In August of 2007, Florida was stripped of the delegates it would send to the Democratic National Convention. A few months later, in December, Michigan was similarly punished for moving up its primary. The issue at hand was simple: in order to ensure a more diverse primary schedule, caucuses in Nevada and primaries in South Carolina were moved up into January. In exchange, the major candidates agreed not to campaign in states that violated the rules.
Nevertheless, after the it became clear that the nomination would be much more contested than initially thought by Hillary Clinton's campaign, she began to make noise about counting the votes in Michigan and Florida. She even had the audacity to flip a finger at the rules and declare an empty victory in-state after the Florida results came in.
Today, campaigning in Detroit, Hillary offered up these thoughts on a re-vote in Michigan:
Speaking in Detroit just now, Hillary picked up Obama's discussion of race yesterday, and cast the question of the vote in Michigan in the terms of the civil rights movement.
"This goes way beyond this election and it goes way beyond who’s running," she said.
"It is a bedrock American principle that we are all equal in the voting booth.
"For me, it has been a long struggle to get to the point where barriers were knocked down and doors opened. ... It is the vote that has given voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless. ... It is through that vote that women, African-Americans, Latinos and so many others have claimed our rights as full and equal citizens," she said, citing those who had "marched and protested, risked and gave their lives for this right."
Aside from the hypocrisy coming from the Clinton campaign, which supported a lawsuit to disenfranchise Nevada workers and has considered challenging the legality of Texas caucuses, it's abundantly clear of the reasons that Hillary Clinton and her campaign are calling for re-votes. It's not because they have any real belief that it's a civil rights issue. It's because she's trailing Barack Obama in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote - and Florida and Michigan represent her only realistic possibility of overcoming one of those metrics (the popular vote).
That being said, there are several reasons why a re-vote shouldn't occur, which I'll lay out below. There is one large theoretical reason that a re-vote shouldn't occur, but there are also practical obstacles that prevent it from happening.
Moral Hazard
The concept of moral hazard exists largely in the field of risk management, particularly in finance, but it boils down to this: if a party is protected from a risky outcome, that party will likely act in more risky ways because it has 'insurance', so to speak, against the outcome of something bad happening.
Let's apply it to the current situation with Florida and Michigan. If the DNC doesn't hold the line against both states for breaking the rules, it opens up the door for states in the future to engage in similarly reckless behavior when it comes to scheduling primaries or caucuses: they can break the rules, but they will be offered the opportunity to vote again if the contest continues on longer than initially thought. By allowing such a measure, it would give every state carte blanche to hold their nominating contests as early as possible - because they know that, even if the DNC punished them, they would later relent and allow them to redo the vote.
What's particularly worse about this instance of moral hazard is that not only is the risky behavior condoned because of what would be weakness at the DNC, but it would also increase the clout given to these states if they are allowed to hold re-votes at the end of the primary process (which must be concluded, according to DNC rules, by June 10th). In effect, Florida and Michigan would be rewarded for breaking the rules - not punished. It would also implicitly punish the other states and territories that followed the rules.
Simply put, if the DNC wants it and its rules to be taken seriously by the state parties, it must hold the line on not allowing Florida and Michigan to re-vote.
Cost and Legal Factors
Another factor in redoing these contests is the cost. Simply put, no one wants to pay for these contests: not the DNC (why should they pay for fixing someone else's mistake?), not the state governments (who rightfully see it as a waste of taxpayer money), and not the state parties (which don't have the money, even though they are most responsible for the current predicament). The idea floated by Governors Jon Corzine and Ed Rendell (notably Clinton supporters) to raise "0 million in 'soft money' to have the states vote again is a joke. The fact that George Soros flatly told Rendell no to a $2 million request shows you that the big-dollar donors think it's a waste of their money as well.
