There’s been much conjecture about what’s going to happen with those Michigan and Florida delegates at the Convention if the race remains this close. Since this election dominates my everyday discourse and thought, I’ve been researching the finer details of the contest including the MI and FL situation. Specifically, I wanted to know if there was a precedent that could clue me in as to what could happen at the Convention.
There are many past examples of delegates being challenged, but the ’72 California delegate situation is probably most relevant to our ’08 quandary. Much of the following information was gleaned from an old old Time magazine article and a book by fellow Brooklynite Joe Califano, a lawyer who worked for three Democratic administrations.
The relevant precedent.
During the 1972 Democratic Convention, a challenge was issued concerning California’s 271 delegates. George McGovern won 44% of the vote in CA against myriad other candidates, and back then state rules dictated that the candidate that received the most primary votes was awarded all the CA delegates at the convention. McGovern’s four opponents (including Shirley Chisholm) joined forces, which some labelled A.B.M –“ anybody but McGovern”, with the intention of preventing a McGovern nomination. Most saw him as too liberal to win in the general election.
One tactic was to challenge California’s “winner-take-all” delegate policy, since after the ’68 convention the McGovern-Fraser commission recommended that delegates be awarded proportionally. Why should McGovern receive all the delegates when four years ago his commission recommended the opposite?
A.B.M. took the issue to the Democratic Convention Credentials Committee. The Committee meets before the convention and is composed of DNC Chairperson appointees and state party members determined by population and Democratic voting strength in each state. They decided to follow the McGovern-Fraser decision and recommend the apportion of delegates, which would leave McGovern shy of the amount of delegates to secure the nomination. The McGovern team challenged the DCCC decision in court. A judge upheld the DCCC decision, and an appeals court also upheld it.
But the Credentials Committee word is not final. Under convention rules, the convention delegates vote whether to approve the Committee’s recommendation. The floor vote did not include the California delegates in question, without them McGovern had a majority, and the convention floor chose to reject the Credentials Committee decision and award him the full California delegate count. He got the nomination, and of course lost miserably.
Fast forward to 2008.
As reported in this well-researched MyDD post: “Clinton would need a majority of delegates to approve…” the Credentials Committee recommendation. Assuming that like the CA delegates in the ’72 convention, Michigan and Florida delegates aren’t able to vote on the Credentials Committee report, it seems to me that whatever candidate has the majority of the delegates and superdelegates going into the convention will most likely win the nomination. This drama will be played out on the first day, so we’ll likely know who’s victorious right away. If Obama has the majority, his delegates probably wouldn’t vote for the MI and FL delegates to be seated unless some Obama delegates had some crisis of conscience. If Hillary goes in with the delegate lead, the MI and FL delegation won’t matter and they’ll end up being seated to promote party unity.
But how about those 26 pledged Edwards delegates? If the delegate count is that close, they could swing the vote on a Credentials Committee report. Amazing.
Many in the blogosphere think the debacle could “go to court” and based on the ’72 challenge, they’re correct. McGovern lawyers would’ve tried to take the case to the Supreme Court if it had been in session. But ultimately, two courts reinforced the Democratic Party’s right to determine the delegate count without legal interference, so it’s quite possible that court decisions will not affect our current situation either.
A side note. The current Credentials Committee is made up of party members with connections to Hillary and the Clinton administration. This of course could influence whatever decision they make.
Complicated, huh? If I’ve misread the situation, I’d appreciate any comments shedding more light.