A SoapBlox Politics Blog
[Mobile Edition]
About
- About Us
- Email Us (news/tips)
- Editorial Policy
- Posting Guidelines
- Advertise Here
Feedburner

Subscribe to Michlib daily email summary. (Preview)
Enter address:

Donate
Become a sponsor and support our work.

 MichLib sponsor list

Michigan Political Blog Ad Network

Advertise Liberally

50 State Ad Network

Liberal Feed Network

Latest hand-selected Michigan political news and analysis headlines

The January 15 Primary-It's Baaaaccckkk

by: greee

Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 12:28:16 PM EST


(Oh my. - promoted by lpackard)

LANSING (AP) - The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the Jan. 15 presidential primary can go forward.

But, the Michigan Association of County Clerks says it's too late now to ensure that absentee voters will be able to get their ballots and return them on time.

The state Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court's opinion that the law setting up the primary is unconstitutional.

State officials asked the Supreme Court to send the case back to Ingham County Circuit Court and have the complaint dismissed.

Link here: http://www.wwmt.com/...

Updated! (Eric B.)  Well, Camus was right ... stupidity has a habit of getting its way.  Here is the text of the decision.  A snippet:

(J) We respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeals majority that the public purpose served here is merely "incidental[]."

Instead, the "predominant" role that political parties serve in our system of government is informing the public about candidates and ballot proposals and facilitating public debate in the context of such candidates and ballot proposals. This is indisputably a "public purpose" and such purpose appears central to the legislative judgment. Indeed, it is hard to comprehend what alternative purpose the Legislature might have contemplated in enacting MCL 168.615c.


Keep this in mind next November.  Cliff Taylor thinks it serves a public service to make it illegal to publish information gathered at public expense and turned over -- exclusively -- to private organizations, who are empowered to do practically anything they want with it ... including sell it.

So do justices Corrigan, Markman, and Young.  Keep that in mind when these three names come around for re-election.
greee :: The January 15 Primary-It's Baaaaccckkk
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The January 15 Primary-It's Baaaaccckkk | 159 comments
ohh... sugar. (4.00 / 4)
LANSING, Mich. (AP) - Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary can for forward, the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday, keeping alive the state's bid to be one of the 2008 campaign's first contests.
Granholm & Hillary (2.67 / 9)
This is about one thing and one thing only: Governor Granholm and Debbie Dingell wasting $10M of our scarce resources in order to run an election in which there is only one candidate -- Hillary Clinton -- who both have endorsed. My respect for our Governor has been drastically diminished by this ploy. She and her advisors, many of whom are also advisors to the Clinton campaign, should be ashamed -- and taxpayers should be outraged.
[ Parent ]
Granholm pulling an Engler? (3.00 / 6)
Way back in late 1999, early 2000, Gov. Engler wanted to be in what he hoped would be George W. Bush's presidential Cabinet.  To impress his hoped-for boss, Engler wanted to deliver Michigan to Bush.  However Engler failed twice to do so, both in the primary -- in which we Democrats conspired to give victory in the open GOP presidential primary for Bush's rival John McCain -- and in the general election in which Michigan's electoral votes went for Gore over Bush.

But this year it seems as if Gov. Granholm is trying to do the same thing for Hillary.  First by handing her an early primary victory that will hopefully generate momentum to carry her over to victory in other states and of course by delivering a general election victory in November.

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

[ Parent ]
Bull S***! (4.00 / 2)
Jennifer Granholm did not force Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson out of the primary. They made that choice. If they are not in this primary you can not pin that on Granholm.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
I didn't refer to the other candidates in my post. (4.00 / 4)
I too am disappointed that most of the other candidates dropped out.  I merely implied that Gov. Granholm's actions may have been to create an environment favorable to Hillary.  Most observers agree a primary is better for Hillary than a caucus.

And I think it is perfectly fair to question the motives of those involved, whether it be Gov. Granholm, Saul Anuzis, Mark Brewer, Mike Bishop, or Mark Grebner.  I've always believed that the biggest problem with term limits is that one of the elected officials' top priorities is to position themselves for a different job once their terms have expired.


"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

[ Parent ]
Sorry (0.00 / 0)
Sorry Butch if I misunderstood your post. I guess I took it to mean that you were arguing that Granholm supported the early primary with the plan in mind that it would created a favorable advantage for Clinton as others have implied. My point was the Granholm did not pressure anyone to withdraw and would prefer it if the others were still in. While she certainly favors Clinton to win the primary, I don't see how her motives for wanting an early primary can be connected to that. While a primary may be better for Clinton than a caucus, the date of it, which has been the major issue, is not necessarily so.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
Background on the candidates dropping out (4.00 / 3)
Contrary to what many in the press and here have said, in fact, ALL the major candidates had verbally agreed to withdraw from being on the Michigan ballot. On the final day to withdraw, the candidates agreed to deliver their withdrawals by the deadline.

Richardson, Obama and Edwards delivered theirs early, before noon, and Governor Granholm and Debbie Dingell got word from Detroit Free Press reporter Kathy Gray, who was leaked the story by the State Elections Director that the Michigan Primary was going to be ACTUALLY irrelevant (as opposed to merely MOSTLY irrelevant.) Granholm and Dingell called Hillary's campaign, and Governor Granholm offered to endorse Hillary early if she would stay in the primary ballot and not allow the momentum for a Michigan primary to be stopped dead in its tracks.

Hence, later in the day, Hillary reneged on her previous agreement to withdraw her name from the ballot, and Governor Granholm subtly announced she would endorse Hillary -- which she did days later.

As other posters have said -- it is fair to question the motives of all parties here. Hillary's are necessarily pure, in respect to Michigan's importance -- remember she had already signed a pledge not to ever step foot in the state to campaign, so what really is the difference of being on the ballot anyway?

[ Parent ]
Fascinating! I love these juicy insider posts. Thank you. (4.00 / 1)
Too bad the eastsiders didn't get to Edwards in time.  They have to be kicking themselves.
[ Parent ]
And what about (4.00 / 2)
this from the Iowa Independent:

  "Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa."

October 11, 2007

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[ Parent ]
Good heavens! That would make the candidates who abandoned Michigan out to be cowards. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
And now, for the rest of the story (4.00 / 1)
From the  Iowa Independent piece quoted by michmark:

Despite speaking in confidence, sources were quick to point out that the discussions were not the final deciding factor when candidates' names were removed from the ballot.

"Yes, such discussion did take place," said one national staffer, "but that doesn't mean we were influenced by it. The decision to pull from the Michigan ballot -- or other renegade states' ballots, for that matter -- was made the day we signed the pledge with the four early states."

A contact within a second campaign agreed.

"The belief that this would somehow hurt front-running Clinton in Iowa was icing on an already sweet cake," he said. "The real meal, however, is the good will the move generates not only in Iowa, but in all the states who are playing by the DNC rules and that don't appreciate all of this jumping and chaos."

What do you think, Cole?

[ Parent ]
I really don't know what to think. I just love the "insider, "speaking in confidence", "anonymous" comments. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
The 1/15 primary is good because it makes Michigan matter. (4.00 / 2)
  If your candidate is not on the primary ballot, vote uncommitted.  When the congressional district conventions are held in March lobby to be a delegate to the August convention in Denver.

  Make sure that you are an MDP member so that you can participate in the March conventions.

[ Parent ]
Disagree (3.67 / 9)
No, the 1/15 primary doesn't make Michigan matter. No Democrat Presidential candidate will ever step foot in the state of Michigan between now and when the nomination is locked up, they won't talk about our issues, and they won't care a whit about what we think or what we have to say.

Contrast this with if Michigan had a viable primary or Caucus on February 5. We'd be the big dog along with California, and the candidates would be in an all-our brawl for our delegates.

Currently, they get no delegates, and are actually penalized by IA and NH for coming here at all.

This move does nothing but hurt Michigan. I understand the point -- that maybe this will shake up the process enough that we'll get paid attention to in the future. But NO ONE can make a credible argument that Governor Granholm and Debbie Dingell, etc., have made Michigan more relevant here. Especially given that only Hillary is on the ballot, and she STILL can't campaign here.

[ Parent ]
I agree with you except for one thing (4.00 / 2)
This has definitely made us matter less, since no one is campaigning here.  Where I disagree is that people need to remember that Hillary isn't the only one on the ballot -- Dodd and Kucinich (and Gravel, but who cares) are also on the ballot and the more people vote for either of them the fewer votes Hillary gets.  We shouldn't stay away from the primary because we're pissed, which I definitely am.  We should try to get a big turnout voting for Dodd or Kucinich to try to get delegates for them should our delegates ever get seated.

I am going to be trying to get a delegate seat as an uncommitted delegate or a Dodd delegate should he get enough votes in the primary to warrant an deleates.

