Hillary lets others try to do the dirty work in Nevada.

Introduction

Quite a few posts ago, I wrote about reasons NOT to vote for Hillary. The theme of that post (and several subsequent ones) was that Hillary uses the same tactics as George W. Bush. One of those tactics was and is "Let others do the dirty work." This post will describe another example of Hillary's use of this tactic.

The basic facts

On January 9, 2008, Obama received the endorsement of Local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union, which is the union that represents most of the workers on The Strip in Las Vegas. The Nevada Democratic party uses a caucus system rather than a primary election to determine which candidates get delegates to the National Convention. The Nevada Democratic Party had established at-large caucus locations at nine hotels on The Strip so that workers on The Strip would have a chance to participate in the caucuses. Two days after the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama (and eight days before the caucuses), a lawsuit was filed in federal court to essentially eliminate those at-large caucus sites. The lawsuit was filed by the Nevada State Education Association and several individuals.

The judge denied the plaintiffs' request for relief, meaning in effect that the plaintiffs lost.

...and now for the rest of the story.

• The plaintiffs

Turns out that most of the plaintiffs and their lawyers have connections to...Hillary Clinton. What a surprise! The Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) is the union which represents teachers and education support professionals. The NSEA has not officially endorsed any candidate, but Lynn Warne, the NSEA's President, is an individual plaintiff to the lawsuit. Moreover, the NSEA's deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, is a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council. And it turns out that her husband, John Cahill, is one of the individual plaintiffs.

According to the Las Vegas Sun, Some of the other individual plaintiffs supported the 2006 gubernatorial campaign of State Senator Dina Titus, who has endorsed Hillary and is also a founding member of her Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.

The law firm that filed the lawsuit also has ties to Hillary. James Bilbray, a former member of Congress who endorsed Hillary on August 9, 2007, is of counsel to the law firm representing the plaintiffs. As stated by Hillary's Nevada campaign chairman, Rory Reid (son of Sen. Harry Reid), "We are honored that (Bilbray) will play a leading role in the campaign." Also, Bilbray's wife, Michaelene Bilbray, is a founding member of Hillary's Nevada Women’s Leadership Council. Furthermore, two of the firm's senior partners, Michael Bonner and Christopher Kaempfer, donated to Hillary's Senate campaign in 2005. Lawyers in Las Vegas contributing to a New York Senate campaign shows that they have more than a casual interest in Hillary's political fortunes.

Now I know what some of you are thinking...The NSEA has not endorsed any candidate, so I should not claim that the lawsuit is a move by the NSEA against Obama and for Hillary. Well, maybe, maybe not. What is clear is that 1) some of the top leadership of the NSEA supports Hillary, and 2) some members of the NSEA were strongly against filing this lawsuit, but that's another part of the story.

• The process by which the caucuses were established and the timing of the lawsuit

This section will quote excerpts from the State Democratic Party's response to the original complaint. However, the citations to exhibits to the response will be omitted. All of those exhibits (which provide proof for all the allegations below) are also available for download here. Here are the facts underlying the controversy:

The Party and its State Central Committee ("SCC") oversaw the preparation of a very detailed DSP (Delegate Selection Plan). The SCC included four of the named plaintiffs in this suit: Dwayne Chesnut, John Cahill, Vicky Birkland, and John Birkland. The SCC authorized the Party to comply with DNC requirements.

The SCC (including the four named Plaintiffs) participated fully in the DSP's preparation. Contrary to the conclusory claims made in Plaintiffs' declarations that they "recently learned that the Democratic Party of Nevada intends to hold At Large Precinct Caucuses in Clark County," there can be no doubt that Plaintiffs have been aware of the at-large caucuses and the very aspects of those caucuses challenged here since March 2007:

• In March 2007, the Party posted its draft plan on its website, www.nvdems.com, for a 30-day comment period. The draft plan made public at that time specifies that the DSP would have precisely the feature challenged here--attendance-based, at-large caucuses designed to enfranchise thousands of shift-workers to participate...None of the Plaintiffs, including those on the SCC, challenged or otherwise commented on the proposed rules.
• Following the March 2007 comment period, the SCC approved these draft rules unamimously. Plaintiffs Dwayne Chesnut, John Cahill, Vicky Birkland, and John Birkland were all present and voted in favor.
• After the national party asked for more information about how the at-large caucuses would operate, the SCC held an August 11 meeting to discuss the DNC's call for "additional detail related to caucus and convention procedures." The minutes specifically indicate that Plaintiff Dwayne Chesnut was present at the meeting where this was discussed.

