The judge just ruled in the lawsuit by filed by the Nevada Teachers Union against the NV Democratic Party. The suit has been overturned. The lawsuit argued that allowing caucus sites on the LV strip for those who work within 2.5 miles of the strip was unfair to others who have to work on Saturday. The court ruled that the Democratic Party was free to establish its own rules in how the caucus is conducted and stated that the caucus process was in fact fair.
So the NV Caucus will go ahead as planned on Saturday and the nine caucus sites set up on the LV strip will be open. This is good news for the Culinary Workers Union who has endorsed Barack Obama, as many of those working on the strip are members of this union. This is bad news for the Clintons, whose surrogates were behind the suit by the teachers. What is interesting is that many teachers had asked their union to drop the suit, since teachers don't teach on Saturday. The brewhaha was over the janitors who have to work at their schools and thus cannot go to their caucuses. But there are many people in NV who have to work on Saturday and are at the mercy of management to let them take time off to caucus
ARE CAUCUSES FAIR?
Having been in NV for several days now I have learned that even the people of Nevada have no idea why they have a caucus. So I looked into it. And it is the failure of the state's legislature to support a primary. States may choose to hold Presidential Primaries or NOT.
The main issue for most states is the enormous cost of holding a primary - a cost that must be born by the State Government. Some states do not want to finance a primary and, as a result, the task of participating in the selection of a Presidential candidate from each party falls to the Parties themselves.
In the caucus states, the Democratic Party sets up the process and rules for a caucus for Democrats and the Republican Party does the same for Republicans. The process and rules in each party do not have to be the same. But the cost of the caucuses is born by each of the political parties, not by the State.
In talking to the people of Nevada, almost everyone agrees that a caucus is not as fair as an election, where each individual casts his vote on a specified day. By definition, a caucus has to be held over a limited time period, usually about 2 hours. The big problem with the caucus model is that it excludes all those who must work during the caucus hours.
In Iowa, workers who had evening shifts were not able to participate. This included hospital, nursing home, home health and other health care workers. It included restaurant, hotel, and theatre workers and many more.
In Nevada, most people who must work on Saturday will not be able to attend the caucus.
In both Nevada and Iowa, management may decide to give workers time off to attend the caucus, but they are under no obligation to do so.
In contrast, primary elections are held on a specific day and polls are often open from 6 or 7 in the morning until 8 or 9 at night, so that no matter what your job is, there is a window of opportunity for you to cast your vote in a relatively short time frame.
For those of you who live in caucus States, if you don't like the caucus system, you need to appeal to your State Legislature and ask them to finance the next primary election. Without State financing, your state will never hold a primary election, and those Americans who live in caucus states and who have to work will continue to be excluded from having a voice in picking their party's Presidential nominee.
WHAT DOES THIS COURT DECISION MEAN?
The courts ruling that the NV caucus may proceed as planned may have significant implications for the outcome of the election. A large proportion of the workers on the LV strip are Latino. And the Latino vote may well decide the outcome of the NV caucus.
In listening to the radio in NV, and in my conversations with Latino voters, it appears that this could break in either Obama's or The Clintons favor. The reason I say "THE CLINTONS" plural is because for most older Latinos, their support for Hillary is based entirely on their love for Bill Clinton.
On the other hand it appears that the younger generation of Latinos are falling heavily into the Obama camp. These young Latinos see The Clintons as the "establishment." They see Obama as falling outside the establishment and thus in a position to challenge it and bring about meaningful change that will make a difference in their lives. They are attracted to Obama's message of hope and change and his call for them to join him in taking back America, making their lives better, and restoring America's reputation in the world.
The fact the the Latino Caucus in California and the son of Cesar Chavez have come out in strong support of Barack Obama has also persuaded many young Latinos that Barack Obama is the true candidate for change. They are looking for legitimacy from the Latino community for supporting Obama. And they are finding it.
What is fascinating is that this divide between the younger and older Latino population seems to be playing out even within families, with the parents supporting The Clintons and the teenagers and young adult children supporting Obama.
HERE IS THE CA LATINO CAUCUS ENDORSEMENT
http://blip.tv/...
Nevada will be the first real test of how the Latino vote may break in this election. Only 2 days to go. Stay tuned.