[ Parent ]
disagree! (4.00 / 4)
Contrast this with if Michigan had a viable primary or Caucus on February 5. We'd be the big dog along with California, and the candidates would be in an all-our brawl for our delegates.

Get real. Ohio has more electoral votes than we do, most of the same issues, AND a primary on Feb. 5th. Yet they haven't seen hide-nor-hair of the candidates either. Any time that the candidates don't spend in the four "early" states, they're spending in California and New York and NOWHERE ELSE. So a Feb 5 or 9 caucus would have exactly zilch effect on our relevance.

And as for the upset that "only Hillary" is on the ballot, please do remember that it wasn't Granholm that removed the other candidates names, it was those candidates. And it wasn't Granholm OR the DNC that extorted the "pledge" not to campaign here, that was Iowa and NH. And, let me offer a prebuttle to greee's endless repetition of the too-cute "it depends on what your definition of 'participate' is": NONE of the candidates considered having their names on the ballot to be a "violation" of the previously-mentioned extorted "pledge," until Richardson pulled out. The others followed because they were afraid that it would give him an advantage in... where? Why, yes, IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.

If the Jan 15th primary does nothing else but loosen those two states' stranglehold on our nominating process (by making it clear that we and other states are NOT going to stand for it anymore), I'm happy.

[ Parent ]
See, an actual knowledge of the facts is (3.57 / 7)
a funny thing.  It can help one comment intelligently on a matter.

The following is from the DNC's Delegate Selection Rules:

A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state.

This rule was promulgated, in part, after a study of the Democratic primary process was undertaken by the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling.  The Commission owes its very existence to a resolution co-sponsored By Sen. Levin and Debbie Dingell.  In the end, the Commission recommended opening up the early delegate selection process to an additional two states; 14 states, including Michigan, applied.  Michigan was not selected, and now certain of Michigan's political leaders are engaged in a high stakes hissy fit that, not coincidentally, benefits a candidate they have endorsed.  Should you wish to educate yourself further read this.

The pledge was something that the four candidates signed prior to the time Granholm signed the primary bill into law.  Thus, your assertion that "NONE of the candidates considered having their names on the ballot to be a "violation" of the previously-mentioned extorted "pledge," until Richardson pulled out." is wrong in terms of timing.  All of the the candidates notified the Michigan SOS on the same day that they would not appear on the primary ballot. 

The pledge is consistent with the findings of the Commission:

Effective implementation of the fundamental goals of the Democratic Party's nominating process, as
established in our rules, requires the active participation and support of our presidential candidates. For
example, Rule 6 of the current Delegate Selection Rules requires presidential candidates to create their
own plans to help achieve affirmative action goals and to use their best efforts to ensure that their own
delegations are representative. By the same token, the Commission urges the RBC to impose appropriate
obligations on presidential candidates to support, cooperate with and otherwise participate in making the
timing system successful and in achieving its fundamental goals.

You assert that the pledge was nothing more than an extortion scheme put into play by Iowa and New Hampshire.  Well, fine, you can make that assertion.  The fact remains that while all of the candidates signed the pledge, only Hillary and Dodd have chosen to go back on their word.  (It is my understanding Kucinich tried to get out but did not file the required affidavit)

So, while my observation about Hillary's understanding of the definition of the word "participate" may be too cute for your tastes, I guess I will close with the observation that her inability to live up to her word has left an awfully sour taste in my mouth.  I have no respect for charlatans. 

[ Parent ]
Thanks for solid information. (4.00 / 1)
I have a copy of the MDP delegate selection plan, but where can you find the complete DNC delegate selection rules?

Also, greee, in another diary you said "Careful - if you [vote on a Republican ballot in the primary], and later MDP holds a caucus, you won't be able to participate." I have not heard that - could you elaborate?

[ Parent ]
The answer to your 2nd question (4.00 / 3)
No person shall participate or vote in the nominating process for the Democratic presidential
candidate who also participates in the nominating process of any other party for the
corresponding elections.
  Section 1,B,3 (p.3) of the MDP rules.

The answer to your first question: http://a9.g.akamai.n...

[ Parent ]
Enforcement? (4.00 / 1)
greee, with local parties running the caucuses, do you think that would be enforceable. How would the data base of who voted in the Republican primary be accessible to the local county party? Would the local party even want to enforce it. I don't think our small county party would want to turn anyone away. Unless of course we new them to be strong Republicans crossing over to make mischief, which in many cases, given our size, we would.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
The question is above my pay grade (4.00 / 1)
so I am not sure.  Part of the answer may lie in the primary statute itself:

Within 71 days after the presidential primary, the secretary of state shall provide to the chairperson of each participating political party a file of the records for each participating political party described under subsection (3).
 

It appears that neither party has the right to direct receipt of the opposing party's list, and there is a rather longish window of time for even furnishing the lists (71 days).  It could be that the Dem party would make caucus goers sign some sort of verification, but in the end I have very little idea on enforcement.  I cannot recall if, in 2004, I was required to sign something like that prior to participating.

[ Parent ]
Correction: Below Grebner states (4.00 / 2)
that both major parties will get each others records, and upon reflection he is right.  I must of missed the second "each"  that he emphasizes in his post below.
[ Parent ]
The state party runs the caucus, the county parties arrange for the locations and supply the volunteers to run the caucus. (4.00 / 1)
The caucus ballots will be counted in Lansing by the MDP and anyone who voted in the primary will have their ballot tossed. 
Remember, to be counted the caucus ballot must be signed by the voter.  Soon after the primary anyone who has $300.00 can buy the list of voters who voted on 1/15/2007.  It's a simple process to match the names.

[ Parent ]
Thank you for the info (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Only one? (4.00 / 1)
Are you saying that if I vote in the Democratic primary I will not be able to vote in the Democratic caucus (or the other way around if the caucus was held first)? That is if they do have both.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
If the MDP leadership decides to participate in the presidental primary then there will be no caucus. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Are you sure? (4.00 / 1)
I thought Levin was quoted as saying we may do both, with an earlier caucus if New Hampshire moved up.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
It's either or ... not both. Levin wants to dump the 1/15 primary for a 1/5 or 1/12 caucus. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 1)
for setting that straight.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
That can't be right. (4.00 / 2)
I've been through the caucus training, and am the site manager for our county.

I'm looking right now at the "Voting Center Tabulation Report", which states: "The Voting Center Manager must complete this form after the 2008 caucuses, call the results in and deliver the form to Mark Brewer..." The form includes blanks where the totals for each candidate are written. So the ballots WILL be counted locally.

The ballots then will be returned to Lansing, recounted, and anyone who voted twice (say by mail or Internet, as well as showing up at a voting center) will be removed.

Now, certainly anyone who votes on a Democratic ballot in the state primary can still vote in a caucus, if we have it. Anyone who votes on a Republican ballot would not be eligible to participate in the caucus, per MDP rule cited by greee above. How would these be detected? Not (directly) by the list of voters in the primary. And MDP won't get the list of Republican voters in the primary; they'll only get the list of Democratic voters. They could subtract one from the other, I suppose - anyone who voted who is not on the Democratic list cannot participate in the caucus.

However, there are other issues to be decided (bond issues, etc.) that will be going on Jan 15. Will there be non-partisan ballots in these localities for voters who do not wish to participate in the presidential primary or declare a party preference, but DO want to vote on the millage, or whatever? If so, then the above procedure would unjustly exclude those voters from participating in the subsequent Democratic caucus.

Whichever way I look at it, I see nothing but problems. Maybe I'm missing something?

[ Parent ]
Makes more sense (4.00 / 1)
you may or may not be missing something but what you have to say makes more sense.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
The MDP is not interested in who you vote for in the primary, only if you did vote. (0.00 / 0)
At the close of the caucus the ballots will be counted at the county level, that is an "unofficial" tally. The caucus ballots will be "officially" counted in Lansing by the MDP and that is where it is decided if a ballot counts or not.
The MDP will pay $300.00 to buy the 1/15 list of voters from the Secretary of State and the MDP will know who already voted.
The caucus ballot will have the name of the voter.  The ballots will be compared aginst the primary list. 

[ Parent ]
You don't fully appreciate Mark Brewer's drafting (4.00 / 3)
My reading of PA52 is that each party gets both lists, not just their own.  The earlier version restricted them to their own list, but part of the last-minute package of changes removed that restriction.  Maybe it was just sloppy word usage, but just "maybe" Brewer was careful to give the MDP the most valuable list possible.

The A.G. agreed with this expansive reading in their Court of Appeals brief, so I'm pretty sure the Secretary of State will get the same advice when they ask what to do.

"615c(6) Within 71 days after the presidential primary, the secretary of state shall provide to the chairperson of each participating political party a file of the records for *each* participating political party described under subsection (3)..."

