(Original author: tagento)

(Note from Elliot: Since there seems to be some new interest in the credentials committee, I felt that bumping this topic would be a good way to get some information out, enjoy) 

Less than a year ago Florida and Michigan embarked on a dare.  Republican and Democratic Party rulemakers wishing to prevent a cycle of states moving their dates forward and moving the Presidential race into 2007 drew a line in the sand.  The states of Florida and Michigan crossed that line and forfeited their delegates on the Democratic side.  They thought maybe their contest would influence the race anyway and by the time the convention came around the parties already having settled on a nominee would restore their delegations so that it wouldn’t become an issue in the general.  For better or worse on the Democratic side the race continues and Michigan and Florida’s gamble is looking more and more like a bad one.

This has been discussed before.  But what I want to focus on is the bodies that will truly decide the question.  The Rules and Bylaws Committee, the Credentials Committee, and the Convention itself.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee

The Rules and Bylaws Committee is one of the numerous subcommittees set up under the auspices of Democratic National Committee and at this point in the primary process is the body governing all that it’s name entails.  It is chaired by former Clinton Labor Secretary Alexis Herman, former Massachusetts State Rep James Roosevelt, Jr, and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo.

I’ll take Marc Ambinder at his word that the committee despite having a few familiar names from the Clinton administration are thoroughly Howard Dean loyalists.  I’ll note Ambinder mislabeled the heading and is NOT referring to the Credentials Committee.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kate_oconnor_former_cpos.php

The chairs of the committee are all veterans of the Clinton administration in some way: Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr. and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo: this led to certain conspiracy theories. But all three have maintained their neutrality; there are many Clinton officials supporting Obama, and it’s hard to find prominent Dems who didn’t play some role in the Clinton administration.

Anyway, Mr. Dean has not packed the committee with Clinton loyalists. He’s packed the committee with, well, Dean loyalists. Those of us who covered the Dean campaign will be familiar with many of the names:

Kate O’Connor, his gubernatorial chief of staff and campaign senior adviser; Bob Rogan, a campaign deputy manager who worked closely with current DNC executive director Tom McMahon; Kathy Hoyt, another former chief of staff to Dean in Vermont; Jane Stetson, a Democratic fundraiser from Vermont; Dr. Dean’s college roommate, Dr. Ralph Dawson; Adelita Grijalva, daughter of Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), an early Dean endorsee; Scott Maddox, a former chair of the Florida Democratic Party who supported Dean and who warred with the current regime at the Florida Democratic Party; William Strauss, a Massachusetts state representative who was one of Dean’s earliest campaign endorsee; Tina Flournoy; a longtime Dean adviser; and many others.

Unlike the Credentials Committee which we’ll get to next this committee is a creature of Howard Dean.  That’s why you are reading stories about contributors putting pressure on the DNC.    In fact throughout the process Howard Dean and his appointees will play a key deciding role.  And how fair, impartial, and perhaps more importantly strong he is throughout will determine how well the party fairs.  I am going to operate under the assumption Howard Dean is going to stay neutral until either side has amassed enough delegates to claim the nomination.  And only then will he (and his surrogates) flex their muscles to settle all questions in favor of the victor.

Assuming a fair hearing we’re left looking at the rules.  Certainly Hillary Clinton’s claim that her campaign (unlike the others) made a conscious choice to be the only campaign to contest Michigan and Florida is a non-starter.

“A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. … “Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.” (20.C.1.a of the Delegate Selection Rules of the 2008 Democratic National Convention)

To give any hint that she actually DID campaign in those states risks a nightmare scenario for her.  That the delegates are somehow restored but with HER delegates stripped for breaking party rules.  While it’s highly unlikely we’d ever see that scenario transpire it shows why the Clinton campaign needs to tread lightly when making that argument.

A better case can be made for the “good faith” clause where the Rules Bylaws Committee can restore delegates to states who have tried to make a “good faith” effort to bring their states into compliance.

“In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.” (20.C.7 of the Delegate Selection Rules of the 2008 Democratic National Convention)

Florida is an easier case to be made since the state is controlled on all levels by the Republican Party.  You could also argue the party is now trying everything they can to set up a new primary but are being scuttled by the Republican legislature.  Michigan of course has a much more difficult bridge to cross given Democratic Party control.  Thus there is a case to be made for restoring Florida even without a new election.  Michigan on the other hand only has it’s own party to blame if they can’t find the funding to fix a mess that they are soley responsible for.

Right now all negotiations are centered around this rule.  Some might argue any new contest now is too little too late since neither the Florida nor the Michigan Democratic Party did much “to prevent legislative changes” in their states.  Some might argue the DNC should help these states by trying to help them secure funding to bring themselves into compliance.  Others might find just EFFORTS at a new election good enough and restore the original “elected” delegates.  And finally these delegates could be restored but with a new vector determining the split of delegates such as a 50-50 split between Obama and Clinton.

One thing however is clear.  The Rules and Bylaws Committee is the Clinton campaign’s best shot at getting anything at all.  The road becomes a lot more difficult for them once we move on to the far more partisan and pro-Obama Credentials Committee.

