Re: [ei] Michigan Presidential Primary

[Patrick Levine Rose]

The Michigan Democratic Party does not appear even close to considering, much less choosing, to bow to the substantial weight of national pressure to hold a caucus. In the last week, The New Republic wrote a scathing page one editorial lambasting the party’s refusal to consider a caucus. Tad Devine on Diane Rehm’s show said the position of the party, i.e. of seating the delegates, based on a primary that was missing most of the candidates was "untenable." He held out the holding of a caucus as the "only" way to seat any Michigan delegates without breaking the party apart, and without causing many of the new, young voters, and independent voters, to switch over in the general and vote for McCain. The consensus seems to be that even having the debate on seating the Michigan primary delegates at the convention in Denver is a "self-inflicted" wound.

Yet, there are intense discussions nationally about Michigan holding a caucus. If Michigan party officials did consider & adopt a caucus, would it be derailed for practical reasons. Consider this.

There are practical questions: What would caucuses cost? Who would pay for them? Could Obama’s campaign or private groups (e.g. Move On) help to fund a party caucus?

How are caucuses funded in other states? If Michigan usually has 1000 or 2000 caucus sites, how could the party get away with fewer sites just to have some semblance of a caucus?

How long does it take to plan and make sure a caucus is held that does not turn into a disaster (i.e. due to lack of sufficient lead time to plan it so that it can be done correctly)?

States like Washington that hold both a primary election and a caucus? That seems odd. Why do they choose to do that? How does the primary and caucus work in choosing delegates in those states (i.e. do primary and caucus results each correlate to a certain percent of delegates)?

Consider the issue of holding caucus in terms of some of the problems of actually doing it.

One BIG problem that seems unsolvable is so few Democrats voted in the primary, and of those who did, many voted a Republican ballot. If those who did not vote, and those who voted Republican are allowed to participate in the caucuses, then so too would all Republicans. Right?

If Republicans can vote in the Democratic caucus, they can dictate the result by their numbers.

The Michigan Bureau of Elections Director (Chris Thomas) last week said about 600,000 voters participated in the Democratic party primary, but over 860,000 participated in the Republican primary. Director Thomas further estimated that 600,000 more would have voted in the primary if there were a full slate of candidates.

The Republican Party had a full slate of candidates, and their delegates would count by half (i.e. at 50% strength) so there was a reason for 860,000 voters to cast Mich Republican party primary ballots. In contrast, the Democratic Party Primary gave 600,000 or so voters no strong reason to show up – since no delegates would be counted and only Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Rep. Dennis Kucinich were on the ballot. (Kucinich sought to take his name off the ballot, but filed his paperwork to remove his name from the ballot incorrectly.)

Michigan voters who cast a Republican primary ballot would be voting twice. They would be (due to their numbers) able to decide the outcome of a Democratic delegate selection process they could help decide who runs against McCain in the Fall. If the elections had been held at the same time, these Republican primary election ballot casters would not have been able to "cross over" and vote in two party selection processes.

I would favor keeping voters who already voted in the Republican primary from crashing the Michigan caucuses - and yet I was one of those voters and I wrote a Detroit Free Press and Lansing State Journal Op Ed piece advocating that approach, and was interviewed on Michigan Public Radio during drive time on the morning of the election statewide urging that for Dems like myself who have never ever voted as Republicans. So how can I favor keeping Dems out of a Democratic caucus?

Given the realities, I think that all Democrats who crossed over and voted in the Republican primary would be so outraged at being excluded from a caucus and penalized, without being told in advance that this would happen, that this would not be fair either.

So what is the solution?

Could this caucus be closed to those who voted in the Michigan Democratic primary or who did not vote at all?

And consider if only voters who voted in the Democratic primary were allowed to vote in the caucus: This would heavily favor the only candidate on the ballot (Hillary Clinton).

The alternative may be worse: if Republicans could "cross over" – by voting in the Democratic caucus – after already voting in the Republican primary, they would be "double voting" and getting to have an affiliation with two parties in the same election campaign. Wouldn’t this violate the prior declaration they made in the Michigan Primary that they were Republicans?

The cross-over problem seems to be the real practical barrier to holding a Democratic caucus in Michigan, in addition to the cost issue. Thus, even if the state party officials in Michigan could be convinced to hold a caucus, it is not clear it could be done in a fair way. Plus, $12 million was spent on the primary and that was with public funds, and so any caucus has to be self-funded.

I would very much appreciate any thoughts anyone has on any of these questions.

Patrick Levine Rose (Tel: 517-351-7673).

Patrick Levine Rose
Attorney At Law
321 Woodland Pass, Suite 400
East Lansing, MI 48823
Tel: (517) 351-7673; Fax: (517) 351-2221
Cell: (517) 202-1955; Email:
patri...@voyager.net