There exists persistent and strong belief among some Bernie Sanders supporters that fraud occurred during the Nevada State Convention. The contention of fraud was bolstered by the official campaign press release, which stated at the end that:
- The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
This was disputed by the Nevada State Democratic Party, who in a strongly-worded letter asserted that:
Adam [ ], part of National Delegate Operations Team for the official Sanders Campaign, drafted and arranged for a member of that committee to attempt to deliver an incendiary, inaccurate, and wholly unauthorized “minority report” charging that the Credentials Committee had fraudulently denied 64 Sanders delegates their eligibility. The final delegate count had provided the Clinton Campaign with a 33 delegate advantage in the hall; one can imagine the rage occasioned by this inflammatory charge, tossed into the tinderbox of a tense convention hall.
[…]
Never mind that six of the 64 potential Sanders delegates referenced had been seated after investigation, or that most of the remaining 58 potential delegates had been disqualified—appropriately, and by a panel evenly split between the campaigns—for not being registered Democratic voters in Nevada. Never mind that the same Credentials Committee had disqualified Clinton delegates for various reasons as well. Never mind,further, that just eight of those 64 potential Sanders delegates even attempted to register for the State Convention.
For many Bernie supporters, this is a “he said-she said” argument between Bernie Sanders, who they trust, and the Democratic Party, who they don’t. I understand this may fall on deaf ears, but I figure it’s worth pointing out that it doesn’t make sense. The main point- that the Sanders delegates were unfairly rejected by the credentialing committee (which then led to “unfair” votes on the rules, motions, etc) has been largely missed in the (appropriate) focus on the harassment issues inside of and after the State Convention. But if these 58 delegates (not counting the 6 eventually seated) showed up and were disqualified unfairly, where are they? Why hasn’t the Sanders campaign used their stories to prove the Nevada Democratic Party wrong? They obviously have a list of names from the credentialing committee, why not present even one of these delegates as evidence of the fraud they assert occurred?
Why is this important?
On February 20, Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucus over Bernie Sanders by a tally of 52.6% to 47.3%.
Nevada sends 35 pledged delegates (and 8 superdelegates) to the Democratic National Convention. Of these 35, 23 are allocated based on the caucus results. Hillary won 13 delegates, and Bernie won 10 delegates. The other 17 delegates are awarded at the state convention. This is where things got tricky.
The Nevada delegate selection process (which can be read here) involves a three tier process. The first tier, the Feb 20 caucus, determines the number of delegate slots for the second tier, the county convention. However, just because there are a certain number of delegate slots doesn’t mean campaigns manage to fill those slots. Typically there’s a bunch of drop-off. In Clark County (the largest county), Clinton won 4,889 slots to Sanders’ 4,026. But only 2,386 showed up for Clinton, while Bernie managed to get 2,964 to show up. In short, Bernie out-organized Hillary, and wound up winning 3 of the 4 county conventions. But this was just the second tier. Based on those results, Bernie had 2,124 delegate slots and Hillary had 1,722 delegate slots for the third tier, the State Convention.
The Nevada State Convention (the mess)
At the Nevada State Convention, depending who you believe, somewhere between 1,670 and 1,720 Sanders delegates showed up, while 1,703 Clinton delegates showed up.* At best, the Sanders campaign left over 400 delegate slots open prior to credentialing, while the Clinton campaign organized to fill all but 19 of those slots.
At the time of the preliminary delegate counts, the Convention announced 1,245 Clinton delegates and 1,149 Sanders delegates. At that point, 2,394 delegates were present out of a possible 3,846, well above the 40% necessary for a quorum (see the Delegate Selection Plan). The temporary rules were passed, as changes required a 2/3 majority.
According to the Nevada Democratic Party, prior to the Convention the Clinton campaign had sent a list of 64 questionable delegates to contest on the basis of not being registered Democrats, or not living in the county they were representing. The credentialing committee disqualified these 64, but ended up seating 6 of them (after appropriate information was provided demonstrating party membership and residency) and only turning away 8. They disqualified 8 Clinton delegates who showed up as well.
