Share

Democrats Advised to Seat Half of Disputed Delegates

by: Katharine Q. Seelye  |  The New York Times

photo
US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, during a Memorial Day ceremony in San Juan, Puerto Rico. (Photo: Reuters / Ana Martinez)

    Democratic Party lawyers have determined that no more than half the delegates from Florida and Michigan can be seated at the party's August convention, dealing a blow to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to seat the full delegations from those states.

    The rules committee of the Democratic National Committee meets on Saturday to determine whether to seat the delegates from these states, which were penalized for holding early primaries.

    In asking that the full delegations from these states be seated, Mrs. Clinton hopes to narrow Senator Barack Obama's delegate edge and make the case that by including the votes from these states, she will have more of the popular vote in the nominating contests, an assertion that has come under some dispute. But the party's legal analysis, contained in a 38-page memo to the committee, says the committee can either seat only 50 percent of the delegates or seat them all but give them only half a vote, which amounts to the same thing.

    Whatever the committee decides about the delegates may not be a big factor in Mrs. Clinton's pursuit of the nomination. Even if she were awarded all the delegates in proportion to her popular vote in those states - her best-case scenario - she could not overtake Senator Obama's delegate lead.

    It is not entirely clear what the Obama campaign intends to ask for at the meeting but Mr. Obama has said he wants the delegates seated. His top aide, David Axelrod, has said that the campaign could go "half-way" on any compromise.

    The important goal for the Clinton campaign is to include the popular votes from those two disputed states in its overall vote tally. The Clinton campaign is already doing this, but because Michigan and Florida have been stripped of their delegates, an air of illegitimacy hangs over their votes and her opponents do not recognize their popular vote.

    If the rules committee seats even half the delegates from those states, that could confer some legitimacy on the Clinton's inclusion of those votes in their overall tally, although a Clinton aide said that the campaign does not feel it needs the seating of the delegates to legitimize the popular vote. Those votes have been counted and certified by the secretaries of state in both states, the aide said, and the rules committee cannot alter that.

    The rules committee's meeting is important because it needs to address the decisions by Michigan and Florida to move up their primaries in violation of party rules. The committee stripped the states of their delegates as punishment for doing so. If it restores the delegates, even at half strength, it may send a message to other states that next time they can violate the calendar without serious consequences, in effect a license for chaos.

    So the committee is in a box in trying to figure out how to respect the voters in Florida and Michigan, who were not responsible for this potential disenfranchisement, while still honoring voters in 48 other states where officials followed the rules.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

re florida and

re florida and michigan.These voters voted in good faith .Mr. Obama was not required to take his name off the Michigan ballot. he chose that. In Floridathe party was pressured into moving the primary back and losing the delegates to get a paper trail. Putting aside which candidate will benefit ,the voter is the most important person in this and all votes should be counted and respected.This is not a political issue. the number of peopke who want to disenfranchize 3 million voters is very small. The rules should have been changed as i suggested a year ago.

There is NO national popular

There is NO national popular vote in our elections. Candidates are chosen in the general election by electoral votes and in the primary by delegates. Since you are signing off as anonymous, it will be difficult to know what "The rules should have been changed as I suggested a year ago." import this sentence has. Florida and Michigan tried to budge to the head of the primaries line. Their voters should be taking their state committees to task, not playing games with a vote - the NPV - which doesn't exist. Pls. remember the rules of the sandbox. Lenore R. NYS

The Democratic Party cannot

The Democratic Party cannot afford to seat the delegates from a state that broke the rules. These states were told of the consequences, before they they moved their primary ahead of the set schedule. Should the Democratic Party allow the delegates of these states to be seated, it will set a dangerous precedent. One which will say to the other states that they no longer have to follow the rules. It's time to make a stand and uphold the decision that has already been made.

Sorry, rules are rules.

Sorry, rules are rules. She should not have allowed her name to stay on the ballot given the fact that she signed onto the rules in July of last year. You're right it is not the voters' fault but that is not the point.

Obama took off is name

Obama took off is name because they agree not to seat the delegates. Why should h be punish for that. Hillary is being dishonest wanting to count them now. Maybe that was her plan from the start. In order to punish the states for there wrong doing, they should pay to redo the primary. Lets not forget that Edwards was still in the race at that point and now suporting Obama.

What Michigan tells us is

What Michigan tells us is that if Hillary runs for president with no other names on the ballot, she would most likely get many of the votes.

I keep hearing this argument

I keep hearing this argument that the people in Michigan and Florida voted (in good faith is a new one, but it isn't true either) and they should not be disenfranchised. If one wants to talk about voters being disenfranchised, then one should think about the citizens who did not vote, because we were told that it 'DID NOT COUNT', only to be disenfranchised further by now being told that it really did count after all??? I live in Michigan, and when I first heard the news of our predicament I may have felt disenfranchised, but what I really felt was 'PISSED OFF". The other part of this is that when this was first reported on here in Michigan, and they were listing which candidates would be removing their names from the ballot, the first name I heard was Senator Clinton. I don't know what happened, but apparently she decided to have her name put back onto the Michigan Primary Ballot. In Michigan, we were not even allowed to write in a candidate; well, we could, but the votes would be thrown out. It was basically Senator Clinton or Uncommitted (which received around 45% of the votes cast, with most of the remainder going to Rep. Kucinich, whose request to remove his name from the ballot arrived too late. My personal dissatisfaction is with the Michigan Democratic Party which is the entity responsible for our situation. With regards to this issue, I will only be upset with the Democratic National Committee if they choose to seat the delegates based on the Psuedo-Primary in Michigan. I feel the same with regards to the situation in Florida, with the exception that the Republican Dominated State Legislature was the culprit there.

Let the rules stand. The

Let the rules stand. The voters should come out in strength on November 4th.