My quick reading of the MDP rules suggests you'd be forbidden to vote in a Feb 9 caucus if you had previously voted in the Jan 15 Republican primary, but not if you voted in the Democratic primary.  In any event, none of the lists - not even the bare QVF list of people who voted - will be available by Feb 9.

[ Parent ]
?????? (4.00 / 1)
So your saying that there may indeed be both a primary and a caucus, that we can vote in both the Democratic primary and caucus, and that we may be able to get away with voting in the Republican primary and the Democratic caucus? Do I have that right or will I never understand this?

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
Yup. (4.00 / 1)
You're reading it the same way I do.
[ Parent ]
The MDP has until the March 29 congressional district caucuses to do a match against the state's list. That is more than 71 days. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Thank you for the information (4.00 / 3)
I bow to your superior knowledge. Everything I'd read until now said that it was Iowa/N.H. that required the "pledge." But it doesn't change my opinion... In fact, it just makes a stronger case for breaking the stranglehold they have. Instead of I/N.H. bullying "just" the candidates not to interfere with their primary gods status, they strongarmed the entire party leadership into enforcing their power.

But you can't have it both ways, you know. If the delegate stripping was in place before Granholm signed the primary law, then her action did not "not coincidentally" help her preferred candidate. In fact, it was more likely to hurt her candidate, since even if Hillary won the primary, she wouldn't be able to count the delegates toward the total needed to win the nomination.

And it remains a fact that the party did not demand that candidates withdraw, and that they have not demanded that the candidates withdraw from Florida. (Yes, I know there's a law that they can't, but they could probably successfully fight it if the party (or I/N.H.) demanded they do so.) So, again apparently, neither the party nor I/N.H. considered dropping out necessary to conform to the selection rules. The law was in place for a month before Richardson pulled his name, and the rest followed within two days. What is that but a stampede?

Finally, you are angry with those who didn't drop out, I am angry with those who did. I see this as a perfect illustration of the term "irreconcilable differences" and realize that it would be futile to try to change your mind, so I won't.

P.S. I am seriously miffed about having to rate your post up. I generally just try and stay out of the whole "ratings" scene, but your post was informative, accurate, and pertinent, and did not deserve a one rating.(Ok, it was a little snarky, but snark is allowed (I hope, otherwise I'm in trouble).)  So, now I have to go sulk about that, too. Man. Work, work, work. It never stops.

[ Parent ]
Karen, you are welcome (4.00 / 4)
I did not mean to imply in my argument that Iowa and NH did not require the Pledge.  I do suspect they did, and I have read somewhere that NH has been doing it for several cycles.  All I was saying was that the Pledge was consistent with the Commission's observation on the need to posit some enforcement mechanism.

I have absolutely no problem with the efforts to bring Michigan into the process earlier.  I would love to see the candidates tripping over themselves here in our state.  So, we agree on that, too.  My problem simply is now is not the time for this.  Michigan had its chance, and was rejected.  All of Michigan's efforts now have resulted in chaos, terrible legislation, a rushed Supreme Court decision, and the disenfranchisement of a significant portion of the democratic primary voter pool.

I would like to set the delegate stripping part to the side for a moment.  Imagine a scenario in which Candidate X wins the Michigan primary on 1/15.  While no doubt many news organizations will report on the delegate aspect of it, the larger theme, that of the victory of Candidate X, will be the one bit of the news that will stick in people's heads.  The headlines will read "Candidate X Wins Michigan"; they will not read, "Candidate X Wins Michigan; No Delegates to be Awarded."  Candidate X does not have enough money to purchase the kind of publicity that simple headline generates for free.  No amount of effort in campaigning can produce the "bandwagon effect" of such a headline.  So while under the rules no delegates can be awarded (and it remains to be seen how strictly that will be enforced down the road), the mere fact of victory on 1/15 will provide a significant boost to Candidate X.  So, I do not conclude it will hurt Candidate X to participate (unless it generates backlash in Iowa or NH, and there is no sign of that).

Politico reported that Richardson filed his withdrawal papers with the MI SOS on the same day as the others, so I am not sure everyone was responding to him.  Maybe you have seen something I have not.

Here is my beef with not dropping out.  Everyone said they would neither campaign nor participate, and some of them lived up to it.  In effect, Clinton and Dodd have turned the process into a game of  Calvinball which is fun after a few beers on a summer day but not so good for a primary process. 

Thanx for rating me up, but if it caused pain, well, feel free to reverse it.  :) 

[ Parent ]
Not ready for a group hug or anything, but I'm mellow (4.00 / 4)
I would love to see the candidates tripping over themselves here in our state.  So, we agree on that, too.

We might disagree a bit... my interest is more in seeing our issues addressed, rather than our state per se--especially manufacturing/industrial policy. I actually think that Ohio might be a better vehicle for that. Here's why: Making Michigan the vehicle for addressing our issues would probably lead to candidates feeling they have to oppose environmental issues that I favor, to appease the auto industry. Ohio has some auto-related industry too, but it's not as integral to the state's economy as it is in Michigan. But they have most of the same issues as we do--industrial/manufacturing policy, urban issues, and rural issues. They only lack the environmental/tourism issues of northern Michigan, and I'm willing to see the candidates stand silent on that if it means that they don't lock themselves into actually *opposing* environmental regulations. Ohio's media markets are smaller than Metro Detroit, and cheaper, too, but they still have enough urban centers to get those issues addressed, IMHO.

Besides, getting around in Michigan during the winter is a PITA. Lake effect snow and all...

Setting aside the delegate stripping issue, I can see your point about the headlines, but, given that only Hillary and Dodd (and Kucinich, but I expect the media to continue ignoring any gains he makes), I think they'll be a lot less beneficial than you seem to think. If all the candidates were on the ballot, yes, I think attention would be paid, but with only those two, I think the story line will be much less about the "win" and more about the "deck-stacking." Could even be detrimental to Hillary.

Either way though, nobody's going to forget this mess when it comes time to draw up the primary schedule for the next time. And I think upping the stakes is appropriate, given the effect that just complaining (loud and long, and from several states) had the last time: None. The DNC promised they'd "fix" it next time if we'd only go along "for this one." They didn't. Now they're saying the same thing--"we'll fix it next time" and I'm not sanguine about the chances that they'll do so without more incentive than just more complaints. Especially since a Feb. 5th/9th caucus isn't going to make us any more relevant than the Jan. 15th primary does.

Politico reported that Richardson filed his withdrawal papers with the MI SOS on the same day as the others, so I am not sure everyone was responding to him.  Maybe you have seen something I have not.

Could be that he just *announced* that he was going to do so--I'm not clear on the actual paperwork, I just have a memory of having read that it was a day or two before the others did it.

As for your beef about them dropping out... irreconcilable difference. Standing down on it, because your mind's made up, and so is mine.

Thanx for rating me up, but if it caused pain, well, feel free to reverse it.  :)

Nah. I'm over it. Must be the tryptophan.

[ Parent ]
I had to take one more shot (4.00 / 2)
using Calvinball.  Could not help myself.
[ Parent ]
And it was a good shot! (4.00 / 2)
I laughed and everything! :-D
[ Parent ]
Longest ML thread ever (0.00 / 0)
  ?

  The longest previous one may be a "global warmy John Dingell" diary of mine, with 127 comments...

  This present diary deals with Dingellic dastardy, too, of course. But when you have a "company town" like Michigan over-focused on one messed-up industry, the families of legislators responding to company-town needs assume an undue importance, unfortunately...

  (And how's the implementation challenge going, greee?)

[ Parent ]
adding one more ;-) (4.00 / 2)
"Dingellic dastardy" - I like that. Dingell's been one of the main opponents of better (higher) CAFE standards. Although I don't think those alone will save the auto industry... I think nothing can save the auto industry but the auto industry. They have to start building better, more efficient cars, and if higher CAFE standards gives them a nudge in that direction, I'm fer 'em.

And this is WAYYYYYYYY OT, I know. but... had to say it. But to bring it back to the topic...

But when you have a "company town" like Michigan over-focused on one messed-up industry, the families of legislators responding to company-town needs assume an undue importance, unfortunately...

Exactly why I'm mostly opposed to Michigan being given an "early" slot. I'd rather it be Ohio. Our manufacturing/industrial crisis--and it IS a crisis--is more than just auto companies. I think smart policies can help, although I have to admit, I don't know what those would be. But the main thing I'm interested in is that the issue play a significant role in choosing the next nominee.

