A lawsuit aimed at preventing casino workers from caucusing at special Nevada locations filed by union members with ties to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was dismissed Thursday.
The suit, brought by the state teachers union against the special precincts, argued that limiting caucus locations to only those employed in the vicinity gives those caucus-goers an unfair advantage for representation.
U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan ruled that “State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set up their own rules,” the Associated Press reported.
At issue is the number of delegates awarded to special precincts to be held in casinos to allow shift workers the opportunity to caucus. The suit says the current arrangement “creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts,” according to the New York Times. “The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.”
The suit was defended Thursday by former President Bill Clinton, who argued: “Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give everybody that voted at the casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct?” the New York Times said.
The decision may prove to help Clinton rival Sen. Barack Obama, whose campaign opposed the lawsuit, claiming it was an attempt to marginalize casino workers. The lawsuit also was filed two days after the Culinary Workers Union, which represents some 60,000 hotel service workers, endorsed Obama.
“I think the judge was clear that you can’t change the rules six days before the caucus, and any alterations would have disenfranchised the maids, dishwashers, bellhops who work on the Strip,” Obama said in San Francisco, according to Reuters.
The Clinton campaign released a statement Thursday afternoon: “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 says. “Our strategy remains the same — we want as many people as possible to participate in the caucus, and we are going to reach out to as many Nevadans as possible in an effort to do as well as possible on Saturday. The Obama campaign has been clear in its belief that whoever wins the culinary union endorsement will win Nevada. We will leave it up to the people of Nevada to make that decision.”
The Democratic Party of Nevada approved caucus precinct rules “to make it easier for waitresses and bellhops to caucus during the day near work rather than have to do so in their neighborhoods,” the AP reported.
“We aren’t voting here, we’re caucusing. That’s something that parties decide,” Judge Mahan said, adding that it is “up to the national party and the state party to promulgate these rules and enforce them,” according to Reuters.
Nine caucus precincts will be located in Las Vegas casinos and open only to caucus-goers employed within a 2.5 mile radius.
I was surprised and disappointed that the News Hour television coverage by Judy Woodruff neglected to mention the timing of the lawsuit, which is one of the most important aspects of the story. The opposition by the teacher's union and the Clinton campaign to the caucus sites on the Strip came only AFTER the Culinary Union decided to support Obama. Provision for the caucus sites on the Strip had been agreed to in March, so the teachers' union and Clinton campaign had had ample time to dispute it, making the lawsuit at this hour seem like petty politics.
Obviously changing this provision six days before the election would disenfranchise cooks, hotel workers, and casino workers who have assumed they could caucus near their workplaces. Unlike teachers and those in many other professions, they do not have Saturdays off. If the lawsuit had been successful, these workers would have had no time on such short notice to arrange their work schedules to be able to participate if they so desired.
Ironically, the Clinton campaign complained after losing Iowa that caucuses are not fair because they disenfranchise those who have to work during caucus meetings.
Email This
Vote 2008 Subscriptions 
I was surprised and disappointed that the News Hour television coverage by Judy Woodruff neglected to mention the timing of the lawsuit, which is one of the most important aspects of the story. The opposition by the teacher's union and the Clinton campaign to the caucus sites on the Strip came only AFTER the Culinary Union decided to support Obama. Provision for the caucus sites on the Strip had been agreed to in March, so the teachers' union and Clinton campaign had had ample time to dispute it, making the lawsuit at this hour seem like petty politics.
Obviously changing this provision six days before the election would disenfranchise cooks, hotel workers, and casino workers who have assumed they could caucus near their workplaces. Unlike teachers and those in many other professions, they do not have Saturdays off. If the lawsuit had been successful, these workers would have had no time on such short notice to arrange their work schedules to be able to participate if they so desired.
Ironically, the Clinton campaign complained after losing Iowa that caucuses are not fair because they disenfranchise those who have to work during caucus meetings.