I decided that in considering the Florida-Michigan mess it would be interesting to look at the actual rules, inspired by a comment on TPM.
On the way I discovered that the Texas Caucus system is a blatant violation of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules.
Rule 13 A provides:
Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants.
In other words, one may have a binding primary, or one may have a caucus, one can even have a "beauty contest" primary like Washington and select the delegates at a caucus, but if you have a binding primary, the primary is supposed to determine the allocation of pledged delegates.
FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN
Rule 20(C)(1) provides what happens if there is a violation of timing. (a) provides that the number of pledged delegates for the state be reduced by 50%. b provides that a candidate who campaigns the state loses his/her delegates from that state and the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee determines what is campaigning. A later provision provides that this penalty is automatic upon the committee certifying non-compliance with the timing provision.
It may be stupid to hold a primary and forbid candidates to campaign, sort of like holding a birthday party without inviting the guest of honor, but that's what the rule appears to provide for.
What the DNC did
As you know, the DNC did not let the automatic provision come into place. The problem they had was that states like Florida and Michigan were willing to pay the 50% penalty for the privilege of going first, so they decided they had to do more to protect the favored first states.
Apparently, they were relying on Rule 20 (C) 5 which states that nothing in the rules should be construed to prevent the DNC from imposing a greater penalty, including appointing a committee to implement a process resulting in "selection of a delegation from the affected state that shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state's division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad a participation as is practicable under the circumstances."
Later provisions provide appealing all challenges to the Credentials committee of the convention (with the burden of persuasion on the challenger) and for restoring the 50% penalty if a state party did all it could in good faith to fix the problem (shown by clear and convincing evidence).
Hypocrisy
Kos today front pages a charge against his bete noire TM of hypocrisy on this issue. Those reading the site at the time this arose will remember Kos railing against the decision on Florida and Dean's judgment in the matter and stating that the party would half to undo at the convention. His own views on this did not change until he realized that the would favor Clinton. The quote from TM's book, on the other hand, seems to involve only imposition of the 50% penalty provided for in the rules and not this extraordinary penalty provided for by the DNC without fulfilling their responsibility to come up with an alternative.