Voter Disenfranchisement, Texas Style?
This is a shout-out to all Clinton supporters, particularly those who understand the issues around seating the Florida and Michigan delegates. I sincerely need you to educate me.
I found thistonight, via Daily Kos:
It was a localized version of the Michigan/Florida debate in Grand Prairie today and once again, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters were at odds.
Local Clinton supporters advocated Thursday for unseating ALL of the Democratic delegates from Collin County because their senate district conventions were held on the wrong day.
Officials with the Collin County Democratic Party said they chose to hold the convention a day late because there wasn’t a large enough venue in the county available for the scheduled date of Saturday, March 29. Party officials warned at the time that the eligibility of their delegation may be challenged.
Collin County is MOMocrat Jenn’s territory. There was a lot of confusion leading up to that convention because they changed the day. Unfortunately, there was no choice. Faced with an unprecedented number of supporters, the choice of venue was limited, and accessible facilities were nowhere to be found on the actual scheduled day of the convention, forcing a reschedule to the following day in order to secure accessible facilities. The change was reported widely in local papers,it was posted on the Texas Democratic party website, and calls were made. There was an extensive discussion on Twitter about it with JavaJenn and other Texas delegates because of the concern that a challenge would be made or that it was an effort to confuse delegates so they wouldn’t show up on the correct day, but all concerns were laid to rest when it was made clear on the official state Democratic Party website that the change in venue was necessary in order to prevent any delegates from being unable to participate and/or attend because of the need for accessible facilities.
The convention lasted until the wee hours of the following morning because Clinton supporters challenged the credentials of every single delegate on the spot, and results were not reported out until well into the next day.
And now, THIS?
Clinton supporters, I am fighting to suppress my snark here. On the one hand, you have Senator Clinton out there fighting for “all votes to be counted”, while there’s a simultaneous effort to smack down voters in another state who didn’t vote for her? And worse yet, that challenge was brought by someone who wasn’t a resident of Collin County! Fortunately that small detail caused the challenge to be denied.
Seriously. Can any Clinton supporter tell me why they would be trying to disenfranchise Texas voters for voting on the wrong day at the very same time that they are fighting against voter disenfranchisement in Florida and Michigan for voting on the wrong day? Can anyone who supports Senator Clinton explain how this reconciles into “all votes must be counted”? Here is a statement by one of her supporters, Vijay Pothukanuri:
“If you follow rules it clearly states Collin county’s in violation of [electing their delegates on the wrong day]. we want to be sure to participate. We don’t want to disenfranchise any voters but at same time we want to make sure those who followed rules, both parties, on either side want them treated properly.”
Could I word this statement a bit differently and get the same result?
“If you follow rules it clearly states Michigan and Florida are in violation of [holding their election on the wrong day]. We don’t want to disenfranchise any voters, but at the same time we want to make sure those who followed rules, both parties, on either side, want them treated properly.“
I am truly at a loss on this. For now, I’m withholding judgment and hope that someone can help me understand how to reconcile what is happening in Texas with the Michigan/Florida dispute. My comments are open. Can someone from WomenCount PAC take a break from planning their Saturday Washington DC rallies intended to call attention to the possibility of voter disenfranchisement please help me understand this?
I do not want to assume that the motive here is winning by:
- disenfranchising voters in lost caucuses
- …While enfranchising voters in won primary states, including one…
- …where over 40% of the voters voted against Senator Clinton
- …but will be disenfranchised under the Clinton campaign proposal to…
- …fully seat delegates, and then…
- …claim popular vote victory by disenfranchising that 40% minority
I don’t want to assume that, so please help me understand. Because this issue really IS bigger than who gets the nomination. In the spirit of Senator Clinton, I remind that the issue raises the spectre of the 2000 election, the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, and every principle that we, as Democrats, hold at the core of our beliefs.