The lawsuit to prevent at-large precincts in Nevada casinos, because the big casino union embraced Obama, is . . . how do I say this . . . a wanton abuse of process. Changing neutral procedural rules in order to alter outcomes is a terrible, terrible idea, and it seems to be getting more popular recently.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It's not exactly a neutral rule -- there's no similar provision for other workplaces -- but yes, using lawsuits to direct the outcome of a party nominating contest is regrettable.
Is there a link?
You'd have thought that casinos might appeal to someone so skilled at betting - at least, betting on Cattle Futures.
It's not exactly a neutral rule
At the time it was adopted, it was certainly neutral as between candidates, and the challenge now is not similarly neutral.
The lawsuit to prevent at-large precincts in Nevada casinos, because the big casino union embraced Obama, is . . . how do I say this . . . a wanton abuse of process.
A wanton abuse of process from the Clintons? And I had thought them so honest. I'm shocked, shocked.
And there's gambling going on too. Who would have thought it in Nevada? I must tell Captain Renault.
When adopted the change was neutral between candidates, but not between voters. The way that the workplace caucuses work not only makes it far easier for casino workers to vote than any other Nevadans, but it also effectively gives their caucuses more delegates. In a perfect world all the democratic candidates would have held hands, sung Kumbaya, and filed a lawsuit against this before they knew which of them the unfair rules favored, but justice delayed is better than no justice at all...
"before they knew which of them the unfair rules favored, but justice delayed is better than no justice at all..."
It's not justice anymore, it's trying to fix an election. I'm 100% sure that Clinton would not be after "justice" if the union had backed her.
Clinton probably wouldn't be against it if the union backed her. But Obama would probably be against it, or rather he'd have plenty of surrogates complaining that its unfair for someone to have their voting booth held at their place of work.
It is a little unfair...but the only way I see we can get around it is to allow online voting so everyone can vote from the comfort of their workplace. But that is filled with issues...
Wherever the voting takes place will naturally give advantage to the consituency who is already going to be there.
Channeling Instapundit:
"They told me that if George Bush was re-elected, there would be a conspiracy to disenfranchise Democrats. And they were right."