Earlier today a federal civil lawsuit was filed by Broward County Democrats against the DNC in an effort to force the seating of the Florida delegates at the Democratic Convention.
Geller files federal lawsuit in an attempt to get Florida delegates seated
State Senate Minority Leader Steve Geller filed a federal lawsuit today against the Democratic National Committee in an attempt to get the full Florida delegation seated at the party's national convention - with its votes weighted to reflect the results of the disputed Jan. 29 primary.
The full text of the suit is accessible indirectly via the link above.
After the jump I will attempt to debunk some of the claims of the suit:
Geller, a Cooper City Democrat, is a superdelegate - assuming Florida delegates are seated at the national convention. He says he's uncommitted, but seating the full delegation based on the Jan. 29 results would have the effect of helping Hillary Clinton in her bid to catch up with Barack Obama in the contest for nominating delegates.
Geller said that's not his intention, and to bolster that claim his two co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Barbara Effman, a delegate pledged to Clinton, and Percy Johnson, a delegate pledged to Obama.
Allegations
Allegation 1) That the DNC rules "require" an investigation but no FL officials were formally interviewed. (paras 44 & 45)
They state:
Notwithstanding the Rule20 C. 1. a. sanctions, the DNC RBC can elect not to impose a sanction for a violation if the "state party" proves by clear and convincing evidence that. [the state partyl and the other relevant Democratic leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of [the 2008 DNC Rules] and that the [state party] and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of [the 2008 DNC Rules].
The key here is the clever use of emphasis to divert attention from the critical "can" in the first statement. This, though conceivable accurate, is a rewrite of the true wording which is not considerably less wordy, so one wonders why the need to ‘abridge’ it.
The actual wording in the Rules is:
In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials ...
Perhaps the true wording "In the event"... "after an investigation" ... " including hearings if necessary"... doesn’t sound as straightforward as the deceptively abridged "can".
Here is the meat of their first allegation:
Rule 20 C 7, therefore, requires the DNC to conduct an investigation to determine whether Democratic leaders and elected officials took all provable steps, but the DNC failed to follow its own rules and never contacted or heard the elected Democratic leaders and elected officials on the issue, choosing instead to rely on secondary and tertiary information and a perfunctory hearing as a pretext to imposing sanctions.
Debunking:
i) The rules do NOT "require" that an investigation take place. It merely provides for a scenario where an investigation takes place. This is confirmed by the first allegation that asserts that the DNC "CAN" elect to... Note it expressly does not say the DNC "MUST" elect to...
ii) There is no requirement that the DNC should interview anyone including officials, but rather that it may at its own discretion determine the investigative process (including optional hearings). The DNC is within its right to obtain its evidence from whatever source it deems appropriate. If it finds ANY provable evidence of lack of good faith, it need not continue the investigation.
iii) According to the wording, if there is ANY provable evidence that the officials did not act in good faith, then the sanctions must be applied.
iv) The notion that any hearing or investigation was a pretext to imposing sanctions is false. The sanctions were determined prior to any investigation due to actions by state party officials. All the investigation could have done is to prevent the sanctions being imposed.
Ironically, there is a more compelling argument than has been presented, however (iii) would still override it.
Allegation 2) That the DNC charter indicating "There shall be delegates from each state" contradicts the ability of the DNC to deny seating delegates from states that break the rules.
- The sanctions provided for in the 2008 DNC Rules, however, directly contradict
the DNC Charter, inasmuch as the DNC Charter specifically provides that there "shall" be
delegates from each state.
Debunking:
i) There is no provision in the Delegate Selection Rules to require or enforce that every state provides delegates.
ii) The DNC Charter Article 2 Section 2 states: (emphasis added)
The National Convention shall be the highest authority of the Democratic Party. subject to the provisions of this Charter. The National Convention shall recognize the state and other Parties entitled to participate in the conduct of the national affairs of the Democratic Party, including its conventions, conferences and committees. State Party rules or state laws relating to the election of delegates to the National Convention shall be observed unless in conflict with this Charter and other provisions adopted pursuant to authority of the Charter, including the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention.In the event of such conflict with state laws, state Parties shall be required to take provable positive steps to bring such laws into conformity and to carry out such other measures as may be required by the National Convention or the Democratic National Committee.
This does NOT equate to an unconditional "there SHALL be delegates from each state" as it specifically allows for "other provisions" to override the basic charter.
Allegation 3) Rock & a Hard Place
In May 2007 Florida's Governor Signs HB 537, a Law
Requiring a Verifiable Paper Trail for all Votes and
Setting the Date for the Presidential Preference Primary Date
In other words, the Florida bill to determine the state primary date was bundled with a law requiring a verifiable paper trail for electoral votes. The state officials were presented a dilemma to support the bill in favor of the ‘paper trail’ machines or to vote against it so as to change the primary date.
Debunking:
i) This is a ‘red herring’. There is no requirement in the DNC rules that a ‘verifiable paper trail’ voting machine solution be used for a primary election. Even if one had existed, if this bill failed, it is realistic and conceivable that the ‘paper trail’ machines could have been used anyway, without requiring a state law to make it mandatory.
.
There is a LOT more in there, but it generally follows the same weak argument style, including a claim of Equal Protection Violation with respect to the 14th Amendment, and Due Process Violations.
They demand an injunction according to Title 42 of the United States Code (presumably Ch 146 – IV - 15511)
The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any State or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court for such declaratory and injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining order, a permanent or temporary injunction, or other order) as may be necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under sections 15481, 15482, and 15483 of this title.
Rather than lengthen this diary further, I will leave it as an exercise for the diligent, to determine the validity of the remaining claims.
Whether it will come into play or not will likely be determined by the outcome of the May 31 RBC meeting.