Sun-Sentinel gets revote issue wrong

If, like me, you read the post this afternoon on the Sun-Sentinel's "This Just In" blog about Hillary Clinton pushing for a revote in Florida and went, "What the fuck?," then you'll either be relieved or disappointed to learn that the post is wrong.

Josh Hafenbrack of the Sun-Sentinel wrote:

For the second consecutive day, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is taunting her rival, Barack Obama, to support a revote in Florida. Speaking to reporters in Indiana, Clinton suggested Obama is "afraid" to run again in Florida.

Of course, that's not what Sen. Clinton actually said. Here's what she did say:

It’s really important that we try to get as many people here to participate in this important primary election.

That’s why it’s critical that we figure out a way for the people of Michigan and Florida to have their votes and their voices count. As you know, I went to Michigan yesterday because I feel so strongly that it is not in the best interest of our party or our chances for victory in November to deny the rights of the people of Florida and Michigan.

I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee.

So again, I would call on Senator Obama to join me in supporting the rights of the people of Michigan and Florida to have their voices and their votes counted. I have, as the Democratic National Committee has, come out in favor of an effort for a re-vote in Michigan.

I do not understand what Senator Obama is afraid of, but it is going to hurt our party and our chances in November and so I would call on him, once again, to join me in giving the people of Florida and Michigan the chance to be counted as we move forward in this nominating process. We’d be glad to take your questions.

I've asked Josh, via comment on his blog, to correct the post to reflect what Sen. Clinton really said, which was that Florida's votes should be "counted" -- meaning the votes cast on January 29. In fact, in her remarks she specifically states her support for a revote in Michigan, but not in Florida. Having attended the press conference yesterday headlined by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Clinton supporter who repeatedly said the January 29 results should be the basis for seating delegates in Denver, I know that Sen. Clinton does not support a revote.

It's an honest mistake, I think, but I hope it is corrected posthaste. After all, we wouldn't want to give those crazy supporters of democracy any false hopes about a revote here ...

UPDATE (6:21 pm 3/20/08): I definitely commented at "This Just In" -- three times, in fact. However, only one of those comments (which refers to an earlier comment, thereby making it rather confusing) has appeared on the site as I write this. Well, I tried ...

You'll get nothing and like it

So sayeth the Florida Democratic Party today regarding a do-over on our Democratic primary.

I couldn't imagine so many Democrats saying they didn't want a revote, but according to the statement, that was the "consensus." One friend with whom I spoke this evening, though, said that most of those he asked were opposed to a revote because "they want those votes to count," even if those votes were for Richardson or Dodd or ... well, they didn't want to have to choose between Clinton and Obama.

You're going to have to choose between one of them and Huggy Bear in November. We might as well have gotten used to that now. But noooooo ...

Idiots.

UPDATE (8:21 am 3/18/08): I would have written a lot more on this, but I did this original post from my PDA during rehearsal, so it's a little less analytical than I would have liked. But, hey, I couldn't very well not say something, right?

FLORIDIANS: Tell the FDP what you think of a revote

Well, this is refreshing. As madamab tells us in comments on the last thread, the Florida Democratic Party is seeking input from us, the Democratic voters of Florida, regarding a proposed combination revote -- a mail-in/in-person primary.

The FAQ clear(s) up a lot, including whether or not state law proscribes a mail-in primary of this type -- it doesn't (emphases mine):

Q. Does Florida Law allow for this type of election?
A. State law does not apply to this election, which would be run by the state party, managed by experienced election management companies and overseen by a reputable accounting firm. Media reports on this subject have been inaccurate. State law does not allow for a state-run mail-in election with candidates on the ballot, but this election would not be run by the state.

Q. How can the Party pull off this election in such a short period of time?
A. Two main reasons: The Florida Democratic Party has researched this process for the past year, and the election would actually be run by election management companies experienced in these type of special elections. When the Republican Legislature moved up the state's primary and put it out of compliance with DNC and RNC Rules, we began looking at all of our possible options. Last summer, we proposed a vote-by-mail election to the DNC, and Rules & Bylaws Committee members were very interested in the idea. Unfortunately, there was no funding at the time. Recently, public and private commitments have been made to assist in raising the $10-12 million it would take to run the election.

Additionally, the Florida Democratic Party has accomplished numerous feats in the past three years that no one thought was possible, including paying off an inherited $1 million in debt; building county parties into functional, vote-building organizations; holding a successful state convention that raised nearly $750,000 despite no major presidential candidates in attendance; and picked up a Cabinet seat for the first time since 1998, nine State House seats and two congressional seats all previously held by Republicans (no net loss at any level of government).

Q. Why would you have private companies run the election?
A. Florida Law does not allow for a state-run election under the current circumstances. Nevertheless, the process would be transparent and accessible to the public, as required by DNC Rules and in the spirit of Florida's Sunshine-in-the-Government law.

