So, what exactly happened at the Senatorial District 10 Convention?
by BernieThe word at the convention spread very quickly that on the morning of the convention, Tarrant County Democratic Party Chair Art Brender changed the process by which delegates were to sign in to caucus, and that was why things were handled so badly.
The rumor was passed through about 4000 sets of ears though, so there were distinctly different versions of varying negativity floating around. For example, here were the three versions of the story I heard:
1. There was supposed to be a computerized sign-in system, complete with optical scanner to scan voter registration cards. Volunteers were up late the night before preparing the system and making it ready to go. However, Brender made the executive decision to go back to a paper-based sign-in a few hours before the convention was to start. This put the volunteers into a state of pandemonium.
2. The computerized system was supposed to be utilized, but the folks in charge of entering in all the delegate and alternate information into the computers failed to get it all entered in time. Rather than dealing with the confusion of half computer sign-in and half paper sign-in, Brender went with the manual paper-based system.
3. Somebody sabotaged the computerized sign-in system that was supposed to make the process easier, and therefore they were forced to use paper sign-in sheets.
With myriad stories like this floating around, is it any wonder that voters from both sides began to wonder, often aloud, what the heck was going on? Some thought the numbers had simply overwhelmed the system. Others believed that the other side was intentionally delaying the process in an effort to gain the upper hand. Still others theorized that the Republican Party was somehow in on the sabotage.
The thing is that none of these versions of the story are probably entirely accurate. I’ve got to tell you that as I reflect now, 20 hours and 34 minutes after I arrived here at this convention, I’m not buying any of the conspiracy theories, nor would I assign blame to anything but an overwhelmed system.
The simple fact is that people from both sides got disgusted and left early, and probably in about equal numbers. But perhaps even more importantly, there is a protection to that kind of strategy built into the process: the at-large delegates.
At large delegates are chosen from primary voters who fill out an application to be a delagate to fill delegate positions left empty in the convention process.
The committee charged with choosing these delegates is expected to make sure that the final delegation reflects the official sign-in vote as closely as possible, taking into account presidential preference, gender, ethnicity, and other factors.
So maybe we can all rest easy tonight; the convention may have been a chaotic stressful mess, but I think some good was done here. Welcome back to democracy, America.
5 Comments, Comments or Pings
Mondalejones
To be fair, we have not had such high turn out in the Democratic Senatorial District Conventions since 1984. So I recognize that the Temporary Chair had no sense of the tidal wave that was approaching or how to efficiently run it. But the experience at SD 10 Convention demonstrates why the cauacus system has outlived its usefulness as a healthy or effective way to select delegates for the Democratic Party, especially without adequate resources and paid staff supplied by the State. People’s right to vote is too important to leave it to this process and also raises the question why some people who aren’t limited by a disability, a night shift or a second job be able to be counted twice while those with disabilities, a night shift or a second job get left out. Unlike a regular election, there is no absentee ballot in a caucus.
The Rules of the TDP provide that “Senatorial District Chair shall deliver the lists of all such Delegates and Alternates to the Convention, and these lists shall constitute the Temporary Roll. Only those Delegates listed thereon, or their Alternates who assume Delegate status, may vote on the temporary organization of the Convention. Proxy voting shall not be permitted. (Texas Election Code §174.068)” Ideally the Temporary Chair should have established a temporary roll starting the day after the primary and completed well in advance of the covention. The list that was still being worked on as of Friday night was found to be missing the information regarding hundreds of delegates, for both Obama and Clinton. This process was delayed by the Obama forces on the Credentials Committee draging their feet on a proposal to use a spreadsheet to establish accurate delegate counts in the precincts, although they finally saw it was necessary. Given the late date the Temporary Chair found that the list was incomplete, using the minutes was better than an incomplete list but led to the delays. Again, a temporary roll of delegates by precinct should have been established by the Temporary Chair earlier and the unreasonable delay could have and should have been avoided.
If the Conventions had been delayed a week or two as requested when folks started seeing the tidal wave that these conventions represented, more logistical problems could have been addressed as folks had started thinking about them for the first time. This refusal to provide a short delay also contributed to what happened.
If we keep the caucus process, the following are suggestions:
1. Stagger sign in times like 8 am A-F, 9 am G-Q, 10 am R-Z with a fixed gavel in time like 12 noon so folks would know when to come back. Or even allow sign in for a week at the Democratic Party office before hand. It would limit frustration.
2. Issue one page instruction sheet on the rules of voting and alternate elevation for each precinct packet. There were varying rules being applied in different precincts because no one knew the rules. I heard stories in at least a dozen precincts that elected a delegate in violation of the Rules, not because of bad motives in every instance, but because of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the Rules. This angered many on the losing end and bred a lot of ill will for the candidate who won such delegates. This is the type of thing that could really divide the party and could be avoided.
