Judge allows casino caucus sites in Nevada
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff
LAS VEGAS -- A federal judge ruled this afternoon that Nevadans can caucus in casinos on Saturday, delivering a huge boost to Barack Obama, who was endorsed by the powerful union representing the casino workers, and frustrating Hillary Clinton supporters who argued that the special voting sites were unfair.
Members of a local teacher's union had challenged the creation of the nine "at large'' caucus sites, saying they gave unfair advantage to workers on the Las Vegas Strip. The sites were established to ensure that casino workers -- for whom Saturday is the busiest workday -- would be able to get to a caucus and wouldn't have to return to their home precinct. The Democratic caucuses are set to begin at 11 a.m. local time.
The judge refused to grant the teachers a temporary restraining order, effectively allowing the controversial caucus plan to go ahead as planned.
The dispute caused a heated argument among Nevada Democrats, with the state party -- joined by the national party -- arguing that the special caucus sites were necessary to encourage more Nevadans to vote. Historically, voters in this fast-changing and growing state have turned out in very low numbers for the caucuses, but local officials hope that Nevada's new, early role in the presidential nominating contests would bring out more voters, especially Latinos not strongly represented in other early primary and caucus states.
Obama supporters also groused that Clinton backers only tried to change the rules after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama. The Clinton campaign has been officially neutral on the matter, insisting it had nothing o do with the lawsuit. But former President Bill Clinton angrily lashed out at a local TV reporter earlier this week, suggesting that the procedure allowed casino workers to have an exaggerated impact on the results.
The Clinton campaign issued a statement this afternoon that criticized the ruling.
"While we were not involved in this lawsuit, and have always said that we would play by the rules that we're given, it has always been our hope that every Nevadan should have equal access and opportunity to participate in the caucus," the statement said. "Make no mistake -- the current system that inhibits some shift workers from being able to participate, while allowing others to do so, would seem to benefit other campaigns. More importantly it is unfair.
"The Obama campaign has been clear in its belief that whoever wins the culinary union endorsement will win Nevada," the statement said. "We will leave it up to the people of Nevada to make that decision."
Polls show Obama, Clinton and former Senator John Edwards in a virtual three-way tie in Nevada. But because turnout for the caucuses has traditionally been low, political analysts say it is impossible to know who will actually turn out to vote.
Comment
Permalink
EmailThis blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
That judge better watch his back...
There are two things I don't like about it:
First, if your employer is watching while you're voting, you could get some pressure to vote for whatever interest aligns with the employer.
Second, if you don't use neutral sites for voting it gives an advantage to some, and besides that, they could have extended voting hours to extend flexibility. A more equitable remedy was available...
I wish this race would eliminate race. If you vote for someone based on race, you are a racist. If you strategically target market anyone based on race, you are a racist. It doesn't matter whether you are pulling for one race or another, it is racism pure and simple. Reverse racism is racism. Any group that advocates on behalf of a particular race is a racist organization. It doesn't matter if it is a minority or not, if you judge or extend help to someone based on race, you are a racist.
It is not that America is ready to elect a black President; Barack Obama is not ready to be President. If he was against the War, why did he not grill Condi Rice for lying to us?
Ask yourself, if Deval Patrick was not black, wouldn't he be seen as a casino lobbyist? If Ben Leguere, the grandmother rapist, wasn't black do you think that Deval Patrick would have written a letter to ask for him to be released from prison, without even meeting him? I mean you have Irish American Clubs that celebrate Irish culture, but you don't see Irish Clubs writing letters on behalf of rapists that happened to be Irish.
I honestly don't care whether or not my politicians are black or white or brown or yellow, I care if they are grey in the issues like the "Together We Can" nonsense.
Casinos will hurt poor people: black, white, yellow and brown. Hoping for casino revenue is like hoping for higher gasoline prices so the State can get more gas tax revenue. I am bothered that casinos carry that much weight in Nevada; I hope they never pollute Massachusetts. After an "Age of Turbulence", the last thing we need is a casino. Obama claims that he is free and clear of any lobbyists. Deval Patrick, his pal has traded on his skin color and has used his talents based on race, and has traded on political influence with Ameriquest (a predatory lender that targeted poor people) and has far exceeded any Republican casino lobbyist including Jack Abramoff.
Sadly, MLK's dream of a color blind America is not alive; people still see black and white. If they closed their eyes to color and based their judgment on actions and not racism or rhetoric, they would see people for what they truely are.
Well Done Judge! You are a true PATRIOT!
The Clintons are for "colored folk" as long as we vote for the Anglo candidate selected for us. Now it's obvious that Bill and Hillary , privileged whites, want a resumption of power. It's all about what Dems can do for the Clintons. Let's send them packing.
