide here. Much work has been done rebuilding the progressive movement in the Lone Star State. Attempts to taint the primary, and consequently the primary and caucus decisions of Texas voters, will set this effort back.
If you got the e-mail "How to win your Precinct Caucus today with a link to a DFT's "handy guide", I hope you were as upset as I was.
There are some fundamental statements in this document that totally WRONG. I hope no one shows up with this document in hand and expects to take over a precinct convention as this "handy" piece of paper implies.
Keynote Speaker James K. GALBRAITH is the author of Unbearable Cost: Bush, Greenspan and the Economics of Empire.
Professor Galbraith holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas. He serves as a policy advisor to the OBAMA campaign, having previously served in that capacity for the EDWARDS campaign.
When: Saturday, February 23rd from 12-3pm
Where: Conley-Guerrero Senior Activity Center
808 Nile Street
Austin, TX, 78702
Map to Location
Phone: 512-478-7695
All Democrats Welcome (Caucus Membership/Renewal Solicited)
One of the resolutions that got killed Saturday was the one that would have put a referendum on Iraq on the primary ballot. This was the second round in the fight to get the Iraq referendum on the ballot. The Iraq referendum resolution had already passed the Resolutions Committee at the last SDEC meeting a few months ago and it was even brought up to the full SDEC meeting back then. It would have passed the full SDEC then, but it was unnecessarily tabled at that earlier meeting because party leaders were ignorant of the Texas statute that allowed the SDEC to put referendums on the ballot. They had to go look up the statute after the meeting and then found out that the grassroots activists were right and the SDEC could put referendums on the ballot just by a vote of the SDEC. It is unbelievable that the party tabled the proposal on such a lame motion. The parliamentarian or the person chairing the meeting should have been aware of the rules and allowed a vote on the resolution. Such ignorance of the rules is a joke. We need to elect party leaders at the next convention who have a basic understanding of state laws pertaining to party business.
Thanks to the undemocratic refusal of party insiders to allow a vote, the resolution failed to pass a second time last weekend. So now there will be no referendum on Iraq on the Texas Democratic Party ballot. I wanted to find out what happened, so tonight I called a few people on the phone. Madeleine Dewar, a member of the SDEC and one of the official sponsors of the Vote Us Out of Iraq resolution, called the meeting a "disaster" and said that she had the thirty two votes needed to pass the resolution in advance of the meeting. Scott Cobb, who initiated the campaign, last summer to get the referendum on the ballot said: "In California, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that had passed the California legislature on Aug 31 to put a referendum on Iraq on the ballot in California. The Texas Democratic Party should be ashamed of itself for acting like Schwarzenegger and preventing a referendum on Iraq from being on the ballot."