The Sanders campaign has not, to my knowledge, presented an alternate series of events. In order for their claims of fraud to make sense, however, the narrative must be as follows. 64 (or so) Sanders delegates showed up to the State Convention and were turned away. All of them, or most of them, were members of the Democratic party and lived in the county they were representing. The credentialing committee, evenly split between Sanders and Clinton supporters (up to and including a Clinton Chair and Sanders Co-Chair) was somehow subverted to reject enough Sanders delegates to give Clinton a majority.
So...Where are these Unfairly Rejected Delegates?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Bernie campaign and many supporters are alleging fraud (and unfairness) around the Nevada State Convention. However, much of the issue centers around the tallies and votes. If there were a majority of Bernie supporters registered as delegates (and then unfairly rejected), then their claims make sense. If there weren’t more Bernie delegates, than it’s just a question of protocol- no matter what, Hillary was going to win the delegates.
So is it just a question of who to believe? If you believe the implication of the Sanders campaign’s statement, there were 64 delegates turned away that could have shifted the balance. If you believe the specifics of the Nevada Democratic Party’s letter, all but 8 didn’t even show up, so this doesn’t matter because Clinton had a 33 delegate margin.
But the narrative presented by the Nevada Democratic Party about the 64 delegates would be pretty easy to prove wrong. All the Sanders campaign would have to do to prove fraud would be to find some of those 64 Sanders delegates who were disqualified, and show that they were, in fact, qualified. If they found 33 of them, that proves the assertion. But even one such unfairly disqualified delegate would cast real doubt on the legitimacy of the work of the Credentials Committee.
Given how strong evidence this would be, and that the campaign knows exactly who these people are, why haven’t they presented even one?
Why Allege Fraud?
I voted for Bernie Sanders during the Arizona primary. I saw him as honest, and found him a realistic possibility whose positions on the issues were the closest to my own of any major candidate. More than that, I saw him as focused on the issues and committed to running a campaign focused on the issues. His debate with Hillary Clinton demonstrated that- “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” I knew that Clinton was much more likely to win, so I didn’t want a negative primary that would drive up her unfavorables and worsen our chances of winning in the Fall.
I now regret my vote.
If I was running for the president of any group, and some of the people who voted for me were disqualified unfairly, the first thing I would do to prove that it was rigged would be to find one of those people. The fact that none of these delegates has showed up is, to me, evidence that not even the Bernie campaign believes this assertion of fraud. To me, the simplest explanation is that this is just a cynical ploy, some way to gin up enough outrage and energy to continue the campaign. Perhaps his campaign is just lashing out at the reality of the uphill climb it takes to defeat an establishment candidate. Regardless, he’s lost my respect as a candidate.
The unfortunate reality is that the Bernie campaign’s strategy has become more and more divisive. Alleging fraud, or strongly implying it, forces people to pick sides. Either you believe your candidate, his record, his years of service, us, or you believe the establishment, the system, them. There is little room for nuance left. I understand why so many Bernie supporters have gotten more and more angry at everyone else. Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, so why not just watch the videos, get outraged, and ignore any facts presented that don’t fit the narrative?
So I’ve been forced into this position, where I had to choose. I’ve chosen to believe the evidence, and as a result, I have to believe that Bernie is being dishonest in alleging fraud.
I’m open to changing my mind. Just find me these delegates that were barred entry, and I’m willing to entertain the idea. Find me some definitive evidence. I’m still voting Hillary in November (definitely better than Trump), but I’ll add to my own cynicism and distrust of the system if you can give me the extraordinary evidence to prove these extraordinary claims.
*I got those numbers with math. I added the 8 ineligible delegates who the Nevada Democratic Party says showed up to the 1,662 who were seated to get a minimum. For a max, I added the 64 delegates that the Bernie campaign says were unfairly ruled ineligible (and would have had to have shown up in order for this fraud allegation to make any sense).