[ Parent ]
Apparently a 4-3 decision (4.00 / 2)
Amen (4.00 / 3)
I'm glad this dispute is behind us now.  Let's move forward together as a party toward retaking the White House next November.
I would not say it is behind us. (3.62 / 8)
There is going to be an implementation challenge filed with the state party and the DNC.
[ Parent ]
Ballots are going to the printers already (4.00 / 3)
I'm sure there are people who will fight this all the way to the convention.  But, reality is at hand.  Latest Michigan poll numbers out last week put Clinton at 49%, Obama at 18% and Edwards at 15%.  Iowa is no longer a factor.  The Michigan primary 48 days away.  The two year long post-primary season has entered the homestretch.
[ Parent ]
Pre-Primary Season (4.00 / 1)
Sorry, that should have said "pre-primary" season.
[ Parent ]
"Iowa is no longer a factor." (4.00 / 2)
Wow.
[ Parent ]
Ballots Are Not at the Printers (4.00 / 1)
Here is a Michigan newspaper story that reveals that county elections officials are not yet printing presidential primary ballots, because they can't be printed until they are designed and then approved by each candidate whose name will be on that ballot.

Independently of that article, BAN editor Richard Winger talked on the telephone today to one Michigan county clerk, and she said she is not printed any ballots yet. She said the Secretary of State merely told each county to "begin preparations", a very vague command.

http://www.ballot-ac...

How many times are you going to be wrong nl?

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

[ Parent ]
What was the Implementation Challenge (3.25 / 4)
email address?  Where can folks email you to get on the list protesting a 15 January Primary that picks delegates as against MDP rules?

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast
[ Parent ]
It is (4.00 / 1)
giveusavoice2002@gmail.com
[ Parent ]
I simply cannot type (4.00 / 2)
it is giveusavoice2008@gmail.com
[ Parent ]
That may be a waste of time because it appears the Brewer will have a caucus. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
What is your source for this? (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Just a rumor. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
What does the rumor say about timing? (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Spoken like a true HRC supporter. (3.40 / 5)
I think we need to organize a huge protest vote in this state and use this primary as the vehicle.  A protest against corporatists (HRC coronation), NAFTA and trade, idiots who live in deserts and want green grass and fountains, IOWA and NH first, religious zealots.  As long as this whole thing is in play, we need to use it to make a loud, loud statement.

I say we all vote for Kucinich.  That's where I'm putting my vote in this useless system called an election.

[ Parent ]
OK (3.40 / 5)
I was going to cross over and pee in the Rs sandbox by voting for Ron Paul, but on second thought I'll join you and vote for Dennis.
[ Parent ]
If we end up with the primary, vote uncommitted that way things can be sorted out at the congressional district conventions in March. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Now you're talking! (3.25 / 4)
DK or Dodd -- that's the ticket!
[ Parent ]
HRC - Human Rights Campaign? Oh, yeah... Hillary (3.25 / 4)
I was trying to figure out how supporting the Human Rights Campaign had to do with anything ..... then it dawned upon me - Hillary.  Guess I'm too sold on Obama to even consider that lady's initials.
[ Parent ]
not a surprise from the ultra conservative court (4.00 / 4)
I'm sure there is a screw the Democrats dig in the brief somewhere.  Although how a Supreme court can rule that two state parties are entitled to "exclusive" rights to mailing lists is fairly jaw dropping even for conservatives. 

So did they also force the other candidates names back on the ballot?  This will just be a sham vote, our delegates are worthless and don't carry the will of the people of Michigan.

Will of the people of Michigan (4.00 / 2)
Did you see the latest Detroit News poll?  The will of the people of Michigan is clearly with Clinton.  That fact that she didn't give up on Michigan is likely a significant factor.
[ Parent ]
Willie gives us NAFTA, (3.00 / 3)
and MI votes for Hillary.  The people in this state deserve every job loss they get cause they keep asking for it.  Granholm's endorsement of Hillary and patty cake parties with Bishop have so screwed over Democratic politics in MI, we are almost guaranteed a Republican Gov. next.  The only support for Granholm I ever hear from Democrats and Independents is "well, at least she isn't Engler". 
[ Parent ]
The language forcing the other candidates (4.00 / 2)
back on was in a bill passed after the initial Collette ruling.  However, that bill was not given immediate effect.  I would find it impossible to anticipate or believe that the Supreme Court addressed that.
[ Parent ]
Not passed (4.00 / 4)
That bill passed the Senate, but the House never voted on it.
[ Parent ]
Thank you for the correction (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Ah, hypocrisy at its finest (4.00 / 4)
Saul and Bishop like to go on and on about how they don't want the government picking winners and losers when it comes to business. But it's okay to them if the government holds a primary that collects voter data and only lets the parties use it as they see fit. Sounds like they win that data at the exclusion of anyone else.
I bet Grebner cannot (3.40 / 5)
wait to see what the parties want to charge him for the lists.  Talk about sticker shock. 

The effect of the statute and the Supreme Court's decision is to create a monopoly on information.  We all know the effect on pricing of a monopoly over a good (in this case, information).

[ Parent ]
Another thought on this (3.40 / 5)
Should the monopoly choose to sell the information at a higher than a normal market price, this will affect the price that people like Grebner must charge to his customers, who, presumably, would use the list for political purposes.  At some price point, Grebner's customers may not be able to afford what he has to charge for the information. 

Note that the Supreme Court snippet quoted by Eric B talks about the "public purpose" of the data list.  Judge Whitbeck (and I am assuming the Supreme court) believed that the purpose was public because the list could be used to educate voters about races and ballot issues.

However, the monopoly feature of the law could actually lead to less information being departed to voters, because fewer of the groups that would use the list to educate voters would be able to purchase the list.  A corollary effect of this would be to increase the voice of the major parties while silencing (or at least muting) those groups that cannot afford the information.

If you believe in the free market of ideas, such an effect is bad for participatory democracy, and cannot be said to carry with it a public purpose. 

[ Parent ]
Grebner's next move? (4.00 / 1)
There must be a cause of action in this mess that would allow Grebner, et. al. to go to federal court.  Save himself from the list costs, all of us from monopoly, and Michigan from becoming the "Mississippi" of elections and laws...(and we used to make snide jokes about Indiana...)
[ Parent ]
Very good question (4.00 / 1)
One would need to think along the lines of equal protection and substantive due process.  But, he could not rehash the arguments he already brought in state court.
[ Parent ]
Over at Kos Kestenbaum (4.00 / 2)
is stating flat out that the timing of the ruling will have the effect of disenfranchising potential absentee voters.  If true, this would be enough to stop the primary in its tracks.
[ Parent ]
One Kos commentater (0.00 / 0)
argues the effect on absentee voters violates federal law: http://www.dailykos....
[ Parent ]
Terri Land schools Dingell (4.00 / 2)
  This is really bad: Terri Lynn Land comes off as more conscientious than "Dem" Debbie Dingell, see Freep, Michigan wins Jan. 15 primary, but it's trumped by New Hampshire,

 

  ...Some supporters, including Anuzis and Democratic national committee member Debbie Dingell, said after the court's ruling they still hoped to convince the Legislature next week to amend the primary statute to restore the names of the missing Democratic candidates - Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson.
  But Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, who backs the primary but also is the state's top elections overseer, opposes that move because it would further delay preparation for the Jan. 15 ballot, which is already well behind schedule.
  Elections Director Chris Thomas said Wednesday it would be virtually impossible to run an orderly and credible election if any additional delay is incurred.

  So ol' Terri LL has some dim idea that maybe it is kinda late for absentee voter soldiers in Iraq or something, while Debbie Anuzis is on total autopilot...

[ Parent ]
What a riot. (3.40 / 5)
She could do even better by removing all the print from the ballots.  Then she would be ready in a flash no matter what.  This whole thing stinks, and I'm not sure who I'm angriest at or why.
[ Parent ]
You've got it completely wrong (4.00 / 5)
The statute is MUCH more bizarre than you understand.  I CAN'T buy the list - and the parties CAN'T sell it.  Under the law they wrote, their duopoly is protected permanently by a ban on outright sale - they can only "rent" the list for each use, and they are required to sign a contract with each renter for each mailing, or door-to-door canvass, or poll, or whatever.

If I somehow get a copy, it's a CRIME just for me to possess the data - it can't get out of the major parties' hands, even by accident.  It's sort of a throwback to the middle ages, when guilds were given control of certain trades, with criminal penalties for anybody else who was caught dying wool or whatever.  In this case, the two parties will have to set up their own list businesses, and rent the data by the use.

And who will they rent to?  It's entirely up to them - there's no recourse to the courts, if you want to run for office and the other guy in the race got to them first.  The next race for governor may start with a fight in State Central Committee over access to the election records.

No sticker shock at all - the data's not for sale.

