Pursuant to this diary, the latest spin from the Clinton camp is that the maximum penalty for holding an early primary is losing half the delegates.
To whit:
We assured the democrats that the delegates would eventually be seated and the process of selecting delegates is now in place.It is up to the DNC Rules committee and Howard Dean to return 1/2 of our delegates to us immediately, at a minimum.
His Rules committee violated its own rules by imposing a sanction beyond the allowable sanctions, when they attempted to take away 100 % of our delegates, when their own rules only provide for a sanction of half the delegates, and he has done nothing to rectify the violation of their own rules.
This is NOT true. Follow me below the fold.
The DNC Rules are available here:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/...
Lots of amazingly boring stuff, but let's skip down to page 24.
The basis of the claim is probably this language, contained in Rule 20(C)(1)(a)
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
C(4) makes the application automatic:
Upon a determination of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that a state is in
violation as set forth in subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule, the
reductions required under those subsections shall become effective automatically
and immediately and without further action of the DNC Rules and Bylaws
Committee, the Executive Committee of the DNC, the DNC or the Credentials
Committee of the Democratic National Convention.
But reading a provision in isolation is always dangerous. Let's read a bit more, shall we?
Rule20(C)(5) and (6)
Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions,
including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C.,
against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to
the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including,
without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process
which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which
shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential
preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is
practicable under the circumstances.
Nothing in these rules shall prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from
imposing sanctions the Committee deems appropriate with respect to a state
which the Committee determines has failed or refused to comply with these rules,
where the failure or refusal of the state party is not subject to subsections (1), (2)
or (3) of this section C. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to:
reduction of the state’s delegation; pursuant to Rule 21.C., recommending the
establishment of a committee to propose and implement a process which will
result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be
broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference
and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable
under the circumstances; reducing, in part or in whole, the number of the state’s
temporary and permanent members to the Standing Committees; reducing, in part
or in whole, the number of guests, VIP and other passes/tickets to the National
Convention and related functions; assignment of location of the state’s delegates
and alternates in the Convention hall; and assignment of the state’s housing and
other convention related facilities.
To unpack the legalisms:
Losing 50% of the delegates is the minimum automatic penalty for violating the calendar rules. According to the rules, the DNC is explicitly given permission to take other action. The 50% language is not words of limation, because "nothing in these rules shall prevent... imposing [additional] sanctions", including stripping all of the delegates. The rules even contemplates stripping additional delegates, as the bolded text indicates. It does say 'reduction', not elimination, but it also says that that the listed sanctions are "included, but not limited to". Any claim that Howard Dean's and the DNC's action violates the rules is simply false, as a moment's research reflects.
This is not to take a position on whether stripping all the delegates was wise, or whether those particular rules should have been implemented in the first place. It's merely to demonstrate that arguing that stripping all the delegates violates the rules is fruitless. Please smack down this meme wherever you see it.
UPDATE:
There's some confusion on the line of logic in comments, so I'm going to try and make it a bit more clear here. The most relevant section is this one, C(5):
Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including, without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.
Now, for violations of the timing, it's true that removing more delegates isn't specifically listed. But the sanctions listed are "including without limitation", meaning sanctions other than those listed in that section are permissible. C(6)'s mention of reduction of delegates shows that stripping a state of its delegate's is a contemplated penalty.
The rules could be written a bit more clearly, but there's no grounds for saying that the Florida actions violated the rules. It's that simple.
I hope this helps. If there's any more questions, I'll tackle them in the comments.