3. Start the kareoke/dancing earlier during breaks. Provide staggered entertainment (union musicians?) so the Convention doesn’t get that Altamont feel.
4. Follow the rules and don’t suspend them. Otherwise it starts looking rigged.
5. Have the State fund the caucus process like it funds the primary. It is much easier to hold a paid employee accountable than a volunteer supporting a particular candidate which would result in more uniformity and less rule bending/double standards being applied to favor a particular candidate.
There were few bright spots. My delegation chair (who was Bernie the Obama delegate) honored the Rules and ignored the calls to vote on delegates out of order. Our delegation worked together to let people go home and leave Clinton and Obama supporters in a smaller number but who would vote in a way that would reflect the will of those in the delegation who signed in. Special thanks to Bernie and Lisa Thomas (a Clinton delegate) for working this out. I also liked the dancing delegates. And as a Clinton I also assisted some entire delegations (Obama and Clinton) understand the rules even when it helped Obama and found the delegates seemed to have a mutual respect for the other side. I saw one delegation even take a group picture. But while I usually try to have a sense of humor, there was little reason to laugh or even smile.
I left at 4:30 am not only tired but sad. It was exhilarating to see all those Democrats and sad to see them so mad at each other and the process.
See you in Austin!
Mar 30th, 2008
Bernie
I also wondered if it would be feasible to do check-in for a couple of days beforehand. Or, in the case of the WRMC, one could use the box offices, with each window set up for certain precincts, to check in. That way bottlenecks in the narrow foyer wouldn’t slow the process down so much.
I also immediately noticed the lack of instruction, both in the packets, and coming from the temporary convention chair. People would have been a lot more comfortable if they had known what was going on.
I don’t think the convention should have been delayed, because I think you run the risk of losing participants who don’t get word of the change for whatever reason. Three weeks should have been enough to get the thing organized better, but I believe at the very least we learned something this time. Now it just needs to be fixed.
Perhaps new county chair Stephen Maxwell can invite several convention attendees in for a focus group of sorts, to offer constructive criticism and suggestions how to make the process more bearable. We need to make sure this gets done, so that we don’t lose new participants to frustration.
Mar 31st, 2008
Pete Wann
@Bernie - I agree completely on the lack of information. I think I was willing to forgive a little more because I’m just slightly familiar with the process, due to the fact that I’m a government nerd. I think more instruction at every level would have made things go more smoothly and kept people calm for longer. A one-page “conventions for n00bs” in the precinct packets (or more ideally handed out when we showed up) would have been awesome. Also, the convention chair could have briefly outlined what was happening as she moved through the processes. There were several times when people interrupted to demand that she get to the business at hand when she was in the process of carrying out the business at hand.
I would be very happy and willing to participate in a focus group. We also need to get in touch with (and feedback from) some of the folks from precinct 1301 who probably had the most intact delegation at 4AM. They proved that they were there for a purpose and dedicated to the process. I hope I see them again in 2 years!
Mar 31st, 2008
SteveB
I know you folks are way more informed than me on all things caucus.
But the view of the lay citizen, who reads the paper watches the news and stands in line to vote is not good.
I know a few of you have read of my horror-story caucus experience at the SW Sub-courthouse. And this is just another case of confusion and mismanagement. One the posters mentioned how the turnout overwhelmed this event. I think there was plenty of notice that the individual caucus sites were overwhelmed over a month ago, which should have given them plenty of time to prepare.
As a citizen and a prospective Democratic voter, I’m certainly not buoyed by the caucus performance in Texas.
I don’t understand why it has to be so complicated. Why the delegate apportionment rules everywhere are so sillily baroque.
Maybe I’m stupid, shortsighted, or politically naive, but why can’t we just count votes?
Mar 31st, 2008
Bernie
Steve, I don’t think you’re any of those things. My biggest issue with the bungling of these caucuses is how it discouragaes the newcomers to the process. You’re correct that there was plenty notice of record turnout, so things should have been ready but weren’t.
But if we can figure out how to do it right, I think the caucus process is a great addition to the primary system because of the way it brings neighbors of like political persuasions together.
For example, I made three new friends during this primary. We’ve had dinner parties, met for drinks, hung out in a colliseum for 12 hours together… it’s been mostly great.
I personally would rather see the caucus/convention system fixed rather than eliminated, but if the will of the people is to go to a primary system only, then so be it. One of the resolutions accepted at the SD10 convention was to go to a simple primary system in Texas. We’ll see if that comes to fruition.
Apr 1st, 2008
Reply to “So, what exactly happened at the Senatorial District 10 Convention?”
By posting your comment, you agree to abide by the terms of the West and Clear comment policy.