Although the Plaintiffs who were members of the SCC were the most directly responsible for the DSP, the process was entirely transparent in other ways as well. Besides local and national press stories highlight the at-large caucuses, there was no shortage of consultation:

• All eight presidential campaigns were advised of the attendance-based, at-large caucuses in a public guide issued in May 2007. That guide specifically laid out the attendance-based formula by which delegates would be assigned.
• The campaigns were again briefed on the process in October 2007. No campaign objected.
• Plaintiff Nevada State Education Association ("NSEA") was similarly involved. On October 4, 2007, the Party sent the NSEA's political director, Julie Whitacre, an advisory reminder that "[t]he number of delegates from at-large caucuses will be determined the day of the caucuses." The NSEA raised no objection.

On October 24, 2007, the DNC found the Party's plan to be "in full Compliance" with national party rules. The plan was finalized at that time and placed on the Party's website. No Plaintiff objected at any time.

And, as the State Party's response went on to point out, the only circumstance that had changed since then was that the Culinary Workers Union had "chosen to endorse a candidate...Plaintiffs apparently do not support."

Here's a recap: Almost all of the plaintiffs knew about the process, some actually participated in it and approved it, all of the campaigns knew about it, and yet no one objected to it at all until two days after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama, and as shown previously, the plaintiffs and their lawyers have ties to Hillary.

• NSEA's actions were contrary to its Las Vegas members' wishes.

As reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Lynn Warne, the NSEA president made the decision to make NSEA a plaintiff all by herself.

NSEA President Lynn Warne, named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said she takes full responsibility for the decision to join the lawsuit. She said she made the commitment late Friday after consulting with staff and representatives of association leadership.

When asked if anyone from Clark County was included in the discussion, Warne declined to elaborate.

"I'm not comfortable talking about it," Warne said.

And the reason Warne was uncomfortable is that she did not consult with any NSEA members in Clark County (Las Vegas is in Clark County). As described in the Review-Journal article,

The Nevada State Education Association's decision to join a lawsuit challenging the use of nine Las Vegas casinos as Democratic caucus sites may have fractured its relationship with its largest local affiliate.

Ruben Murillo Jr., vice president of the Clark County Education Association, distanced the local organization of public school teachers from the lawsuit on Wednesday. The decision to sue was a state action taken without the knowledge of local union leadership.

"CCEA was not involved in initiating the lawsuit," Murillo said Wednesday. "It was done without our input."

For that reason, CCEA is directing all calls and complaints on the action from Clark County teachers to the state organization.

"We've heard from members who are concerned about it," Murillo said. "And while we usually support the NSEA in its actions, this is a little hard. I think whenever a big decision like this is made, you need to get in touch with the locals."

In other words, Warne got the NSEA involved in the lawsuit because she thought the at-large caucuses in Las Vegas were not fair to teachers in Las Vegas, but she never asked the teachers in Las Vegas about it.

And some NSEA members publicly decried the lawsuit. Here's a letter to the editor that was printed in the Review-Journal on January 15:

Lynn Warne, president of the Nevada State Education Association, has made a serious mistake in representing the teachers union as united in the lawsuit brought against the Democratic Party over the Culinary union at-large caucus plan (Monday Review-Journal). I used to be a hotel and restaurant worker, and although I am now a teacher and NSEA member, the five individuals bringing this lawsuit do not represent me -- the rank and file.

There is literally no other way folks would get to caucus were there not this forum, and our union has shrunk to a new, all-time low when we use our resources to block the votes and democratic participation of low- and moderate-income people, women and people of color.

I am very angry and considering dropping my membership in NSEA. With leadership like ours, how can we possibly believe that we could ever teach our students to be involved in the democratic process? Without unions, many of us would not be where we are today, and I for one feel totally betrayed. This lawsuit should be dropped immediately.

A vote should have been called before a decision like this was made and represented as coming from "the teachers union" in the press. Our leadership is running things from the top down, based on the beliefs of only a handful of people. It is not in the spirit or nature of solidarity that union representation is built on. I apologize to the Culinary membership for the behavior of my leadership.

LAURA SMITH FILLMORE

And here's a letter sent to Lynn Warne on January 14, signed by 15 teachers:

Dear President Warne:

As teachers in Nevada, and members of the Nevada State Education Association, we are deeply dismayed that our union is trying to stop our students’ parents from caucusing on Saturday. We urge them in the strongest terms to drop this lawsuit immediately.