Q. Can you pay for the election with soft (non-federal) money?
A. Yes. The DNC's legal counsel informed the Party that this election could be paid for with non-federal or soft money. Florida law places no limits on contributions given to political parties.

Q. Would you have enough time for overseas and military voters to get ballots and send them back?
A. Yes. Like the state of Florida does with absentee ballots for military and overseas voters, the Party would mail ballots to these voters 45 days prior to the election.

Q. What is the last day the election can be held?
A. We have until June 10, according to DNC rules. Delegate selection must be completed by June 21.

Q. Does the U.S. Justice Department have any involvement in this?
A. Florida has five counties that require "preclearance" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Fortunately, this is a very inclusive process, and we will file the appropriate paperwork. Also, per Section 2, ballots would be printed in English, Spanish and Creole.

Q. How long a lead time will be needed to allow for voter registration?
A. Generally, 30-45 days are needed. There is ample time for independents to join the Democratic Party and participate if they wish.

Q. Will Republicans and independents who already voted in the January 29th Republican primary be allowed to switch their registration and vote in the new contest?
A. No one who voted in the Republican primary on Jan. 29 will be eligible to vote in the Democratic primary, even if they switch parties. Our voter file enables us to easily identify these voters.

Submit your opinion here. Take advantage of this opportunity. Make your voice heard.

UPDATE (6:31 pm 3/14/08): I was a little late, unfortunately, because I had to be away from my computer for a while, but I just submitted the following comment to the FDP:

I am firmly in favor of a revote of some kind, and I have no problem with a mail-in ballot. I do not understand the vehement opposition by our congressional delegation to mail-in balloting, since (1) it has been effective in Oregon for years, (2) it surely is no more "disenfranchising" than having no revote at all -- in which case everyone is disenfranchised -- and (3) no one has shown that the likelihood of fraud is greater with mail-in ballots than with a traditional election.

Please allow us to be heard. Please find a way, whether by mail, traditional election, caucus, or some hybrid, to have our delegates seated in Denver. Thank you, and I apologize for submitting this a few minutes beyond the deadline. I hope it still will be read.

Now we wait and see ...

Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Mail-In Revote

This one is truly a mystery to me. Why are so many prominent Democrats opposed to the idea of a mail-in revote primary in Florida?

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, an Obama supporter, called the mail-in primary "a well-intended but half-baked plan" that would be "fraught with problems."

Also in opposition are the eight other Florida Democrats in Congress, including Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Alcee Hastings, who support Clinton.

The two presidential campaigns were hesitant about a mail-in vote.

"In my view, there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections," Clinton said in a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington. "I don't see any other solutions that are fair."

A campaign spokesman later clarified that Clinton supports holding a primary identical to the Jan. 29 contest.

Obama campaign officials questioned the fairness of a mail-in election.

"My bottom line is I do want to make sure that the Florida and Michigan delegations have an opportunity to participate in the convention," Obama said Wednesday. "And we want to figure out an equitable way to do that."

I'm especially troubled because I actually find myself on the same side of the issue as Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Sort Of) for once:

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., one of the most vocal supporters of a mail-in election, brushed aside the poll and the concerns from the congressional delegation.

"If anyone has another way of accomplishing this or of honoring the earlier results without splitting the convention, it needs to be put on the table - and now, before it's too late," Nelson said in a statement. "Time is short, and we need to make available for public comment a workable plan. The bottom line is this: We all agree that the voters of Florida must be heard."

I have speculated that Wasserman Schultz's opposition to the plan was merely because she is a Clinton supporter, but then how do you explain Wexler's resistance, or that of the entire Florida Democratic congressional delegation? And what about the Obama campaign itself? What is it that is so patently unfair or inequitable about mailing ballots to all registered Democrats in Florida? Or, to put it more accurately, what is it about a mail-in revote that is less equitable than a standard primary election?

I've seen a lot of complaints from folks like Wexler and Wasserman Schultz about the mail-in, but I've yet to see anything specific about why the process would be "fraught with problems." Under the circumstances, it seems to me that the mail-in revote is the least expensive and least burdensome way to guarantee a legitimate allocation of Democratic delegates from Florida, and I can see no particular reason that it would be more problematic than a regular election. The proposed timetable (gray box, here) is reasonable as well.

If the objections are based on a concern over potential voter fraud, I'm willing to be persuaded, but why would a mail-in ballot be any more fraudulent than any standard election? I know that Oregon, for example, has done mail-in voting successfully for years, so the process is not without precedent, nor is it especially challenging or difficult to conduct.

I'll be asking Rep. Wasserman Schultz about this if I have a chance. But, in the meantime, please, if you can give me specific reasons why the mail-in revote is a lousy idea, I'm all ears.