You'll have to bear with me. I'm feeling a little queasy. This story came out a few days ago, but I haven't taken that close a look at it until today. I kind of figured it was too outlandish. Doesn't seem that way, though. In a transparent play in Nevada, some Clinton allies have filed a lawsuit to stop "at-large" caucuses from being held in some casinos on the strip:
The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party's decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state's election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.
That's right, a "complex mathematical formula." Basically twisting themselves in knots to make their case. Why? Because Barack Obama was endorsed by the Culinary Workers Union, and those particular caucuses are intended to make it easier for working restaurant employees to caucus. How do we know that? In part, because the Nevada State Education Association filed the lawsuit 2 days after the culinary union endorsed Obama. And because the teachers union's deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, is one of the founders of Senator Clinton's Nevada Women's Leadership Council. And, according to this ABC blog, four of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit originally voted for the "at-large" caucuses at a Nevada State Democratic Party meeting. And the plan with the "at-large" plaintiffs was subsequently approved the National Democratic Committee as well. So it basically wasn't an issue until Clinton supporters realized their candidate wasn't going to get the majority of those votes.
At a campaign stop, though, President Clinton does a good job at trying to spin the effort:
This is a one-man, one-vote country," he said. "Some people in Nevada are old fashioned. They think the rules should be the same for everybody and everybody's vote should count the same."
According to the "complex mathematical formula," each delegate at those "at-large" caucuses is worth more than delegates at "regular" caucuses.
How much you wanna bet that, if the roles were reversed, the Clinton campaign would be claiming the opposite? That this is a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters who support them? And it's a sleazy Republican tactic?