I believe the memo in the post below is the Obama campaign's weighing in on the revote. The question that I think is at issue (and which I posed to Eric) is whether the legal issues outlined in the memo are legitimate issues (i.e., more than just campaign posturing). Perhaps running the Obama camps' memo by an election lawyer (reputable and unaffiliated) would be prudent--at least before you condemn them of obstructing the vote in Michigan (which your post comes awfully close to doing).

Something to think about.

Is the DNC just remarking on the appropriateness of a revote under their own rules? If so, they're not really contradicting the Obama campaign's statement, who's pointing out the problems external to the party (voter lawsuits, soft money, etc). Also, isn't there a lack of support in the legislature?

Regarding the memo below.

Here is the issue, and you can bet there will indeed be lawsuits by one party or another or several:

The burden on voters here is one of complete disqualification—they cannot participate in the Democratic primary in June if they voted in the January Republican primary. Their claim of a violation of their rights would rest on the fact that that the state "changed the rules in the middle of the game." These voters' choice was entirely reasonable in the circumstances: there was no valid Democratic primary available to them at the time, and they could not know that, when their choice was made, that they were disqualifying themselves from participating in a re-run Democratic primary this year that they could know would be held.

Moreover, the state will have difficulty justifying this disenfranchisement by reference to any legitimate state interest. Michigan cannot argue that it wants to limit the June primary to those who are genuinely Democrats, because it has always run fully open primaries. Voters, in other words, have a state-conferred right to vote in the Democratic party no matter what their affiliation. The primaries in January were fully open; and the decision to close them in June will not easily stand constitutional scrutiny. In any challenge, Michigan will be criticized for proposing a re-run without, in effect, restoring to voters the original choice they had—whether to participate in a meaningful Democratic primary.

If they run this with that disenfranchisement built in, the results of the election will get tossed by the courts.

(Michigan voter/Obama supporter here...)

It is vitally important to note that one of the main problems with the revote proposal in Michigan is that it prevents Democrats who voted in the GOP primary in January (after being told by *everyone* that their vote in the Dem primary wouldn't count) would NOT be allowed to vote in this new election. This is due to DNC rules disallowing someone from voting in both the GOP and Dem primary in the same year.

Repeating, some Democrats would be unable to vote in the new primary.

If the DNC came forward to say that it would waive that rule for this special election, then this might still have some legs, but since the Legislature leaves for a two-week easter recess on Friday, the deal will have to be figured out by thursday...

That, and the still theoretical proposals for funding (such as they are) seem to doom this, despite the statements from the Clinton campaign and now the DNC that Obama "must" accept the re-vote. It's not at all clear what he'd be accepting at this point, other than a partial primary under hurried planning and few, if any, safeguards...

If you want to join us Michiganders in emailing/calling Senator Levin, Debbie Dingell, Jennifer Granholm, and Mark Brewer to express your extreme dissatisfaction with this whole sordid state of affairs, you're more than welcome...

Ok, I have been looking all over the place for the actual statement. Anybody have a link? I can't even find it on the dnc website.

State Rep. Matt Gillard, D-Alpena, said the do-over primary will create as many problems as it solves, including barring participation by Democrats who, because they thought their party's Jan. 15 primary was a farce, voted for a Republican.
"This won't work," Gillard said. "People were told the Jan. 15 primary didn't matter. Now they're being told if they voted in it, they can't vote in one that does matter."

not seating the delegates is a no win solution. Going against the WI Open Primary is wrong, which is what a revote would be if they don't allow it to be an open primary.

For all of you who think that Florida and Michigan voters are being denied some sort of right, or that the are being denied a vote - let me make this emphatically clear: THIS IS A REPUBLIC.

You vote for people who you feel best represent your interests to then vote on the myriad details of government ON YOUR BEHALF. The voters of these states then CLEARLY had their chance to vote. That's not being picayune, it is the way the law of the land works. It's the way things have worked in this country nearly since its inception.

Bear in mind that the rules for this election were constructed over a period of almost two years. I think I am going to post elsewhere on here with a concise but complete history - replete with sources. But for now, trust me when I say that first there was a commission appointed by Terry McCauliffe (Clinton Supporter) in 2004. Nine current Clinton Superdelegates and both Dingell and Levin sat on this commission of 40 people.

The commission then met for the first time in early March of 2005 and completed its work in December of 2005. Along the way they had multiple meetings that heard input from dozens of other Democrats from all across the country.

Their final report was then used by the DNC to formulate and craft the schedule and rules for the current primary and it was ratified for acceptance by 450 in 2006.

In March of 2007 the Florida House voted to advance their date - the vote was 118-0, their Senate affirmed 37-2. It is important to note that various elected Democrats and Party leaders in Florida bragged to the public about how they were going to make Florida relevant again. They bragged about it as early as March of last year.

I bring the last point up, because you hear the plaintiff wail 'the Republicans shoved it down our throats.' One should also note that there are actually more registered Democrats than Republicans in Florida, like 300,000 odd more. So you have to ask yourself - why can't the Democrats there get more of their own elected?

At any rate, from March of last year through September, the DNC tried fervently to get Florida to amend its decision. Now we have their train wreck. Even the former Florida Democratic Party chair warned the locals that they were nuts if they thought the DNC was bluffing.

Michigan even waited until after the DNC had ruled against Florida before deciding to go ahead and vote 67-34 in their House and 36-0 in their Senate to tell all the rest of the Democratic Party in the other 48 states that they, like Florida can just tell us all to stick it in our eye.

So you see, the voters did have their say. Sorry about their luck, but don't stick the rest of us for their BS.