March 17, 2008

KEEP HOPI ALIVE!:

Court to hear Florida delegate suit (Aaron Gould Sheinin, 03/14/08, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Atlanta could become the center of the political storm on Monday when a federal appeals panel hears a lawsuit that seeks to force the Democratic National Committee to seat all of Florida's delegates at the party's national convention in August.

The suit was filed in August in Tampa on behalf of Floridian Victor DiMaio. It claims the DNC violated his constitutional rights when it stripped Florida's Democratic Party of all 210 of its delegates to the convention as punishment for holding its Jan. 29 presidential primary earlier than DNC rules allow.

The suit was rejected at the district court level in Tampa, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has agreed to hear the case.


One step closer to Antonin Scalia selecting the Democratic nominee...

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 17, 2008 1:43 PM
Comments

Nothing like confusion to the enemy.

Posted by: Lou Gots at March 17, 2008 4:14 PM

I am not well versed in electoral law, but neither the Democratic or Republican parties are part of the Constitution. Primary and caucuses are relatively new phenomenon. Most candidates were decided behind closed doors at the party conventions, not subject to any popular approval. In other words, the two parties are not part of any constitutional process and therefore this does not involve any constitutional rights. If the rules are not followed in selecting delegates, then I assume that the parties do not need to recognize those delegates. This case should be thrown out of court ASAP.

If I am wrong, then so be it, but I would like to hear why I am wrong. As I said, my knowledge of this area is quite weak.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at March 17, 2008 6:59 PM

Knowing the 11th Circuit, they're likely to slap the Democrats so hard, they can't get up again; no wonder they've decided against a revote

Posted by: narciso at March 17, 2008 7:38 PM

Chris,

You are correct about the constitutional issue.

However, the important part here is the drama, not the Constitution. It's just more fuel on the fire, extending the confusion for as long as possible.

Posted by: sam at March 17, 2008 9:05 PM

What does the Court's modern jurisprudence on elections have to do with Constitution? Neither Buckley v. Valeo nor one man one vote can be derived from the text.

Posted by: oj at March 17, 2008 10:03 PM
« BAH, WHAT DO THEY KNOW?: | Main | UNLESS THE WIFE WILL LET ME KEEP "THE GENERAL" IN THE YARD...: »