Credentials Committee

After around the end of June the Credentials Committee begins to take over.  I’ll explain how the members of this standing committee for the convention are selected.  There are 183 votes on the committee (including a quarter vote given to American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Democrats Abroad).  157 of them (we’ll exclude Democrats abroad and the three territories) of them are divided by population with every state (as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) having a minimum of one member.  The elected delegates to the convention of each state and territory vote who they want their members to be.  But of course it isn’t that simple.

The elected state delegations also must elect representatives to the standing committees (including obviously the Credential Committee) that proportionally represent the percentage of votes the presidential candidates got in each state.  I will admit complete ignorance on what happens with states that have both a caucus and a primary like Texas.  If the vote on the committee is close enough I assume it will be an issue that will be argued.  The delegations must “elect” the representatives suggested to them by the Presidential campaigns.  So these “elections” really are a joke.

All this is certified by the DNC controlled Rules and Bylaws Committee and each standing committee is chaired by someone appointed by Howard Dean.

In addition there are 25 spots on each committee for “Party Leaders and Elected Officials” called PLEOs who are elected by the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee.  Nominees for these 25 spots are submitted by Howard Dean after “consultation with the State Chairs from those states from which members are contemplated to be nominated.”

With Obama doing well in smaller states and smaller states being overrepresented (in terms of population) on the committees Obama will have a plurality of members.  Both Clinton and Obama will still probably need the votes of members selected by Howard Dean in order to reach a majority.

Taking place in July and after a primary or caucus could be reasonably organized this is where pragmatic solutions are discussed.  Hopefully at this point the superdelegates have publicly backed someone or another and we’ll know who the nominee is.  In which case Dean’s appointees all back the side of the winner.  If not Obama probably pushes for a 50-50 split of the delegations with Clinton opposing.  If Dean is pragmatic he’ll support it.  If not the convention will get even uglier.

Also Clinton (or Obama if the vote goes against him) will have more than enough votes to reach the 20% vote minimum to submit a “minority report” to be voted on during the convention.

Here is Marc Ambinder’s explanation of the process.  I’ll note that given Obama’s small state advantage it is doubtful Clinton could ever get more seats on the Credential Committee.  By the same token it would be improbable for Obama to get the 26 vote margin he’d need to totally ignore Howard Dean’s appointees.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_credentials_committee_tough_for_clinton.php

The Convention

Next we have the convention and this is where Howard Dean will be pivotal.  The most important thing now is who is chairing the convention. Something anyone with any experience with Robert’s Rules of Order should already knows.  With the power to recognize motions and decide the outcomes of “voice votes” it isn’t that much of an understatement to call the chair the dictator of the convention.  Especially since they could care less what is actually in Robert’s Rules.

Howard Dean is the “temporary chair” of the convention and will preside over the adoption of the committee reports including the credential committee.  These votes are often voice votes where the chair will call whatever side he agrees with the winner.  The “democratic” thing to do of course would be to have a roll call vote.  What he decides will tell us how tightly Dean plans to run the convention.  If Obama has the necessary support of the superdelegates he’d probably win a roll call vote.  Though of course there are delegates who might vote for the minority report for personal or ideological reasons (ie they want to run for President in 2012).  Conversely if Hillary has the votes on this she probably has the votes to win the nomination.

Ideally the superdelegates have announced their intention so Howard Dean can step in and settle these questions before the convention starts and can use the considerable power of the chair to ram things through guilt free.

The next step is the election of the permanent chair of the convention.  This is the only chance the loser has to change the game.  To get someone friendly to rule in their favor on “voice votes.”  Speaker Nancy Pelosi is slated to be the permanent chair of the convention.  And if Clinton loses their vote for the adoption of the minority report they may give thought to trying to replace her with someone more friendly.  Howard Dean would have to be a complete incompetent moron in order to have the election of the designated permanent chair torpedoed.  She and her co-chairs (Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, and Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin) will be confirmed on a “voice vote.”

Conclusions

What can we learn from all this?  A few things.

First there will be no floor fight over Michigan and Florida. The system as constructed is simply stacked against Hillary Clinton.  At every step Howard Dean is ultimately in control.  Only if Howard Dean is far weaker or stupider than expected does any move have a chance and even then the outcome is doubtful at best.  The only reason to engage in a floor fight would be to set up the basis of a lawsuit AFTER the convention.  In which case God help us all.

Second realistically given how every committee is stacked against them Florida and Michigan will not only consent to a new selection process but actually beg for it.  This is in everyone’s best interest.  Senator Obama’s to remove any cloud lingering over his head by excluding these states.  And Hillary’s since a new election is the ONLY way she can get any benefit from those states.  And of course the Michigan and Florida Democratic Party who despite their huffing and puffing don’t want to do anything that will hurt their own local parties come November.

Third conducting new elections are easier said than done.  Money is a big issue and in Florida Republican obstructionism as well.  And time is running out quickly.

And finally there is an excellent chance no matter what SOMEONE will be seated.  The question is who?  Chances are whoever wins the nomination (excluding Michigan and Florida) will decide.  Hopefully that winner will be decided before the convention so the party machinery can enforce that decision without looking like they are picking on those states.  The longer this goes on the worse the party looks.

You can find a copy of the rules governing the convention and the delegate selection process on the DNC webpage.  http://www.dnc.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/