[ Parent ]
Mark (4.00 / 1)
I saw you posed this question the other day in a comment.  With all due respect, I think you are reading sections 8 and 9 too narrowly.
[ Parent ]
Really? (4.00 / 5)
Keep in mind that Mark Brewer WROTE the statute - the actual language that was adopted.

What do you think the following language allows?  I think it allows only transfers for one-time use.  And I think there's no limit whatever on the party's own uses, as long as it "supports party activities" - which is no limit at all.

(8) A participating political party may only use the information transmitted to the participating political party under subsection (6) to support political party activities by that participating political party, including, but not limited to, support for or opposition to candidates and ballot proposals. A participating political party may release the information transmitted to the participating political party under subsection (6) to another person, organization, or vendor for the purpose of supporting political party activities by that participating political party, including, but not limited to, support for or opposition to candidates or ballot proposals.

(9) When authorized under subsection (8), a participating political party that releases the information transmitted to the participating political party under subsection (6) to another person, organization, or vendor shall enter into a contract with the person, organization, or vendor and the contract shall do all of the following:

(a) State the information use restrictions imposed by this section.

(b) Specify how and when the information will be used.

(c) Prohibit the donation, use, or sale of the information for any purpose other than a purpose authorized by this section.

(d) Prohibit the retention of the information after authorized use.

(e) Describe the criminal penalties provided in subsection (11).

[ Parent ]
I'm not a lawyer; don't even watch lawyer shows on Tee Vee (4.00 / 3)
I read this as meaning that the Democratic Party can sell you the information, but that you can't reuse it for anything else.  I guess that's the same as renting, since once you were finished fulfilling your contract, you'd be violating the law by keeping your mitts on it.

Among the Trees
[ Parent ]
Yes, really (4.00 / 3)
For purposes of the statute, a "participating political party" is defined in section 19a of the act as "a political party authorized to participate in a presidential primary under
section 613a." § 613a(3), in turn, provides a 20% threshold that has the effect, based upon the returns of the 2004 election, of shutting out all other parties that did participate that year.  Effectively, only the Dems and Repubs get the list.

That being said, the statute clearly allows the list to be used for "political party activities" which is defined to include, not by way of limitation, the support or opposition to candidates and ballot issues ("the permitted use").  Typical political activities, such as get out the vote and fundraising would fall inside of the definition.

§615(c)(8) states that the lists may be released to other "person[s], organization[s], or vendor[s], i.e., non "participating political party" entities.  The Act then describes the limitations on the use by those persons, organizations or vendors.

There is no express provision in the statute limiting a person, vendor or organization to a "one-time use".  The Act merely specifies the contract to specify "how and when the information will be used."  Of course, the political parties would be free to impose such a condition in the contract under §615(c)(9)(b).  The Act does clearly state that the person, vendor or organization is prohibited from further dissemination to others.  But that is not necessarily the same as a "one time use".

Mark, if you are thinking about still challenging this look at cases like Williams v Rhodes, 393 U.S. (1968), Clingman v Beaver, 544 US 581 (2005) and other Supreme Court decisions regarding the affect of state election laws on First Amendment associational rights.  I think the 20% rule found in the Act, as well as the limitation on the use of the lists, would most likely be subject to a strict scrutiny analysis and may very well be unconstitutional.  There may be other problems with the Act (I am at work and do not have alot of time to spend on this).  You could ask Collette to amend the complaint raising these arguments, or you could file in Federal Court.

[ Parent ]
Mark, chew on this quote (4.00 / 2)
"A burden that falls unequally on new or small political parties or on independent candidates impinges, by its very nature, on associational choices protected by the First Amendment. [460 U.S. 780, 794]  It discriminates against those candidates and - of particular importance - against those voters whose political preferences lie outside the existing political parties. Clements v. Fashing, supra, at 964-965 (plurality opinion). By limiting the opportunities of independent-minded voters to associate in the electoral arena to enhance their political effectiveness as a group, such restrictions threaten to reduce diversity and competition in the marketplace of ideas. Historically political figures outside the two major parties have been fertile sources of new ideas and new programs; many of their challenges to the status quo have in time made their way into the political mainstream. Illinois Elections Bd. v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S., at 186 ; Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 -251 (1957) (opinion of Warren, C. J.). 17  In short, the primary values protected by the First Amendment - "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open," New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270  (1964) - are served when election campaigns are not monopolized by the existing political parties."

Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 US 780 (1983)

[ Parent ]
See my new diary (0.00 / 0)
  here, by way, at http://www.michiganl... , re fed court stuff...
[ Parent ]
Access to voting lists (4.00 / 2)
is an important part of what third parties need to do to get organized and get their message across.
[ Parent ]
I'm not interested in quibbling (3.25 / 4)
'There is no express provision in the statute limiting a person, vendor or organization to a "one-time use".  The Act merely specifies the contract to specify "how and when the information will be used." '

OK - the Act doesn't limit entities outside the two major parties to "one-time use", it merely requires first they contract with a major party and specify "how and when the information will be used".

If you think that's an important distinction, please don't mind me.

Similarly, Brewer says the statute prohibits "commercial use", apparently because the only legal uses are those that "support party activities", which is to say: they could only engage in commercial use that brought money to the party.

More quibbling.  PA 52 is a screaming horror, and nobody but Mark and Saul think it's a good idea.  But it's not unconstitutional - Saul's friends on the Court have decided.

[ Parent ]
I think the prohibition (4.00 / 2)
on commercial use is for things like the sale of the list to data mining companies.  I.E., vote in a primary and get a credit card solicitation geared toward republicans in a certain zip code.
[ Parent ]
It may very well be unconstitutional (4.00 / 2)
under alternative theries.  See my comments and my email to you.
[ Parent ]
"theories" (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Mark (4.00 / 2)
on a second read, you have hit the nail on the head.  Think about the quote I provided in the context of your argument.
[ Parent ]
I probably should have written (3.00 / 3)
that the parties can license the use of the list subject to the statutory limits on use.  License or sale, still a potential limitation on the use of the info if the price is too high.
[ Parent ]
DailyKos cross-reference (4.00 / 2)
See also the DailyKos item about the primary ruling.
Are the clerks going to be able to pull this one off? (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
The question is... (4.00 / 3)
How many little old ladies and servicemen serving overseas will this disenfranchise?

Among the Trees
[ Parent ]
Democrats Abroad have a solution. (4.00 / 1)
I have posted details here.  Please help tell our troops and others from Michigan that live abroad that they can still have a say in the process by voting in the Democrats Abroad Global Presidential Primary.

I posted this below too.

[ Parent ]
Oh, crap! (4.00 / 1)
I just read this on DU from this source:  http://politicaltick...

I guess our rejoicing last night was premature.

Brewer Can Still Save the Party (4.00 / 1)
Call him and the MDP: (517) 371-5410

Email the MDP: midemparty@michigandems.com

A sample:

"I want a DNC-sanctioned caucus on or after 5 February so there can be campaigning in Michigan, so the candidates will address Michigan issues, so that all the candidates will be on the ballot, so that we'll be choosing delegates and not having a mere beauty contest, and so that the DNC will be in a position of power to enforce primary calendar reforms for 2012. And I want it now, since we're losing valuable time when the candidates could be coming to Michigan this month. Opt-out of the 15 January beauty contest or consider it a strawpoll and set a DNC-sanctioned date for a caucus that will chose National Convention delegates as soon as possible."



West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast
Still Time to Fix This (4.00 / 1)
within our Party and not go with the Cox-Land-Bishop-Anuzis-Dingell Beauty Contest

From Freep:

Democrats in Michigan have kept open the possibility of picking their presidential favorite through a party caucus, even if the primary is held.

http://news.yahoo.co...

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

[ Parent ]
Primarily a disaster (3.54 / 13)
January 15 will be a pure nightmare for local clerks.

1.  AV applications should have been mailed a month ago to folks on by-request permanent AV lists. Today, no one has anything to mail out--for this primary there must be special AV apps printed that include the party selection.

2.  Confused/indignant voters will be sending back AV apps without a party selection.  This will ensure that clerks must make hundreds of phone calls to these voters, even further delaying the mailing of the actual AV ballots, which will already be so late they might not be delivered back in time.

3.  There will be few experienced election workers around to staff this event.  The retired people are going to go someplace warm.  The employed people had to use up all their leave days by Dec. 31 and haven't earned any more. We can't use ex-cons.

4.  Machines must be tested, AV ballots processed daily, and all the other large and small tasks--it takes the same amount of work to put on any election, no matter how small or large the ballot.  This guarantees no holiday break for the office staffs, who are still cleaning up after the November elections for cities.

5.  And best of all, on January 16, we get to start all over again for the next three, back to back elections in 2008.
What's the sound of Michigan's election system breaking? Kind of like that nightmare scream, when you open your mouth and nothing comes out.