Sad, very sad - you are obviously in the "NEGATIVE, politics as usual" (disenfranchise the poor union workers, why should they matter) mode - and a racist to boot. Some of us (actually lots of us) are attempting to move away from the old "slash and burn" politics.
Do you ever have anything POSITIVE to say? Are you for anything or just against everything?
You go on about race, but Iowa & New Hampshire didn't appear to have a race problem. You underestimate the American public - thank God everyone doesn't see the world through your eyes! Maybe you need a reality check (can't believe your from MA).
John - Sad, very sad - you are obviously in the "NEGATIVE, politics as usual" (disenfranchise the poor union workers, why should they matter) mode - and a racist to boot. Some of us (actually lots of us) are attempting to move away from the old "slash and burn" politics.
Do you ever have anything POSITIVE to say? Are you for anything or just against everything?
You go on about race, but Iowa & New Hampshire didn't appear to have a race problem. You underestimate the American public - thank God everyone doesn't see the world through your eyes! Maybe you need a reality check (can't believe your from MA).
in my state they are only having voting at my house
Unfortunately, I am not well versed enough to debate on this subject. However, I do have a couple of questions.
1. It is to my understanding that this caucus arrangement has been planned and authorized by the democrats for about a year now?
2. If so why is it NOW that everyone begins to complain?
If the first statement is true then it is farily obvious that the Clinton campaign is somehow trying to legally maneuver an outcome more favorable to them.
While I would find issue with a plan that makes allowances for one group and not for all, I believe in this case, the Judge did indeed do his job! The Democratic Party agreed to the at-large caucus areas last May and 5 or 6 of those who signed off on the lawsuit also signed off and agreed to the at-large caucus area plan back then. The plan was approved by the Democratic Committee in August of last year, I believe. So, why wait until now to contest it? A.) These same 5 or 6 who signed the lawsuit are Clinton supporters
B) The timing of the lawsuit - two days after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama - certainly leaves the thought of 'dirty politics' in the foreground. And, after following all the other 'events' occurring prior to and leading up to this lawsuit, many Nevadans are really fed up with ‘dirty politics’ - perhaps that is why more are now supporting Obama.
P. S. Obama supporters didn't 'grouse', simply stated fact.
While I would find issue with a plan that makes allowances for one group and not for all, I believe in this case, the Judge did indeed do his job! The Democratic Party agreed to the at-large caucus areas last May and 5 or 6 of those who signed off on the lawsuit also signed off and agreed to the at-large caucus area plan back then. The plan was approved by the Democratic Committee in August of last year, I believe. So, why wait until now to contest it? A.) These same 5 or 6 who signed the lawsuit are Clinton supporters
B) The timing of the lawsuit - two days after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama - certainly leaves the thought of 'dirty politics' in the foreground. And, after following all the other 'events' occurring prior to and leading up to this lawsuit, many Nevadans are really fed up with ‘dirty politics’ - perhaps that is why more are now supporting Obama.
P. S. Obama supporters didn't 'grouse', simply stated fact.
Anything to Hurt the Clintons is a GOOD THING!!
Bill was a Communists Selling out to China Not to mention a TOTAL embarrassment.
Hillary Is a Power hungry Lier who Playes too many Politics Games.
My question:
When we see a news artical where a Lawyer Plays games with the Law to Twist Testimony so a Horable person gets set free we all Boo....
....YET when Bill did that every Sheep in America Stood up and Claped?
When We see corrupt Politicions playing games and slinging MUD we Chastize them...
....YET when Hilary does it the same Sheep stand back up and Clap some more?
I simply love Online casino, I play every day and I keep coming back for more.
I am not a problem gambler because I earn enough money to be able to support
myself and continue my online gambling time. I truly enjoy the relaxation time I
get and the ease with which can use and access online casino's. I hate the
stigma that is associated with gambling online as I view it as a release, an
escape and real "me" time. If it were to become a problem then I have no doubt
that I could and would simply cut online casino from my daily vocabulary. As it
stands though, gambling is simply something I enjoy and the internet and online
play are just a good way to access casino's. Playing against the house means I
never have to worry or feel about actually taking money from someone else as it
is only the online casino that would be paying me off for my wins. Talking about
wins, I have had some great wins in my online gambling career – my biggest so
far is $5000 on roulette, on one spin. I am fit, happy, healthy and I love life
and the online casino is just part of my every day existence and escape.
Thank you. I read herelots of valuable sentences. Greetings from Poland.
Hello to all ! Greetings From Poland. Great and vaulable site. KBGKBG