Many of our students are Hispanic Americans and come from low-income families. Their parents are construction workers, McDonald’s employees, and other shift workers on the strip, who work around the clock, and won’t have time to travel to their caucus locations on Saturday. That’s why the state Democratic committee set up nine at-large precinct locations on the strip – to provide nearby caucus locations for Nevadans who otherwise wouldn’t be able to caucus.

These at-large locations were approved back in March of 2007, and no one raised any concerns about them for nearly a year. But now, our union is filing a lawsuit making the baseless charge that these at-large caucus locations are discriminatory, when the fact is they were set up to make sure as many Nevadans could caucus as possible.

This lawsuit is all about politics. It’s widely known that many of our union’s top officials support Senator Clinton and now that the Culinary Workers Union has endorsed Senator Obama, they’re using our union to stop Nevadans from caucusing for Senator Obama.

We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what’s right for our students, but that’s exactly what they’re doing. As teachers, and proud Democrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support.

Of course, the lawsuit was not dropped. Why would Warne listen to a request from rank and file members of her union when she did not want their opinion in the first place?

And what did Hillary or her campaign say about the lawsuit?

Precious damn little--unless you consider Bill's ranting about how Hillary had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Anjeanette Damon of the Reno Gazette-Journal reported that Rory Reid, Hillary's Nevada campaign chairman, denied that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with the lawsuit, and he said that the campaign had not even read the lawsuit. Damon also described Hillary's response:

Asked about the lawsuit Clinton said:

"I know about the lawsuit. I hope it can be resolved by the courts and by the state party. Obviously, we want as many people as possible to participate."

In a later interview, I asked Clinton again about the lawsuit. She repeated her criticism of the caucus process, that it leaves too many people out and said she wants as many people as possible to participate. Does she support the lawsuit?

"I have no opinion on the lawsuit."

Does she have an opinion on the at-large precincts as a way to make the process more fair?

"I don't. I just don't know."

And then there was Bill's reaction. As reported by Josh Gerstein on January 16,

At a stop in Oakland this afternoon, President Clinton vigorously defended a lawsuit challenging Nevada's decision to permit casino workers to join presidential caucuses at their workplaces, even as he denied that he or his wife's campaign had anything to do with the litigation. He argued that the casino caucuses were deliberately set up to have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of the contest.

"Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give everybody who voted in a casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct? Did you know that?" Mr. Clinton said in a testy exchange with a television reporter, Mark Matthews of KGO. "What happened is nobody understood what had happened. ... Now, everybody's saying, 'Oh they don't want us to vote.' What they really tried to do was to set up a deal where their votes counted five times, maybe even more."

*******

The former president rejected suggestions that the litigation was prompted by Mrs. Clinton's campaign in the wake of the culinary union's decision to back Mr. Obama. "We had nothing to do with this lawsuit. I read about it in the newspaper," he said.

Mr. Clinton turned the tables on Mr. Matthews, whom the former president asserted had taken "an accusatory tone" by claiming a link to Mrs. Clinton's operation. "Your position is that you think the Culinary Workers votes should count: A — It should be easier for them to vote than anybody else in Nevada that has to work on Saturday. That's your first position. Second, when they do vote their votes should count five times as much as everybody else. That's what the teachers have questioned. So if that's your position, you have it. Get on your television station and say it. ... 'All I care about is making sure that some voters have it easier than others and that when they do vote, when it's already easier for them, their vote should count five times as much as others.' That is your position," Mr. Clinton said. "If you want to take that position, get on the television and take it. Don't be accusatory with me. I have enough to deal with."

(emphasis added). You can see the video here. As pointed out by this "faboo" female blogger regarding Bill's claims, "How is that no one recognized this until after the Culinary Workers Union gives an endorsement?" (emphasis in original). She also pointed out that "You'll be sure to note that as much as the Clinton campaign tries to distance itself from this lawsuit, Bill Clinton's words pretty much match the language of the lawsuit. Word for word." So much for the claims that no one in the Clinton campaign had even read the lawsuit.

Conclusion

This lawsuit was bullshit. Had Hillary received the endorsement from the Culinary Workers, it never would have been filed. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid or delusional. Period.

And Bill just needs to shut the hell up.

And the lawsuit clearly shows that Hillary is willing to use other people to do her dirty work so that she can claim that neither she nor her campaign have anything to do with said dirty work. And that, friends and neighbors, is a tactic straight from the play book of Karl Rove and George W. Bush. We don't need any more of that crap.