"This Is Good for Republicans" (3.00 / 3)
If you want to know what side to be on, looks who is on the side of the 15 January "Primary."

Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis said he was pleased the primary would be held and said Republicans would participate even if Democrats switched to a caucus.

"This is good for Michigan, this is good for Republicans and it's good for the process," he said.



West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast
After Edwards drops out, who is your next choice? (4.00 / 2)
Do you think he'll still be running by South Carolina?
[ Parent ]
I have simply had it (3.50 / 6)
with this kind of pure asshole stupidity.  Yeah, I have a candidate, and yeah, he is not on the ballot.

The issues implicated by what has been occurring the last 2 weeks are much larger than narrow partisan interests.  They include equal protection and first amendment protections.  Get informed, and you can start doing so by a careful reading of this diary, its comments and some of the case law cited.  Quit embarrassing yourself.

[ Parent ]
Get a grip (0.00 / 0)
I reviewed my post to see why I deserved such a strongly worded reaction from you.  Unfortunately, I lack the professional background in psychiatry/psychology to understand you or fix you.

My question was directed at Phil - not you - and I wanted an honest answer for the following reasons:

(1) among our candidates, I lean towards Edwards.  Phil's committment to Edwards doesn't need explaining;

(2) based upon other posts, I think Phil is probably a little socially conservative and economically liberal (radiacal?) which is where I generally fit;

(3) this isn't the first time my first choice in a presidential season got weeded out, and I wanted to know who Phil's next choice was.

As for your dressing your tantrum up in a psuedo-legal analysis of important civil rights issues, get a grip.  Civil rights issues are implicated by the conduct of public bodies or entities treated as state actors.  Since your candidate is a private individual that chose to remove his name from the ballot, when others freely chose not to, there is no civil rights issue.  If you hold a legal degree, my guess is that you did poorly in con law.  You see, the details of the case are actuallly important in understanding the holding of the case.  Its not like they're casting votes on opinion issues grasshopper.

In short, grow up. 
 

[ Parent ]
FYI (4.00 / 2)
Got an "A" in Con Law.  The class was taught by Ron Rotunda.

My reference to the events of the last 2 weeks was to the primary act, not to the withdrawal of the candidates.  No need to tell me about state action (or how to read a case). 

You may actually wish to analyze both the 20% provision of the primary act and the list provision of the act in light of Supreme Court precedent on equal protection and associational rights in the context of election law. I have, in this diary, tossed out a handful of the 20 or so cases I have read in my spare time the past 2 weeks.  I do not claim any authoritative opinion, or for that matter any strongly informed opinion, as I have not finished looking at the issue.  I'm just saying there may be another way to attack the Act.

Apparently, I misread the implication of your post.  I have been watching here these last several weeks as Hillary supporters have downplayed the significance of the Pledge and the withdrawal of the four candidates, as if it is of no import that some 40-45% of the democratic primary pool has been deprived of choice.  Reading your post that way acted as the proverbial straw.  If I misread it, then I owe you an apology.

I have utterly no idea about what you are trying to say here:

Its not like they're casting votes on opinion issues grasshopper.

[ Parent ]
Apology accepted (4.00 / 2)
When I saw Whitbeck dissenting in the Court of Appeals, I assumed the final result in the Supreme Court.  If a challenge is filed in federal district court, then the delay it causes may bring the intended result by itself.  In my opinion, the issues in the cases you have referenced are not implicated here because we do not have racially closed primaries or any third political party at all.  But again, the time delay would be the key.

The grasshopper thing is a reference to Ken Karst's criticism of reading only the holdings of decisions as though they were votes cast by senators (the "grasshopper" was just me being pissed because of the tone of your post - sorry).  As you obviously know, the facts of the case limit the spread of the holding.  So, if a case was dealing with racially closed primaries, then is it helpful when those facts are not present?  If a case involved ballot access for a third political party, then is it relevant when the ballot access was a matter of private choice?  The issue that bothers me most is the ownership of government information by private political parties.

At any rate, I accept your apology, and I'm sorry for my pissy response. 

 

[ Parent ]
Thanx for the clarification regarding Karst (4.00 / 1)
The thing is while, of course, a holding cannot be divorced from the facts presented in the case, there can be statements  of law made during the course of an analysis which have broader application than just to the situation in front of any particular court.

One reason I am so interested in the 20% provision of th Act is the US Supreme Court decision in Williams v Rhodes, 393 US 23.  In that case an Ohio requirement that new third parties could only gain ballot access on the presidential level by securing the signatures of qualified electors totaling 15%
of the number of ballots cast in the last gubernatorial
election was unconstitutional. 

If you  look here you will see that the House Substitute for SB 624 amended prior election law and raised the minor party bar from 5% to 20%.  The 20% would seem, assuming Williams is still good law, possibly unconstitutional.  I did run a quick initial check on Williams and Lexis does not have it red flagged.  (Of course, that is not the end of the inquiry).

Here is to hoping Grebner runs with this argument.

As far as the withdrawal, you are clearly correct that it could be viewed as a self inflicted gunshot.  Or, being the argumentative ass I am, you could attempt to frame it as an unconstitutional interference by a state with internal party  delegate selection rules.  See, for example, the limitations  on a state in this area as discussed in the Supreme Court decision California Dem Party v Jones, 530 US 567.

Some believe Brewer, an election lawyer, put poison pills in the legislation. 

[ Parent ]
Run Grebner run (0.00 / 0)
  Before I have to do another diary requesting that (heh!).

  Or if he refuses, greee, you do it--your name starts with the same first three letters as his, after all!, and implead his *** as being an implicated party... :D 

[ Parent ]
Realistically it would be 2 weeks before I could (4.00 / 1)
do anything.
[ Parent ]
Do what can, when can (0.00 / 0)
  ...

  (Tho you have the implementation challenge on plate too, I know...)

[ Parent ]
We have our people lined up (4.00 / 2)
and I am working on a final draft tonight
[ Parent ]
"George Mason" Ron Rotunda? (0.00 / 0)
  Here with Spock, http://mason.gmu.edu... 
... ?
[ Parent ]
Heh. Had not seen that photo (4.00 / 1)
I had him @ Illinois.
[ Parent ]
Guess I'm an Independent now (3.25 / 4)
I'm not paying MDP dues if their actions lead to a "primary" with only one candidate on it, and voting in that primary puts me on a private list that only they can use - all paid for with state money.  Thus I won't be back on the ballot for Precinct Delegate.  I'll just volunteer for whatever candidate runs against McCotter, and dutifully wait 'til November to vote for Queen Hillary the Chosen One.

Or maybe I'll just move to Iowa or New Hampshire.

Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?
The PhiKapBlog

contact greee (4.00 / 1)
for information on how we can still try to stop this if Brewer and the MDP don't opt out (they still can).

But, please, don't be down-heartened, give it all you got until we're absolutely at the primary.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

[ Parent ]
All candidates on the ballot (4.00 / 1)
Phil, what would your thoughts be if the legislature acts to put all candidates back on the ballot?

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
Does not solve the problem (4.00 / 1)
of no campaigning, no delegates and no Michigan issues.

The only solution is an immediate implementation of a DNC-sanctioned caucus date.  The only date that has been sanctioned is 9 February.  Let's go with that.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

[ Parent ]
I see that "Nancy B", rather than comment (3.25 / 4)
shot you a one.

Cheap shot, that is.

[ Parent ]
Nancy B is going through diaries (3.50 / 6)
downrating every comment she doesn't agree with. Downrated me above for saying I'd now vote for Kucinich.

Doesn't play well with others.

[ Parent ]
You can still be a precinct delegate (4.00 / 5)
(if you want to, that is) by filing as such for the August primary, without paying a dime to MDP.

As for me, while I certainly understand your frustration, my loyalty to the party is too deep to be shaken by the bone-headed moves of any particular, passing set of party leaders. I'll be contributing, maybe more to DNC than MDP, but more still to my local party and local candidates.

[ Parent ]
Judicial politics? (4.00 / 2)
The most disturbing thing to me is that it appears that judges are - once again - making legal rulings based on their political persuasion.

Justice is "supposed" to be blind. Something needs to be done about this before we descend even further into a 3rd world political system.

Political Michigan Supreme Court (4.00 / 2)
This should come as no surprise to anyone. These four Justices are as partisan as any Judges anywhere, including the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court. Cliff Taylor must go in 2008.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
[ Parent ]
Amen, brother (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Been tried already (4.00 / 4)
We tried that back in 2000.  A huge campaign was put on by both sides.  There was no secret about precisely how right-wing the Republicans were (and are).

The results were very disappointing.  The incumbency designation is so powerful that even strongly Dem precincts voted for the Republican justices.  Party designation is, of course, absent on the ballot, so hitting "straight Dem" doesn't count for the Supreme Court.

