Obama Camp Claims DOJ Will Need To Review FL Revote
Plan

post from TalkLeft on 12 March 2008 01:12:00 PM. © TalkLeft

By Big Tent Democrat

If you were in doubt if what posture the Obama campaign was going to take on revoting Michigan and Florida, wonder no more:

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is raising red flags about the idea of a revote in Florida to solve the mess over the state's delegates to the presidential nominating convention. David Plouffle, campaign manager to Obama, noted that the lead advocate for a mail-in revote is Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, is a supporter of his opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton. Plouffle said any revote would need to get U.S. Justice Department approval.

Does the DOJ need to approve a revote, presumably under the Voting Rights Act? There seems to be no Constitutional claims that could be made. Bill Nelson's lawsuit might have prospered if there were. If it does, then it is time to take another look at all the contests to see if the DOJ approved them and/or needed to approve them. The Texas contests in particular seemed to be institutionalized voter dilution of Latino votes in South Texas. Was that approved by the DOJ? Did it need to be? Would it be?

But what this really means of course is that Obama will say and do anything to stop the voters of Florida and Michigan from having a representative delegation at the Democratic National Convention. More . . .

I found this:

Certain activities of political parties are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5. A change affecting voting effected by a political party is subject to the preclearance requirement: (a) If the change relates to a public electoral function of the party and (b) if the party is acting under authority explicitly or implicitly granted by a covered jurisdiction or political subunit subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5. For example, changes with respect to the recruitment of party members, the conduct of political campaigns, and the drafting of party platforms are not subject to the preclearance requirement.

Changes with respect to the conduct of primary elections at which party nominees, delegates to party conventions, or party officials are chosen are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5. Where appropriate the term "jurisdiction" (but not "covered jurisdiction") includes political parties.

The question becomes this, were ALL THE CHANGES that occurred in this primary season, in caucuses, in state laws, in DNC RULINGS, subject to preclearance?

Did the DNC, for example, have to clear its decision to strip Florida and Michigan of delegates? Did it have to clear its rule that the candidates no campaign in those states?

I am not an election lawyer, but I see a lot of interesting possibilities here.

But layers can dream of many things. Here is the best interpretation - this ALTERNATE method of selecting delegates for Florida and Michigan is in CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING DNC rules. There is no change of procedure at all. This is what the rules contemplate. To take a different tack is to make every DNC ruling subject to pre-clearance.