Searching for a news article on that...found this:
Clinton camp confused over at-large caucus sites
***************************EXCERPT*****************************
By Tony Cook · January 17, 2008 · 7 PM
Even at the 11th hour — and after this morning’s ruling that the at-large Strip caucus sites are OK — there’s still some confusion, at least within the Clinton camp, about who can participate in those caucuses.
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign told the Sun this evening that only employees who work for companies with more than 4,000 workers can caucus at the nine at-large sites on the Strip.
That’s not true.
The issue came up after the Sun asked if any unions supporting Clinton would have members caucusing at those locations.
“If a construction company doesn’t have more than 4,000 people, they are out of luck,” said Hilarie Grey, Clinton’s Nevada spokeswoman. Clinton is endorsed by eight labor unions, some of whose members work for contractors on the Strip.
She said she learned of the 4,000 threshhold from the campaign’s political and labor directors.
State Democratic Party caucus rules, however, say the at-large sites will be created working with employers at locations where more than 4,000 employees will be working during Saturday’s caucus.
Any shift worker working within a 2.5-mile radius of an at-large location can caucus there.
We took that information back to Grey, who said she would double-check her facts with the campaign’s political director.
“Thank you for working with us on that,” she said. “I am not that literate on the rules.”
Just came across this from the Las Vegas Sun:
Just plain politics at play in at-large caucus site brouhaha
By Jon Ralston
***************EXCERPT**************************
Fri, Jan 18, 2008 (2 a.m.)
So was Thursday’s decision by Judge James Mahan a victory for democracy, enfranchising hundreds, maybe thousands of workers whose bosses want them on-site so they can maximize sucker-fleecing?
Or was it a terrible travesty for Nevada, ratifying a caucus system that was slanted toward the Culinary Union by giving members a disproportionate say in who wins Saturday?
The answer is somewhere between those two extremes as Mahan’s affirmation of the state Democratic Party’s delegate selection plan ended an acrimonious, personalized conflagration that threatened to burn down The Little Caucus That Could. Mahan may have doused the fire but the scorched earth this blaze left behind will leave wounds that will not be soon forgotten. And all of this has clouded what had become a perfect set of conditions for Nevada in its new early-decider role we even have Iowa/New Hampshire-like cold weather! as the Democratic race for the nomination reached new levels of intensity within the confines of the Silver State.
This was never as simple as it was spun by both sides, nor was it as complicated as some might make it. The road to this hellish conflict was paved by people with good intentions who wanted to ensure The Little Caucus That Could had a robust turnout. In so doing, they concocted a legally quirky scheme with the help of casino and Culinary bosses that never would have become an issue if the race hadn’t been tied at one state apiece and Nevada hadn’t been seen as the tiebreaker and momentum bestower.
Does anyone out there no matter whom you support really believe it is purely a coincidence that this lawsuit was filed after the Culinary, doing a better Hamlet than Olivier in his prime, finally endorsed after weeks of dithering? That was the catalyzing event and anyone who tells you otherwise is either hopelessly blinded by candidate love or simply doesn’t know the facts and history.
Indeed, the amount of misinformation disseminated in the past week has been astonishing by both local and out-of-state media outlets. To wit:
Many simply declared the suit was filed by “Clinton supporters.” This is patently false. The plaintiffs were party folks who had been questioning the delegate plan even though they had voted on it but probably failed to realize the potential fallout and the teachers union and its president, who has not taken a position in the race.
But even if you give the plaintiffs the best of it and I do that they were unwitting pawns in a greater scheme and really believed the plan was unfair, you cannot banish the politics so blithely. Two points: Does anyone think the Clinton campaign would be clumsy enough to have its own supporters file the suit? And does anyone really believe teachers union boss Lynn Warne awoke with a start one night, had an epiphany about the so-called unfairness of the plan and decided to file a lawsuit?
I can do plenty of dot-connecting and most of the time in Nevada politics it’s not Kevin Bacon-like degrees of separation, it’s just one or two. Such is the case here and one other question comes to mind: Is there anyone out there who thinks the Clinton campaign would have been so adamant and that the former president would have been so incensed if Hillary had snared the endorsement? If so, I would like to sell you some Fred Thompson-for-president futures.
So is the plan fair? It depends on what the definition of “fair” is.
The plan attempts to mimic state law, which allows greater delegate apportionments for rural areas, which have megaprecincts. The at-large sites essentially are megaprecincts. But that analogy is not perfect the state law deals with registered voters in precincts and the delegate plan deals with attendance at the caucus sites.
The problem is, there was no perfect scheme to apportion delegates if you create these megaprecincts. It may seem unfair to allow a ratio of delegate apportionment that is as much as a 10-1 difference from regular precincts. But does it make sense that a regular precinct is given a fixed amount of delegates whether one person or 800 show up?
Let’s face it: Party politics are ipso facto screwy. So it’s not surprising that this plan has some screws loose. But Mahan’s decision was that’s how political parties operate, and he clearly recognized the lateness of the filing hour.
Whatever the decision actually means and whatever long-term schisms it causes, here’s an idea for the next quadrennial drama: How about a primary, Democrats?
"I am not that literate..." That's obvious from her last campaign too!
Hillary Clinton is the best candidate. Please caucus for her - especially if you are a worker in need of health care, a good economy and believe, like Hillary, that the Iraq war must end now. I understand that an article like this might be confusing, but please identify where you are able to caucus and join in the exciting moment of sending Hillary Clinton to the White House.
Nah, can't do it Virginia, there is no Santa Claus and she will ruin the party with her corruption.
I have just resigned in protest as a precinct chairperson for the caucus based on the outrageous and unconscionable decision by the Nevada Democratic Party to have different rules for different groups.
This is a violation of our most fundamental principles of equality and democracy. Shame on the Nevada Democratic Party and shame on those who have turned this into a racial issue.
While all other participants in the caucus will have to be physically present at their precinct where they live, the hotel workers will be able to participate at work. They are the only group who has this special privilege. What about all the other people who have to work or for other reasons can not participate at their precinct... they will not have the same opportunity. In addition, the manner in which the number of delegates will be selected at these strip locations will be different from all other precincts and likely give them a disproportion number of delegates. This is fundamentally un-American and unconscionable. It is the kind of voting methods we expect from a dictatorship and not from a democracy.
I will not be part of facilitating what amounts to a form of "jim crow" law that makes it easier for one group to participate in an election compared to other groups. The more I hear people promising "change" the more it seems nothing has changed. zb