In past decades, incumbent justices HAVE been defeated, usually by challengers with even better Irish names.  The power of Irish names is so much common knowledge now that Maura Corrigan's campaign consisted of ads with Irish songs.

In recent years, though, I think the Irish-name advantage has dwindled, and the incumbency designation has become stronger.  Media coverage of politics (as received by most voters) now focuses almost exclusively on national level, as newspapers have cut labor-intensive coverage of local and state issues.

Moreover, any Supreme Court campaign has to break through the noise of the presidential and congressional and gubernatorial campaigns that are going on simultaneously.

The way to win a majority on the Supreme Court is to hold the Governor's office for twelve consecutive years, and appoint to fill vacancies that inevitably occur.  In Michigan, the governor doesn't need the approval of the State Senate for appointees.

Republicans actually had a 5-2 majority on the Court, until the blatant right-wing overreaching became too much for Justice Weaver to stomach.  So now it's 4-3.  One more vote, and the balance shifts.

Me, I don't think the judiciary should be elected, but that's not going to change soon.  One relatively easy and popular reform would be to elect the Supreme Court in a nonpartisan way.  But how would candidates be nominated if not in party conventions?  Reformers differ on that critical point.

[ Parent ]
What is it about Irish names anyhow? (4.00 / 1)
I know you are right - but why? Michigan does not have that strong an Irish-American population. Yes, there are been many justices with Irish surnames - does ANYONE think that is something in 'Irish genes'??? I just don't get it.
[ Parent ]
"Good Irish name" (4.00 / 3)
Apparently there is some kind of appeal, and I have it heard referenced (in a non-politician context) as "voting for the good Irish name."  It could be a Catholic tradition: Michigan does have a lot of Catholics.

I once did an analysis of the votes for education board seats (UM Board of Regents, MSU Board of Trustees, etc.) in statewide general elections from 1940 to 1994 or so.  Few voters know anything about the candidates, so obviously names are second only to party in those races.  Typically a party runs eight candidates (two each for the four boards), so you can compare each candidate's vote to the average of his/her party ticket (ahead/above or behind/below that average).

The results: Irish names ran ahead of their party average about 90% of the time.  By contrast, Hispanic names ran behind their party ticket 100% of the time.

[ Parent ]
Wow (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Non partisan judges (4.00 / 1)
I wholeheartedly agree that judges SHOULD be non-partisan, but how is the big question. Maybe they should be required to remove themselves from the political process (non-voting, non-campaigning, etc.) once they become a judge. Or maybe they should be APPOINTED by a bi-partisan commission instead of elected.

These are just some thoughts.

[ Parent ]
They already ARE required to remove themselves from (4.00 / 1)
the political process. They can vote, but may not be a member of the county executive committee, do any campaigning for partisan candidates, etc.

In our county, three of our very strongest Democrats have been appointed judges in recent years. In a couple cases, some of the most partisan Democrats we had. Now, while (I think) their presence on the bench is nothing but good for our jurisprudence, still, making them 'officially' non-partisan does NOTHING to change the fact that they approach the world, and their duties, thinking like Democrats.

As long as that is the reality, I think we are fooling ourselves by pretending that they are non-partisan. Instead, why not acknowledge that there are political differences in the application of the law, just as there are political differences in the making of law? Run judges on the partisan ballot - have debates among judicial candidates as to how they would interpret the law.

I guarantee that someone unfamiliar with the Michigan Supreme Court, but an astute observer of American politics, could easily assign the parties to which our justices owe their allegiance, merely by studying their decisions. Why not own up to this simple fact?

[ Parent ]
Stop with all the hysterics (4.00 / 1)
From what I have read here the language in the bill is virtually the same as the language in the MDP voter file agreement.  It prohibits anyone using the file for anything other than a general election and from selling the file.  That's alright with me.
Exactly! (4.00 / 3)
We need to adjust our thinking, and understand that the election records are just another private data file owned by the MDP.

If you want to run for office, don't contact your County Clerk; you want to talk to the Chair of the county Democratic Party, who will send your name up to the state party for its approval.

Of course, we're not talking about general elections here, but primary elections, where the MDP will be able - will be forced to - choose between Democratic candidates.

But once we get used to the idea, I'm sure it'll be all right.

[ Parent ]
Worked for Stalin and Pol Pot (2.50 / 4)
for awhile, at least.
[ Parent ]
That's a poor comparisonto use to make a point. People may not take you seriously. (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
I have never lived my life (3.25 / 4)
worrying about other people's opinion of me, and I will not start now.

Want to know one reason why?  You have failed to comment on any of my other posts within this diary.

All that tells me is you have a mind for trivia, not substance.  Provocation within an argument can shine light, and you are not looking so good in the light.

[ Parent ]
For Nancy B (3.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
An additional infringement (3.25 / 4)
on protected associational interests.
[ Parent ]
Once again "Nancy B" (3.00 / 6)
adds to the conversation.  Not with words, but with her wicked "1".  She is a wicked one.
[ Parent ]
Why would the MDP be forced to choose between Democratic primary candidates? (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
The only route to the information is through the MDP (4.00 / 5)
I guess I oversimplified when I said the MDP would have to choose "between" candidates.  It might make access equally available to everyone in a given race.  Or to nobody, although that seems unlikely, since the main point of the law was revenue.  Or it could play favorites among them.

If you are familiar with the MDP, you should ask yourself what would have happened if this information had been available during the Dingell/Rivers primary in 2002?  Do you imagine that Lynn could have counted on their evenhandedness? 

On the Republican side, what's the chance a pro-choice candidate would be able to obtain the needed permission - say Joe Schwarz in his unsuccessful re-election campaign against Walberg?

My point is that the new law gives the data to each state party, with no requirement to do anything beyond "supporting" the party's "activities" - which is to say getting money.  Whatever policies are adopted will be subject to change if somebody puts together the votes on the State Central Committee.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.  My uninformed guess is that Brewer will be given some general rules to follow combined with some discretion over how to apply them.  For example, maybe they'll always support an incumbent against a challenger, unless there's a specific contrary vote.  Or maybe they'll sell to everybody in an open seat - again with a mechanism to pick sides if a motion is made and carried.  Or maybe they'll generally defer to recommendations from the relevant county party, unless over-ridden by state central.

I don't know exactly what they'll do, but suddenly the two parties have ceased to be irrelevant to the average candidate in a primary.  Lining up support within the party will be necessary both to OBTAIN access, and to BLOCK your opponent.  Like I said, it'll be interesting.

[ Parent ]
Heard Grebner on Michigan Radio yesterday - (4.00 / 4)
something to the effect that the next 'modest proposal' to come out of the legislature would probably be to assign the tolls on a toll bridge to the major parties - Republicans could collect the eastbound, Democrats westbound. I know this is not an exact quote, but it was hilarious!

Mark, I salute you for keeping a droll sense of humor in trying circumstances.

[ Parent ]
I don't know about you (3.40 / 5)
but I can think of much more important things the state can spend $10 million on...

Putting aside all the legal ramification (and precedent) that you were so quick to ignore

[ Parent ]
Solving the absentee ballot problem (4.00 / 2)
I have posted details here.  Please help tell our troops and others from Michigan that live abroad that they can still have a say in the process by voting in the Democrats Abroad Global Presidential Primary.
Same tune, second verse (4.00 / 3)
I still think that Mark Brewer will decide to have a Caucus. And, now that New Hampshire has picked its date of Jan. 8th, we can hold a caucus on Jan. 8th or earlier! Mark has always said he was worried about the 3 week lead-time that NH said was all it needed. Now they've committed to a date certain.

The caucus training has already happened, and word all along to caucus organizers has been to keep the engine warm. We've just been idling and waiting for the official green light.

Apparently we can't expect a decision until the week of 12/16 (4.00 / 1)
if the NH 3 week window is correct. 
But that seems unlikely considering the dates the MDP have are the 8th and the 15th.
How can the MDP get the vote-by-mail and internet-voting applications sent out, wait for the apps to be returned, mail out the requested ballots, and wait for the ballots to be returned in such a short time.


[ Parent ]
This would still violate the DNC rules (3.57 / 7)
No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

[ Parent ]
What kind of a maroon (4.00 / 3)
would down rate someone for quoting from the text of the DNC delegate selection rules?

Any guesses, anyone?

