Leave 'em in limbo. We've had quite enough of Florida. Give the whole damn swamp back to Spain.

Running dog fascist imperialist pig.

If Florida is given back to anyone, it should be given back to its original inhabitants, and not some Juannie-come-latelies.

Leave 'em in limbo. We've had quite enough of Florida. Give the whole damn swamp back to Spain.

Somehow the Florida Republicans managed to find the right monkey wrench that managed to convince all but one Democratic member of the Florida Leg. to vote for the new date despite the "serious" objections of the Florida State Senate Democratic leaders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE).

Somehow they got the 12 Clinton supporters that were on the DNC's rules panel to unanimously vote to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. They also ensured that the sole dissenter on the panel was an Obama supporter.

They even managed to convince Senator Clinton, in spite of her dedication to making sure that Florida and Michigan didn't lose their delegates, to sign this pledge:

"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge

I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential

election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,

Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by

rules and regulations of the DNC."

The fact is that not recognizing the unsanctioned contests is not supressing the will of FL and MI voters because there wasn't a real vote or a real campaign in either state. It would be like giving the Celtics the NBA championship for winning a pick-up game against the Lakers on a high school basketball court.

Since a real compromise on the unsanctioned contests would mean acknowledging that Obama has a level support in Florida and Michigan that is greater then zero, Clinton won't accept it. The Clinton campaign knows portioning out the delegates based on the Florida results and giving Obama the undecided vote in Michigan would still leave Obama with more than a 100 pledged delegate advantage. So they are most likely insisting, behind the scenes, that undecided voters could be anybodys. Arguing that Clinton would have received some of the undecided vote is a pretty specious argument considering that the two serious choices MI voters had was "Clinton" or "Undecided". The undecided votes in Michigan were basically "Not Clinton". I also suspect they are going to try to make an end run with the Florida delegation and try to conjure up an argument prevent Obama from receiving any Florida delegates.

Bottom line: Seating the Florida and Michigan delegates based on the unsanctioned primaries would be unfair and wouldn't reflect the will of those states' voters. But even that level of unfair won't be enough for Clinton if it doesn't give her the nomination.

and one of the strongest may be that since certain counties in FL are subject to sections of the Voting Rights Act in that they cannot change the rules for voting, even in a primary (cited in the act), the DNC's demand for a caucus would require Justice department approval.

no, I am not a lawyer, but they may have found somewhat of a smoking gun there.

The brief does not cite a single legal authority for the proposition that a national political party, such as the Democratic National Committee, is a state actor.

In the only Supreme Court case the brief cited, Smith v. Allwright, the court held that a state political party was a state actor because for the purposes of that state's primary, the party was effectively acting as an agent of the state (or if you prefer, the state and party were so intertwined they couldn't be disentangled). Since the party in question sought to prohibit blacks from voting in the primary, they party violated the plaintiffs equal protection rights (side note: Thurgood Marshall was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs - how cool is that?).

But it's a long road from there to argue that the national party organization is a state actor. If anything, it seems a national party is more comparable to the United Nations, rather than a specific state actor. For example, the brief says the DNC sends election monitors to the Florida primary, but then, the UN sends election monitors as well; it doesn't mean the UN is acting on behalf of that state.

The brief also cites the phrase "Bound by the Constitution" in the preamble of Democratic Party's charter as grounds that the party is a state actor. Yet we are all bound by the Constitution; that doesn't make us all state actors.

Also, the fact that the DNC is doing the exact opposite of what the State of Florida wants, makes it difficult to argue that the DNC is acting on behalf of the state.

Finally, even if the DNC were a state actor, under the doctrine of ripeness, it would be premature for the court to act. The court might not wait until the convention, but they probably wold wait until after the Rules ocmmittee meets (or whatever it's called).

Nevertheless, the brief does a good job of pointing out the DNC's inconsistent and hypocritical behavior, which is why I think it makes a good political argument, but a bad legal argument.

A court order will allow the DNC to seat the delegates without loosing face, and while still whining about it. It's not like Clinton can still win with these delegates. so it's a good time for it. The only thing that could help her is a claim to popular vote, so these delegates no longer matter.

The lawsuit brings up a very interesting question. Since two political parties have exclusive control over who has a chance at elected office, then do they carry a legal burden of resposibility to protect the rights of all voters in their party? If the answer is no, then either party has the power to exclude entire states and their voters if they do not agree with party direction on the candidate of choice.

You'd think no party would ever do something so stupid so you would not need laws to provide voters protection in the nomination process, except well the Democratic party has proved differently.

The GOP outmanuevers the DNC in FL and the DNC willingly puts its hand under the running lawnmower, loses a few fingers and then says proudly, the rulez is the rulez, bleeding all the way into the general election.

They hurt themsleves as well as the voters, but the issue remains; since with only two political parties, it can be reasonably concluded that those two political parties do represent the government. In other words does the argument they are outside election laws start to go out the window?