Friday, February 17, 2006

When it comes to deciding who gets on the Democratic gubernatorial primary ballot. But what about when someone who's skipped the caucuses decides to get into the governor's race, and needs to get the 500 delegate signatures required to get into the nominating convention? Someone like, say, Chris Gabrieli?

Earlier this week, the Massachusetts Democratic Party ruled that Gabrieli can get his 500 John/Jane Hancocks from all convention delegates, not just the ones elected at the caucuses. David at Blue Mass. Group has already weighed in on this, and I largely agree with his conclusions. But here's a little bit more on the subject.

The rationale, as explained to me by Mass Dems spokeswoman Cyndi Roy, is this: If the other delegates--including both elected officials add-ons picked to beef up the presence of minorities, women, youth, and the disabled--weren't fair game for Gabrieli and any other would-be late entries, the party would effectively be creating two unequal classes of delegates.

"If you say, only these 3000 delegates elected at the caucuses are eligible to sign papers, then you're basically saying those people don't count," Roy told me. "It's not fair to them not to have the same rights as any other delegate."

Fair enough. But what about the awkward fact that the late-entry rule explicitly states that the 500 signatures for late entries can only be gathered from elected delegates?

According to Roy, the rule originally stated that only "certified delegates"--i.e., delegates who'd paid to attend the convention and had received their credential--were fair game. But because there was no way of knowing who paid, that posed a problem for would-be late entries. Roy didn't know when the wording change was made, but that seems to have been the rationale.

Here's the million-dollar question: Did any previous late entry have to abide by the more restrictive interpretation as tried to scrape up 500 signatures? If not, I don't think anything sketchy's going on here; if so, it's worth asking whether the party's bending over backwards to help Gabrieli out.

Finally, here's the official ruling from the Mass Dems--a clarification, Roy says, not a rule change--followed by a critical statement from John Bonifaz, who's running for secretary of state and thinks the party's decision fails the smell test. (FYI, the ruling was reached on Tuesday, and announced at the Democratic State Committee meeting on Wednesday.)

"Legal Counsel Opinion Regarding the 2006 Massachusetts Democratic Convention Rules Section II, A3

"It is the intent and purpose of the rules to provide for an orderly and inclusive process by which all the elements and viewpoints of the Massachusetts Democratic Party may find expression. Accordingly, the word “elected” as referenced in the rules includes all those chosen or designated as eligible to serve as delegates to the convention and is not intended to be used to discriminate against or otherwise exclude from participation in the process of nomination those delegates who were not chosen at caucus events but who otherwise qualify as delegates by virtue of their election by other means.

James Roosevelt, Chief Legal Counsel

The Massachusetts Democratic Party"

"BONIFAZ ISSUES STATEMENT ON MASSACHUSETTS DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S RULE CHANGE IMPACTING THE GOVERNOR'S RACE

Boston, MA - Yesterday, the Massachusetts Democratic Party's leadership issued a rule change allowing non-elected designated delegates to the state party's convention to sign a petition placing Christopher Gabrieli's name as a gubernatorial candidate before the state party's convention in June.

Voting rights leader John Bonifaz, Democratic candidate for Secretary of State, issued the following statement today on the Democratic Party's rule change yesterday impacting the Democratic gubernatorial primary:

"Everyone knows that it is wrong to change the rules in the middle of the game," said Bonifaz. "Yet, the Massachusetts Democratic Party's rules committee has done just that.  This is patently unfair and antithetical to basic democratic principles and to the values of the Democratic Party.

"I have no issue if people want to play by the rules.  Party rules allow for a previously undeclared candidate's name to be placed before the convention for statewide office provided that a petition for such purpose is signed by at least 500 of the 'elected convention delegates.'  But, here, we have party insiders trying to subvert the process just after the completion of the statewide caucuses.  This kind of action should be opposed by anyone who believes in fairness and transparency in our primary election process.

"Last night, members of the Democratic State Committee supporting this move tried to mask it as merely an 'opinion' interpreting the existing rule.  That dog won't hunt.  The phrase, 'elected convention delegates,' by the literal meaning of those words, refers only to those delegates elected to the state party's convention at the caucuses.  It does not refer to ex-officio members, such as members of the Democratic State Committee, who are non-elected designated delegates.  I urge the Democratic Party's rules committee to come clean and reverse this action.  The integrity of our election process must be protected."

2/17/2006 10:07:37 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  
Tracked by:
http://www.thephoenix.com/TalkingPolitics/PermaLink.aspx?guid=67737973-1c8f-4fd7... [Pingback]