[ Parent ]
Someone... (4.00 / 3)
who is completely confused about the rating system; someone who believes that a 1 is the highest rating one can give. ;)


[ Parent ]
Well in that case I retract (4.00 / 2)
my previous post.  "Ones for everyone" is my new motto.
[ Parent ]
Quoting DNC Rules (4.00 / 2)
Apparently, using facts to criticize both the primary and the two major parties for monopolizing voter information gathered from that primary is too much for certain people to handle.
[ Parent ]
Following the rules is not a part of the game plan. Brewer has never made a secret of that fact. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Reminds me of that line from the (4.00 / 1)
Talking Heads song "This Must be the Place (Naive Melody)"

The less we say about it the better
Make it up as we go along
Feet on the ground
Head in the sky
It's ok I know nothing's wrong . . nothing

[ Parent ]
Hmm. Here's a question (4.00 / 3)
Since Iowa and New Hampshire are now in violation of the delegate selection rules too (more than 22 days for Iowa, more than 17 days for New Hampshire), are their delegates going to be stripped too?
[ Parent ]
Gah. (0.00 / 0)
I mean, more than 14 days for New Hampshire, not 17.

Gah. Way to ruin an absolutely brilliant (to me) post. Gah.

[ Parent ]
A real election possible? (4.00 / 3)
If we can get the names all added back, it seems like it would be a win-win for all...

"Anuzis, Dingell and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, all forceful advocates for an early contest, said they are hopeful that by early next week, the Michigan Legislature can pass a measure adding the names of four Democratic candidates back to the Michigan ballot, though the chances of such action were uncertain. The House returns to Lansing on Monday and the Senate on Tuesday, and Dingell admitted that restoring the names has to happen early next week or not at all."

For all? (4.00 / 3)
Win-win for the candidates maybe.

Not a win for anyone who wants the primary voting lists without having to go throught either the state parties or private vendors like Grebner.

But this could be a definite win in the long run for America if it leads to a positive reform of the presidential primary system.

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

[ Parent ]
In now way can breaking the rules (3.25 / 4)
bring reform.  Indeed, it prevents reform.  For reform to happen the DNC will have to be able to impose a calendar on all 50 state parties.  If Michigan Republicans (and a few Democratic allies) can break those rules, then no reform is possible.  Michigan could be put in the top 4 next time, and then someone else will pass us and break the rules as Bishop-Saul-Cox-Land-Dingell are doing this year to Nevada and SC.

On the other hand, given that we're getting shut completely down, maybe this does help.

But in the end: STOP PLAYING GAMES WITH MY VOTE!

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

[ Parent ]
Ever Heard of Civil Disobedience? (4.00 / 4)
When Thoreau was jailed rather than pay taxes that would support the expansion of slavery through the Mexican War, he was breaking the rules to bring reform.

Often the only way to bring a reform to unjust rules is to refuse to follow them.

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

[ Parent ]
A person who commits (3.50 / 6)
an act of civil disobedience accepts the fact that there will be consequences personally visited upon him or her.  Further, the act of disobedience is in response to some law imposed upon that person by the state.

In this instance, the MDP is violating its own delegate selection process.  In other words, it made the rules, and now it is trying to ignore them.  That is not civil disobedience, it is recklessness verging on insanity.

Further, the consequences of the MDP violating its own rules will be borne by others, not the party.

[ Parent ]
It's not a real election if it's not for delegates (3.00 / 3)
and it's too late to force peoples names on.

This is a wash.

Time to dump the primary entirely, go to a 9 February DNC-sanctioned caucus with campaigning, candidates and delegates and bash the Republicans for wasting tax-payer money.

Contact Mark Brewer and the MDP and tell them what you think and sign up for the Implementation Challenge that greee mentions above.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

[ Parent ]
Vote "uncommitted". The actual delegate selection takes place at the congressional district caucus. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
The January 15 Primary-It's Baaaaccckkk | 159 comments

Features

Change.org|Start Petition

Mobile Blog Reader - powered by Notice Orange
RSS
Politics & Elections Library:
- US Senate
- US House
- Executive Branch
- Michigan Senate
- Michigan House
- State Supreme Court
- Michigan Media

Special Sections:
- Technical Politics - Grebner
- Michigan's Fallen

Search
Progressive Blogroll
For MI Bloggers:
 - MI Bloggers Facebook
- MI Bloggers Myspace
- MI Bloggers PartyBuilder
- MI Bloggers Wiki

Statewide:
 - Blogging for Michigan
- Call of the Senate Dems
- [Con]serving Michigan (Michigan LCV)
- DailyKos (Michigan tag)
- Enviro-Mich List Serve archives
- Democratic Underground, Michigan Forum
- Jack Lessenberry
- JenniferGranholm.com
- LeftyBlogs (Michigan)
- MI Eye on Bishop
- Michigan Coalition for Progress
- Michigan Messenger
- MI Idea (Michigan Equality)
- Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan
- Rainbow Mittens
- The Upper Hand (Progress Michigan)

Upper Peninsula:
- Keweenaw Now
- Lift Bridges and Mine Shafts
- Save the Wild UP

Western Michigan:
- Great Lakes Guy
- Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott
- Mostly Sunny with a Chance of Gay
- Public Pulse
- West Michigan Politics
- West Michigan Rising
- Windmillin'

Mid-Michigan:
- Among the Trees
- Blue Chips (CMU College Democrats Blog)
- Christine Barry
- Conservative Media
- Far Left Field
- Graham Davis
- Honest Errors
- ICDP:Dispatch (Isabella County Democratic Party Blog)
- Liberal, Loud and Proud
- Livingston County Democratic Party Blog
- MI Blog
- Mid-Michigan DFA
- Pohlitics
- Random Ramblings of a Somewhat Common Man
- Waffles of Compromise
- YAF Watch

Flint/Bay Area/Thumb:
- Bay County Democratic Party
- Blue November
- East Michigan Blue
- Genesee County Young Democrats
- Greed, Eggs, and Ham
- Jim Stamas Watch
- Meddling Outsider
- Saginaw County Democratic Party Blog
- Stone Soup Musings
- Voice of Mordor

Southeast Michigan:
 - A2Politico
- arblogger
- Arbor Update
- Congressman John Conyers (CD14)
- Mayor Craig Covey
- Councilman Ron Suarez
- Democracy for Metro Detroit
- Detroit Skeptic
- Detroit Uncovered (formerly "Fire Jerry Oliver")
- Grosse Pointe Democrats
- I Wish This Blog Was Louder
- Kicking Ass Ann Arbor (UM College Democrats Blog)
- LJ's Blogorific
- Mark Maynard
- Michigan Progress
- Motor City Liberal
- North Oakland Dems
- Oakland Democratic Politics
- Our Michigan
- Peters for Congress (CD09)
- PhiKapBlog
- Polygon, the Dancing Bear
- Rust Belt Blues
- Third City
- Thunder Down Country
- Trusty Getto
- Unhinged

MI Congressional
District Watch Blogs:
 - Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (CD08)
MI Campaigns:
- ActBlue (MI Congressional Candidates)
- Michigan Round Table for Diversity and Inclusion
- MichUHCAN (Affordable Health Care)
- Politics1 (MI Candidate Listings)
- Senator Carl Levin

MI Democratic Orgs:
- Michigan Democratic Party
- Michigan House Democratic Caucus
- Michigan Senate Democratic Caucus
- MDP Youth Caucus
- Michigan Young Democrats
- Ingham County Democratic Party
- Genesee County Dems Progressive Caucus
- Saginaw Area Democratic Club
- Justice Caucus
- South County Dems (Berrien Co.)
- Western Washtenaw Democrats

MI Progressive Orgs:
- America Votes Michigan coalition
- Michigan Labor organizations
- Michigan Voice coalition

MI Misc.:
- Absolute Michigan
- Center for Michigan
- Citizens Research Council
- Detroit News Politics Blog
- Freep Opinion
- Media Mouse (Grand Rapids Indy Media) Blog
- Michigan Campaign Finance Network
- The Michigan Citizen Blog
- Michigan Interfaith Trust Fund
- Michigan Future (WWJ)
- Michigan Nonprofit Association's blog
- Michigan Prospect
- Michigan Public News Service
- Michigan Radio
- Michigan Secret Court
- MLive.com Blogs
- Political Graveyard
- Red Tape Blog (Government Documents Librarians of Michigan)

National Alternative Media:
- Air America Radio
- BlogTalkRadio
- BuzzFlash
- ePluribus Media
- Indymedia
- New Journalist Program (Center for Independent Media)
- PoliticsTV

National Blogs:
- AFL-CIO Weblog
- BlogPAC
- Daily Kos
- Firedoglake
- From The Roots (DSCC)
- The Gavel (Speaker's Office)
- Huffington Post
- HuffPo: Rich Robinson
- Kicking Ass (DNC)
- MyDD
- My Left Wing
- The Next Hurrah
- Open Left
- The Thicket (NCSL)
- Senate Guru
- Smart Ass (CDA)
- The Stakeholder (DCCC)
- YDA



© Michiganliberal.com, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Powered by: SoapBlox