In Florida, the estimated cost was $10 to $12 million - and that's just for a mail-in primary. Governor Charlie Crist, who was the prime mover in suggesting the Florida Democratic delegation get certified, has adamantly stated that he won't use state money to fund a re-run. Furthermore, there are legal issues with a mail-in primary that weren't well-highlighted in Florida - namely, the fact that it was illegal in the first place:
Harrington said this talk about a mail-in vote might be premature because state laws don’t allow for it.
She said state law only allows referendums to be on a mail ballot and doesn’t allow for candidates to be named on ballots via stamp and carrier. An executive order or a law change would be needed to allow the presidential primary to be recast, Harrington said.
And then there is the question of validating the ballots.
Harrington said the only way to avoid fraud and verify signatures in an election is to use something similar to absentee ballots, which have secrecy sleeves. There has been suggestions that the ballot wouldn’t be more than a post card.
Harrington said she was worried about this idea.
"How do you keep it a secret ballot then?" Harrington said. "And how do you prevent fraud?"
In the end, the idea was killed when Sen. Bill Nelson pushed for the mail-in primary without consulting the House Democrats from Florida. They unanimously opposed the mail-in primary, essentially killing any realistic chance for a re-vote in Florida.
In Michigan, the plan agreed to by Democrats encounters a similar problem of financing: it costs $12 million and will have to be privately funded. Given that neither campaign will want to front the cost with donations, and that traditional big-dollar donors to Democrats (such as Soros) seem unlikely to step up, there's a question of where the money will come from.
Then there's the question of getting such a bill passed (since the do-over would be run by the state, it would have to be approved by the state legislature). While getting it through the Democratic-controlled State House wouldn't be an issue, there may be much more resistance in the Republican-controlled State Senate. Notably, according to the Majority Leader, the bill won't go anywhere unless both campaigns support the terms:
Matt Marsden, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, agreed that both presidential camps need to give the go-ahead before legislators forge a bill.
"Unless there is guaranteed sign-off by both candidates, I'm not sure what is the point of circulating legislation," Marsden said. "And there's no reason for us to get involved until the Democrats work it out internally."
But there are already questions about it, particularly from Obama's side:
Hunter added that he isn't absolutely opposed to a proposed do-over contest in Michigan.
But he wants to see the money to pay for it up front and won't agree to legislation "with a promise from governors who are Clinton supporters that they'll raise the money at some point and meanwhile Michigan taxpayers have to put the money out first. The money has to be in the treasury first. That's just fiscally prudent."
To me, this is fair: the concept of some sort of 'promissory note' from Corzine and Rendell to pay back at a later date doesn't hold up well. Seeing that there doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm towards throwing away money to fund a state-run primary, it's unlikely that the Obama campaign will agree to these terms. Furthermore, given that the state legislature is scheduled to go on vacation soon, there just won't be enough time to properly set up an election. There are numerous other problems to deal with as well - notably the fact that there is some need for pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act, and the fact that independents who may have wanted to vote in the Democratic primary but ended up participating on the Republican side because our January 15th contest didn't count, are effectively disenfranchised.
Conclusion
At this point in time, chances for a re-vote in either Florida or Michigan are very slim. In Florida, the House delegation's opposition to a mail-in primary effectively killed any potential for a re-vote; in Michigan, there seems to be well-founded hesitance on the Obama side about how exactly a re-vote would be able to function. But do-overs will cost too much money - money that doesn't currently exist - and there are simply too many legal obstacles to address in both states.
Lastly, it sets a bad precedent to reward states for breaking the rules. No matter how one cuts it, that is what happens - in exchange for moving up their primaries too early, both Florida and Michigan would get a chance to effectively play 'kingmaker' in this drawn-out contest. If the DNC wants to ever reform its primary system in a meaningful manner - and I believe they screwed up this time around - they have to hold firm on their judgment on Florida and Michigan.
In the end, some sort of compromise will likely be worked out. In Florida, Nelson's suggestion of seating half the delegates is probably the most practical. Michigan presents a bigger problem, where Obama wasn't on the ballot. That being said, neither state should be allowed to vote again. Rules are rules for a reason.