Eight plaintiffs, including the Texas branch of the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston, have filed suit against the Texas Democratic Party, charging that its dual primary/caucus system for selecting presidential delegates discriminates against Hispanics. The suit seeks an injunction preventing the TDP from using the system at its June 6-7 state convention in Austin.
LULAC probably has a good case: It's pretty hard to argue that Latinos, especially along the border, didn't get screwed in the presidential race back in March
And how. And remember - talk of Obama winning any delegates in the Texas "caucuses" is premature - the final (deciding) convention is, as the article states, not even until June. Not that it's likely to make much difference, this election cycle, beyond potentially shifting the delegate count a small amount, but could (hopefully) lead to a more fair system in the future.
I don't see how the border area Hispanics were any more disenfranchised at the Caucuses than any other block of voters who didn't participate in the 2006 elections. It's like pay-to-play. They didn't pay their dues, and now they're crying about not getting gametime.
Suddenly they want to wield more clout, regardless of their previous (lack of) participation.
If Latinos got screwed at the caucuses, it's because they didn't think it was important enough to vote in the last election.
But in a GOP controlled state, this lawsuit will definitely be allowed to continue.
Well, the major problem as I see it is that it's definitely not in keeping with the "one man, one vote" principle. However, as a party process, there's nothing that says Democrats have to keep to the principle. I think it would be nice if they tried.
The State is largely Republican. The border areas are mainly Hispanic, and largely Democratic. They historically feel, rightly or wrongly, ignored by their own government, which, additionally, and especially since the state flipped so convincingly Republican, has only been underscored. The prevailing view is "what's the point?" I know this because I'm from El Paso - and frankly my first political affiliation - although I'm an American - was with a Mexican party, and while I definitely identify as "Texan" I still know, in my heart, I'm really more of a New Mexican. From El Paso it is as far to Austin as it is to LA - several states away. If you watch weather on any news station anywhere else, most of the time you'd think Far West Texas didn't even exist. The border is in little better shape - maybe worse shape - and has an even higher percentage of "new" Americans, who aren't in the habit of voting, and in any case, and especially at the State level, hardly ever see anyone who looks like them. Once again I'm "lucky" enough to have some experience with the way people feel there, too - Laredo, and further up the border - and once again the prevailing thought is "what's the point". Which breeds a cycle - they don't vote because nothing ever gets done for them; and politicians don't do anything for them because, well, they just don't vote. And that would be fine, maybe, if unfortunate, if that's where it was left. But no - they took it a step beyond and made it so that it was no longer one man=one vote. They made it so that a white kid in West Austin has, in essence, more than one vote, but a brown kid in East El Paso has less than one vote. And this from a party that calls itself the "Democrats"? It is precisely this party which should be fighting against such historical disenfranchisement - and, indeed, in the past, some attempts were made. Which is why people in the region tended to vote for Clinton in the first place, among other things. They remembered.
I like how you described the problem. I'm also against the dual primary-caucus system for the reasons you outlined.
But what they're really arguing against is the weighted caucus system. For instance, what if the results of their suit is to force the TDP to abandon the dual system at the state convention. Suppose the TDP instead opts for a caucus-only system. It still uses the weighting device which disenfranchises the areas that don't vote.
It's the "use it or lose it" method of weighting the caucuses which is the crux of this group's argument, yet it's not a part of their lawsuit. This logical disconnect smacks of opportunism and ulterior motives.
I should add that this system is not uncommon in local caucuses. My local legislative district caucus was weighted with each precinct representative casting votes whose weight comes from the number of democratic votes in that precinct during the last election. My vote counted for 1/3 as much as some of the other delegates'.
What is the basis of the lawsuit? No one has a right to any of this. The Democratic Party is not a government entity. It's basically a big club. They can use whatever rules they want. They can draw a name out of a hat if they want to. There's no right to vote in a primary or even a right to have a primary or have a say at all in who gets the nomination.
I'm not too sure, but as parties directly feed into national elections, they do sort of strike me as quasi-governmental, like NASA, or the Post Office. I know that's not really how it works, though.
The government can't treat the Democratic party any differently than it treats any other party, like the Libertarian party or the Green party. Every party is free to determine their nominee through any method they want.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |