Political Punch

I sent the DNC an email too.....I asked them not to disenfranchise these 2 states...I got an email back asking me to contribure.

I remember sending an email to the DNC just incredulous at how poorly it had managed coordinating and negotiating with various states on their respective primary dates.

I got a blast email a few days later from Howard to several of his closest friends saying not to worry, that he was certain there would be a nominee before the convention.

Way to stick your head in the sand there Howard.

Actually, there was a record turn out in Florida because "the people" wanted the mainstream media to take notice of who they supported, regardless of the delegate debacle.

If the democrats don't count these votes, they can kiss the election goodbye. I hope they are happy losing for a technicality.

"I wish I was one of the people with the damning evidence LOL Anyone taking bets as to the RNC or the media finding someone who has it and paying a pretty penny?"

I wont lie, Im looking for it too. Will I be able to look myself in the mirror knowing what I have done? HE&% Yeah!

Great speaking to you, Gotta go earn a living.

LOL Will nope - I work online but I dont get paid to blog unfortunately... wish I did! So one never knows when I have time to check the news and blogs. That is not the same as spending time researching or searching for a quote. Lots of things come up over and over so we know where to find the info.

I posted the info for other readers to see that the posting about the newsweek article was an uninformed smear tactic devoid of validity.

Will I forgot to mention, the videos that FOX took clips from for their report were not just one from 2003. In fact, there are reports of hundreds of hours being reviewed showing this was not an isolated case. Some of those clips were from sermons last year. Since the church had the videos up for sale and the transcripts on their website prior to trying to do all ths damage control, these things can be checked. I wish I was one of the people with the damning evidence LOL Anyone taking bets as to the RNC or the media finding someone who has it and paying a pretty penny?

Everyone needs to remember why the dates for the Florida primaries were moved out of compliance with the DNC; THE REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR MAD IT SO!!!

Democrats in Florida should not be disenfranchised. If they are not allowed to participate as Democrats, they will support Republicans or stay at home.

Whether you support Clinton or Obama, remember the role that Florida played in getting Dubya to the White House.

The newsweek article fails to mention the US Tour Farrakahn was making that year and the attacks he made on Clinton and Dole and the America as a country.

"Few were spared Farrakhan's venom during the U.S. tour. He accused Colin Powell of obeying "massah," suggested that Bill Clinton and Bob Dole were puppets on "someone else's string," defended the Islamic terrorist group Hezbollah as "freedom fighters" and suggested that the Washington Monument was in fact a monument celebrating slavery in America He also alleged that the presidents of major Jewish organizations were trying to influence U.N. reaction to the fighting in Lebanon and argued that ". . . the Zionists have control in England, in Europe, in the United States, and around the world." In once again suggesting a meeting between the N.O.I. and Jewish groups, Farrakhan said, "It won't make any difference whether they wish to sit down or not. In some point in time, they will be forced to sit down.... It's better to come willingly...."
quoted from the Jewish Virtual Library (American-Isreali Coop Initiative)

What's the difference? Clinton did not invite Farrakahn, he was heavily criticized by Farrakahn, he is not "groomed" by Farrakahn and friends as implied in Farrakahn's interviews.

So what - as long as the guy is or was a racist. It is so funny when your "God" Obama trips up - people go for the throat of Clnton- grow up and own up that Obama is such and empty suit and he lies are catching up with him.

Will - I guess you have not seen or read the (non-campaign related) interview with Farrakahn back in Jan of this year. I found the interview on a news website that apparently promotes Farrakahn's ideas. The interview was his advice for the year 2008. When Obama was brought up in the interview, Farrakhan was quoted as saying Obama has been groomed so as to not appear as Rev's Jackson or Sharpton. I didnt think much of that until I saw the NOI guys behind the pulpit like guards while Wright was preaching hate speech and inappropriate gestures and sexual language. Think that sounds outrageous? We have learned the hard way that we should not dismiss the flags when they pop up.

Is it possible he doesnt know? Sure - if he has been brainwashed for 20 years. Is it likely? I dont think so. If Clinton had even any remote association with a separatist group or individual ... well ... we all know the impact that would have based on how the media has been covering her so negatively per their own polls.

"

In 1996, while running for re-election, Bill Clinton sent out a mass mailing to friends and prospective donors—including one to the Nation of Islam. In it, he invited Claudette Muhammad, who at the time was chief of protocol, to be on his steering committee. "It is my way of saying thank you for your past friendship and it is my way of asking you to join me in this new campaign," he wrote. Muhammad reprinted the letter in a memoir; a spokesman for Clinton declined to comment.

Posted recently on Newsweek!
"

Quoting this from another blogger, sorry I didnt get the name, just for you MattOhio

"If we dont find the video....it is hard to take Obama at his word, because he is flip-flopping so much..."

Just like it's hard to take Clinton on their words. After all, the reason why they were vetted were due to lies proven and unproven.

"I bet he lied to TUCC too and went to a Nation of Islam gala event."

It would be a deal-breaker to see him with one of those hats on his head with the picture of a crescent moon.

Will - no i paraphrased but you can look for the quote if you want... i have to work so no time to search today

i heard about the radio ad and also heard it was run by individuals in FL who had planned to be a part of her campaign but could not be because of the DNC decision to disallow the delegates... hence the ad was paid for by private citizens... perfectly legal... the courts will sort all that stuff out

If we dont find the video....it is hard to take Obama at his word, because he is flip-flopping so much...I bet he lied to TUCC too and went to a Nation of Islam gala event.

"So did we find the video evidence on Obama yet? Where are the Secret Service details on his whereabouts on those sermon dates???? ....If those were to come out, we would also know how often Obama met his Crazy Real-Estate Uncle(Rezko)..."

From what I hear, on of the sermons that is being more widely circulated occured sometime after 9/11. He didnt have secret service detail at the time.

BTW, that McCain presidency must seem OK to you.

So did we find the video evidence on Obama yet? Where are the Secret Service details on his whereabouts on those sermon dates???? ....If those were to come out, we would also know how often Obama met his Crazy Real-Estate Uncle(Rezko)...

"With regards to your argument on whether Clinton would ask they be seated only after finding out how they voted... LOL."

Glad you find it funny. Its a hypothetical that I cannot prove.

"you are misinformed there because when the states delegates were disallowed she stated she agreed not to campaign in them but expected that whomever the nominee is would ask their delegates to seat the FL and MI delegates at the convention because the voters voices should be heard and those states are needed in November."

"whomever the nominee"
"whomever the nominee"
"whomever the nominee"

Is this an actual quote? Because it is crazy to suggest the nominee have anything to lose by having anyone not seated. Then nominee is picked at the convention, not before. In fairness I actually do remember her saying something like this, but it doesnt negate the fact that given her situation she stands most to benefit by seating the Florida and Mich delegates and that she is no longer keeping a silent tongue about the rules being stupid.

OK, so you don't buy this idea like I don't buy the idea that Obama had a nefarious plan to circumvent the agreement of not campaigning. I agree to disagree. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, Hillary was on national radio that aired in Florida...but now we're just splitting hairs.

marie - then we can only hope the judge or judges who hear the case are not activist partisan judges (funny about there probably not being a non-Repubican federal LOL)

If the dems win in Nov, we can only hope someone will replace Dean and actively shakeup the party and fix the rules so that next election will be run properly and in a democratic manner... unfortunately, a win is not likely to trigger change inside the party.

If they lose in Nov and the voting results show the division we are seeig now, I predict a major shakeup. We might even see a break along the same lines. The dems need to fix the party, put competent people in its administration, and heal the wounds. Sometimes I wonder if a Moderate party would evolve and grow to become the major party in the country.

"But the bottom line in it all is the simple fact that the date could not be changed without the legislature. They willingly sacrificed half their delegates in the Rep race so that they could cause havoc. How do I know this? I was told by Rep friends in FL who have been laughing since the date was changed. Do I believe them? Looking at the facts and the result - yes."

My repub friends laugh constantly about this. And whats more, the people have no clue how foolish this looks. They still think it's the DNC's fault. One of my friends has this laugh that echoes and I cringe whenevr I hear it.

"From the accounts of Gov. Crist, this time the voting went flawlessly!!"

Actually it didn't because the date that it was moved to didnt abide by the Major two political parties as stated in the law. In fact, I was wondering if I could sue the state for punitive damages in that they knowingly denied me representation in my parties primary election. You see, here's why I focus so much on what and how people are saying it. The state doesnt want to pay for another election even though it is their fault. Well, they deny me the ability to follow the rules of my party. Hence the cost of paying me and my fellow voters is more then the cost of getting everything right. Therefore it is in the State of Floridas best interest to get the primary done in a legitimate fashion; that is by following the rules.

DCV

I guess the appropriate Remedy rests with the People of Florida, as you suggest. And the People, i.e., the voters are not without power to effecuate this Remedy.

There have been far too many screwed up elections in FL. Mayhaps it is time the Voters down there hold their elected officials accountable at the Ballot Box.

They should Throw the Bums Out.

Will - if either (most likely yes) of them did campaign talk in the fundraisers no they did not violate rules on that part and I am not holding that against either of them.

With regards to your argument on whether Clinton would ask they be seated only after finding out how they voted... LOL.. you are misinformed there because when the states delegates were disallowed she stated she agreed not to campaign in them but expected that whomever the nominee is would ask their delegates to seat the FL and MI delegates at the convention because the voters voices should be heard and those states are needed in November. The point there being: she is loyal to the party winning in Nov and made those statements prior to knowing how things would turn out and prior to Obama campaigning in FL with his ads.

So I dont buy that argument. I will rephrase if you wish instead of saying "he knew" I will insert the implied words "I believe he knew"... remember winning elections is all about perception. Both names were on the ballot; FL has TV, cable, satellite, newspapers, and Internet; his campaign ads ran on TV before the vote; the voting results are considered legal and valid by the state per the Governor's statement (who is a Republican); and the turnout was twice as high as the last primary. It is clear the will of the voters was expressed.

"To override the National Parties' right to "manage their affairs," a state must present a 'compelling state interest.'

This is exactly the part I think they will use to get the votes counted."

I think the votes will be counted because the DNC doesnt want this snafu to boil over into a full-fledged catastrophe. This is like Hurricane Andrew, may even become a Katrina if they dont seat delegates. People will take it to heart.

Food for thought, for anyone wondering how the opposite side might feel.

"not seating pledged delegates" is to "Hillary supports" as "Hillary winning he nomination because of super delegates" is to "Obama supporters"

Both situations will create bitter feelings.

(for the record, I support super delegates choosing whomever they want, I just wish they would have shown who they support by now)

"Unfortunately, they need to choose a court that does not have a Republican judge I think. Why? Because the Republican party has a vested interest in the FL vote not counting in the dem primaries so that it stays Red out of anger."

So True, So True!

"Remember, it is the Republican controlled legislature that moved up the vote knowing it would result in this fiasco (same as MI) and the stupid actions of state dem committee was just a stubborn game of chicken with the DNC."

So True, So True!

"One day voters will wake up and get politically active and stop letting politicians disenfranchise them with their games."

Maybe some day, people will realize there can be more then one party.

DCVoter,

You don't get to pick your court when you are appealing from a particular federal district court. Here, the case must be appealed to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia. Now choosing a court with no Republican federal judges is funny. I do not think one exists. I don't worry so much about that. I worry that judges, no matter their political affiliation, will simply not want to get involved with the inner workings of any party. This is not about minorities being disenfrancised. Then they would step in. This is about Democratic voters in Florida being disenfranchised. The Equal Protection claim is there but not as forceful.

Note also, the Florida Democratic Party is a named defendant. They do have dirty hands in this so that is appropriate.

After the debacle in Florida with the historic hanging chads, this is simply a nightmare for that state. From the accounts of Gov. Crist, this time the voting went flawlessly!!

CG - the people who made the rules in the DNC are stupid. The state committees who played were easily goaded by the Rep controlled legislature into changing the date were stupid. Dean and the committee in the DNC that voted to remove delegates were "following established rules" instead of showing leadership within the party to fix the rules that have proven to be failed policy within the party. I make no bones about that.

But the bottom line in it all is the simple fact that the date could not be changed without the legislature. They willingly sacrificed half their delegates in the Rep race so that they could cause havoc. How do I know this? I was told by Rep friends in FL who have been laughing since the date was changed. Do I believe them? Looking at the facts and the result - yes.

Where does the responsibility lie? On the voters who elected the reps, on the party who failed to show leadership and competence, on the legislature who used partisan politics to play games and once again disenfranchise or corrupt a presidential election, and the courts if they fail to right this wrong that has been done to the voters. The parties are no longer the majority of voters. As the electorate has grown, the voters do not choose to register with a party - no big surprise why is there?

Florida will be under water in a few years,and all the rich republicans will have to move in with the poor democrats on the high ground. Don't worry the new beaches will be at the dems front door. I can't wait for the cat ,dog, and pony show!

"Will - both of them held private fundraisers which do not violate the rules and are not considered campaigning. There is a legal distinction."

Again, If you read what I typed below, the fund raisers do not violate the rules. I completely agree with this. I brought it up because someone said Hillary only showed up once to florida which is complete bull.

Now, since you're so adept at reading a persons mind as you state here...

"he chose to campaign in FL by running those ads. He is not stupid.. he knew there would be an effort to count the FL votes somehow someway."

One could argue, the Clintons, arguably the greatest political team in recent history, used the fund raisers as a campaigning tool. Legal in the eyes of the DNC rules, but campaigning tools nonetheless. Oh, you want to make Obama to be the bad guy in that he was told National Ads would not violate the agreement but the fact is Super Tuesday was coming up and the best way to get to so many states was through a National Ad Buy. If the Ad Buy wasnt allowed, then the credentials comitee could use that as reason to seat the pledged delegates. But, hmmmm, that isnt the case. Why, because they were ALLOWED!

Now, using your same logic of mind reading, Hillary knew she would be able to force the DNC to count the votes. So even though she was willing to honor the "no pledged delegate votes" before the election, she knew she could wait until the results were in to see if she would fight for them being seated or not. Not a very "Taking the High-Road" thing if it's only done to benefit yourself.

Oh, there are sound bites from before the election where she acknowledges the pledged delegates wouldnt count and yet you seem to believe she was for the votes the whole time. Get real! This was a situation that could have been dealt with in a timely manner beforehand. I only hope, in all this political outrage, people will pay attention in the future.

DCV says: "Republican controlled legislature that moved up the vote knowing it would result in this fiasco"

Why did all the FL state dem reps play along and vote in favor of the early date, too? Seems that they are complicit in this shenanigan. And what about all the Party Bosses, Fat Cats and other Superdelegates, don't they have some responsibility for the screw-up? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

BTW .... I put odds at 5 to 4 in favor of Team Hillary being successful. So you probably needn't be afraid of GOP appointed judges.

marie - thanks

To override the National Parties' right to "manage their affairs," a state must present a "compelling state interest."

This is exactly the part I think they will use to get the votes counted. Unfortunately, they need to choose a court that does not have a Republican judge I think. Why? Because the Republican party has a vested interest in the FL vote not counting in the dem primaries so that it stays Red out of anger. Remember, it is the Republican controlled legislature that moved up the vote knowing it would result in this fiasco (same as MI) and the stupid actions of state dem committee was just a stubborn game of chicken with the DNC. One day voters will wake up and get politically active and stop letting politicians disenfranchise them with their games.

Will - he chose to campaign in FL by running those ads. He is not stupid.. he knew there would be an effort to count the FL votes somehow someway. He used the national buy as an excuse to try to get an advantage on Clinton. There are other officials in the DNC who said he should not have been told it was ok. But the stupid DNC and state committees are so screwed up they have no clue how to run an election. The voters should not be penalized for their incompetence. Therefore the votes should stand as is since he did have an advantage by campaigning. The only reason he objects is because he did not get a majority of the votes like he wanted of course!

Will - both of them held private fundraisers which do not violate the rules and are not considered campaigning. There is a legal distinction.

The worst part to this whole thing, nobody wins. Not seating the delegates looks bad on the DNC but only proves how poor the leadership is. I understand why they had to take a firm stance, but they should have done something else like maybe strip the superdelegates of their vote And/Or maybe, only award half the pledged delegates their vote. But, the idea that people are going to be smart enough or committed enough to mobilize against their state legislators is beyond me. Even to this day, few people here in florida are aware who the real blame is.

Commander Guy wrote:

"Does the Constitution (FL or US) address political parties and the process through which a party nominates its representative? I checked Vote Smart, but couldn't find the answer"

Commander Guy, The National Parties have the constitutional right to manage their own affairs as guaranteed by the the Freedom of Association Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Needless to say that amendment does not describe their processes. To override the National Parties' right to "manage their affairs," a state must present a "compelling state interest."

Read the Order of the Court that I posted previously. Sorry it is long and margins are weird. That was the best I could do.

"Clinton and Obama both held fundraisers in FL. People who post online saying they saw them may or may not be honest."

Don't understand what honesty has to do with this since you acknowledge they both were holding fund raisers in Fl.

BTW, I think it was sometime in October that I saw her. She seemed to be very nice. I have to admit, I had that, "It's a real life Star" feeling when I met her.

"Before SC, Obama asked one of his supporters at the DNC if it was ok if he made a national ad buy since FL would not count and he was told it as ok."

...and your point? If they told him it was OK, then why wouldn't he run national ads before super tuesday. To reach as many states as possible.

"She chose to take the high road and honor her commitment to not campaign in FL."

The rules state, they werent supposed to campaign...how did she take the high road? I would continue, but you have obviously decided to spin this in some contorted way.

DCV

Does the Constitution (FL or US) address political parties and the process through which a party nominates its representative? I checked Vote Smart, but couldn't find the answer.

Clinton and Obama both held fundraisers in FL. People who post online saying they saw them may or may not be honest. We have no way of checking. But tou can guarantee Obama's camp or some reporter would have revealed campaigning if it existed. So I simply dont believe the people saying they saw her.

Before SC, Obama asked one of his supporters at the DNC if it was ok if he made a national ad buy since FL would not count and he was told it as ok. So he willingly chose to run campaign ads in FL because he did not have to choose to buy national ads. Even after he did this and many told Clinton that now she is free to campaign there since he violated the rules giving himan advantage if she doesnt.

She chose to take the high road and honor her commitment to not campaign in FL. She then took the time AFTER the voting to thank the voters of FL for their participation and their vote. She showed conviction, commitment, and good judgement. He showed sly political moves designed to skew the vote in his favor. Another demonstration of how he is not who he professes to be.

I anyone at all surprised a lawsuit is being filed against the DNC? I am not... I think the DNC was wrong to have the rules they have in the first place. Let the court decide if the stubborn people involved cant agree on their own when neither Dean nor Gore show any sign of leadership.

"Do you really think
America thirsts for your kind of leader-
ship?"

Considering the last 8 years, Yes. Or do you not remember how close the previous elections have been.

"As long as the DNC pays for the voting, they can do what they want."

Absolutely agree with you. People don't have a clue what it means to be a member of a party. Or how the party relates to the constitution.

"But in Florida Obama campaigned more the Hilary, remember he was showing TV ads there!

"Hilary only went there for a day."

This is complete bull. I saw Hill at least twice before the election and Bill once. Bill was selling a book, Hill was raising funds. Raising funds is not considered against the rules and so was the national bundle package that obama purchased not against the rules. Furthermore, I heard radio ads from Hillary on nationally sindicated radio stations. You are very misinformed on this matter.

"The vote should count as is."

Obama has proven, when he gets a chance to campaign...he raises his vote count. Out of all the resistance to truth I hear, this is one of the biggest ones. Can you deny has been running his campaign far more efficiently then Hillary? You seem to forget how important it is to get people out to vote as well as signing up people to join your party. His street team would get people out to vote for him and that is part of the equation as to how he is getting so many votes.

"Now Michigan is different since they both were not on ballot."

Hillary was on the ballot. In fact, they promised to remove themselves from the ballot. There is a sound bite of Hillary acknowledging that since the vote won't matter, taking her name off wont mean anything.

"Also keep in mind Florida had a record turnout due to an intiative they had on the ballot!"

This is true. People were there because of some very important issues on the ballot. I guarantee different results if they were to run another primary.

Food for thought... news stations...namely channel 7(fox), and channel 10(abc) reported about this fiasco well before the election. No one did anything about it. To blame the DNC for this is complete lunacy.

It doesn't matter which candidate "won" in Florida; party "officials" have no right to disenfranchise Florida's voters. This is just plain WRONG. The Michigan situation is even worse; Obama was not even on the ballot! How stupid is THAT?! I no longer support Obama, but he deserves a fair vote, and so does Hillary Clinton. The courts should throw out the whole mess and order Florida and Michigan to hold new primaries (NOT caucuses!).

Note, the complaint in Tampa was filed on 8/30/2007 and the Order of the Court dismissing the complaint with prejudice issued on October5, 2007. It is the appeal of the dismissal that will be argued today. So this complaint far preceded the closeness of this race on delegates. This was about inclusion of Fl voters, filed by a supporter of John Edwards. Here is the order of the court in Tampa:

1 See dockets 1, 10, 11, and 13.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
VICTOR DIMAIO,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO: 8:07-cv-1552-T-26MAP
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE and FLORIDA
DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
Defendants.
/
O R D E R
This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint and Plaintiff’s response.1 After careful consideration of the parties’
submissions, arguments, and the controlling law, the Court is of the opinion that the
motions are due to be granted. The Court is also of the view that allowing Plaintiff to
amend to cure the deficiencies of his complaint would be an exercise in futility.
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 1 of 13
2 See docket 1, Exhibit A.
3 See docket 1, Exhibit A, Rule 11(A).
4 See docket 1, Exhibit A, Rule 20(C)(1)(a) and (C)(5) and (6).
-2-
Consequently, the Court will dismiss the case with prejudice and direct the Clerk to enter
judgment for Defendants.
BACKGROUND
This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and
2201. Plaintiff Victor DiMaio (“DiMaio”) is a citizen of Hillsborough County, Florida,
and a registered Democrat. Defendant Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) is the
official representative entity of the Democratic Party which is responsible for
promulgating the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
(“the Rules”).2 Defendant Florida Democratic Party (“FDP”) is the official representative
entity of the Democratic Party in the State of Florida which is responsible for ensuring
compliance with the Rules of the DNC regarding the delegate selection process for the
2008 Democratic National Convention (“the Convention”).
The Rules of the DNC provide that no state presidential preference primary
election may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in
June, in the calendar year of the Convention, except for the states of New Hampshire,
Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina.3 The Rules further provide that the DNC may impose
sanctions for violations by a state of these rules, including the reduction or elimination of
the number of delegates to the Convention.4
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 2 of 13
5 See docket 1, paragraph 9.
-3-
In 2007, the Florida legislature amended section 103.101(a) of the Florida Statutes
to advance the presidential preference primary from the second Tuesday in March to the
last Tuesday in January. The amendment now mandates that “[e]ach political party other
than a minor political party shall, on the last Tuesday in January in each year the number
of which is a multiple of 4, elect one person to be the candidate for nomination of such
party for President of the United States or select delegates to the national nominating
convention, as provided by party rule.” On or about August 25, 2007, according to
DiMaio’s complaint, the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee voted not to allow the
State of Florida to seat delegates at the Convention because of the enactment of the
amendment moving the State primary to a date which violates the Rules, unless within 30
days the FDP moves its primary back at least seven days from the current January 29,
2008 date.5
ARGUMENTS
DiMaio argues that by refusing to recognize the results of the State of Florida’s
presidential primary election, held in accord with section 103.101(a), and by refusing to
seat the Florida delegation so elected, the DNC may or may not violate his rights under
Article II and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution. DiMaio further asserts that the FDP has an obligation to its members in the
State of Florida to ensure that they are represented at the Convention and are allowed to
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 3 of 13
6 This constitutional provision limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to actual
cases or controversies between enumerated entities.
-4-
participate in selecting the Democratic nominee for United States President. DiMaio
further posits that if the decision of the DNC does in fact violate his constitutional rights,
it would be appropriate for this Court to make a finding to that effect. In the alternative,
and if the Court finds that the decision of the DNC does not violate his constitutional
rights, DiMaio requests that the Court determine whether the FDP must implement an
alternative party-run delegate selection system which neither conflicts with the DNC rules
nor runs afoul of the laws of the State of Florida.
The DNC and the FDP, in turn, seek an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, based on DiMaio’s lack of standing
under Article III of the Constitution,6 as well as lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They
also contend, in reliance on Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that DiMaio
has wholly failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As noted, after
carefully reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court determines that DiMaio’s
complaint is due to be dismissed with prejudice.
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 4 of 13
-5-
ANALYSIS
In the words of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, “[s]tanding is a threshold
jurisdictional question which must be addressed prior to and independent of the merits of
a party’s claims.” Dillard v. Baldwin County Comm’rs, 225 F.3d 1271, 1275 (11th Cir.
2000). As the Eleventh Circuit has further explained, it is a doctrine that stems directly
from Article III’s case or controversy requirement and implicates a court’s subject matter
jurisdiction to such a critical extent that without standing a court is powerless to act. See,
e.g., Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 975-76 (11th Cir. 2005).
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136,
119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992), the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Scalia,
summarized its prior precedent in terms of what a plaintiff must establish at an irreducible
constitutional minimum to enjoy standing under Article III. First, a plaintiff must have
suffered an injury in fact which translates into an invasion of a legally protected interest
which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent as opposed to conjectural or
hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury of which the
plaintiff complains and the conduct of the defendant such that plaintiff’s injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged acts of the defendant and not the independent acts of a third
party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that
plaintiff’s injury will be redressed by a favorable decision from the court. The fact that a
plaintiff, such as DiMaio, invokes the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, in
support of relief from a court does not relieve him of the burden of satisfying the
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 5 of 13
7 See docket 1, paragraph 10 (emphasis added).
8 See docket 1, paragraph 13 (emphasis added).
9 See docket 1, paragraph 14 (emphasis added).
-6-
constitutional prerequisites for standing. See Emory v. Peeler, 756 F.2d 1547, 1552 (11th
Cir. 1985). Indeed, as noted by the court in Emory, § 2201(a) echoes the case or
controversy requirement of Article III and provides that a declaratory judgment may only
be issued by a federal court “[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . .”
Id. (citing § 2201).
Measured against these legal standards, DiMaio wholly fails to satisfy the
constitutional criteria for standing under Article III with regard to the first element. His
complaint does not assert any actual or real controversy with the DNC or the FDP.
DiMaio “posits” that by imposing sanctions on the FDP, the DNC “may be violating his
rights under Article II and the 14th Amendment.”7 Similarly, he alleges that
implementation of the DNC’s Rules “may or may not violate Plaintiff’s right to vote in a
Presidential primary election ....”8 DiMaio concludes by suggesting that, “if the decision
of the National Party violates the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, it would be appropriate
for this court to make such a finding.”9 These allegations amount to nothing more than
sheer speculation on the part of DiMaio that his constitutional rights are being violated.
Consequently, he is merely asking the Court for an advisory opinion with respect to the
actions and obligations of the DNC and the FDP. It is well-established, however, that
“[t]he federal courts established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution do not render
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 6 of 13
-7-
advisory opinions. For adjudication of constitutional issues, concrete legal issues,
presented in actual cases, not abstractions, are requisite. This is as true of declaratory
judgments as any other field.” United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U.S.
75, 89, 67 S.Ct. 556, 564, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947). The Court concludes, therefore, that
because DiMaio has no standing to bring this lawsuit, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction and is powerless to act. See Bochese, 405 F.3d at 974 (observing that
standing is perhaps the most important jurisdictional doctrine and as with any
jurisdictional requisite we are powerless to hear a case when it is lacking).
Even if DiMaio was able to make the requisite showing for standing, his complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In determining whether to grant a
12(b)(6) motion, a court should not dismiss a complaint if it includes “enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007) (dismissing complaint because plaintiffs had not “nudged their
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible”). In making this determination, a
court takes the well-pled facts of the complaint as true and construes the facts favorably
to the plaintiff. See 5A Charles A.Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 1368 (1990). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the
'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 127 S.
Ct. at 1964-65. To survive a motion to dismiss under Twombly, a complaint’s factual
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 7 of 13
-8-
allegations, if assumed to be true, “must be enough to raise the right to relief above the
speculative level.” Id. at 1965.
As previously stated, DiMaio argues that the actions of the DNC may be violating
his rights under Article II of the United States Constitution. However, no provision of
that Article confers any actionable right on any individual voter. Instead, Article II
directs state legislatures to determine the manner in which electors for the offices of
President and Vice President shall be appointed and provides the manner in which those
electors shall perform their duties. See U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, cl. 2.
DiMaio next argues that the DNC may be violating his equal protection rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. To that end, he
invokes the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Section 1343 is the jurisdictional counterpart
to claims brought under the nation’s federal civil rights laws. See Lynch v. Household
Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 92 S.Ct. 1113, 31 L.Ed.2d 424 (1972). It authorizes private
civil actions to “redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the
Constitution of the United States or by an Act of Congress providing for equal rights of
citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343(3) (emphasis added). Therefore, § 1343(3) grants to the federal courts jurisdiction
to hear only those “claims alleging official state deprivation of constitutional rights.”
Fountain v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 678 F.2d 1038, 1042 n. 7 (11th
Cir. 1982) (emphasis added).
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 8 of 13
10 See docket 1, paragraph 13.
-9-
In this case, DiMaio fails to state a cause of action because the DNC and the FDP
do not exercise any power conferred or delegated by the State of Florida; rather, they are
private actors. As the DNC and FDP correctly argue, the State of Florida plays no role at
all in the allocation or selection of delegates to the Convention. DiMaio himself even
alleges that the FDP remains free to run its own private, alternative process for allocating
and selecting delegates and, if that process complies with the DNC’s rules, the FDP will
be able to send a full delegation to the Convention.10 The DNC, in enforcing its delegate
selection rules, is simply refusing to recognize the results of that primary in the allocation
of delegates to the Convention. This does not amount to state action.
Finally, even if DiMaio could somehow overcome the standing and state action
requirements, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that national political
parties have a constitutionally protected right to manage and conduct their own internal
affairs, including the enforcement of delegate selection rules and the decision as to which
state delegates it will recognize, under the First Amendment’s right to freedom of
association, and that associational right generally prevails over any countervailing state
interest or the interest of any individual voter. See California Democratic Party v. Jones,
530 U.S. 567, 120 S.Ct. 2402, 147 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Tashjian v. Republican Party of
Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, 107 S.Ct. 544, 93 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Democratic Party of
the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette, 450 U.S. 107, 101 S.Ct. 1010, 67
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 9 of 13
-10-
L.Ed.2d 82 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 95 S.Ct. 541, 42 L.Ed.2d 595
(1975). In LaFollette, for example, the Supreme Court specifically stressed that “a State,
or a court, may not constitutionally substitute its own judgment for that of the Party. A
political party’s choice among the various ways of determining the makeup of a State’s
delegation to the party’s national convention is protected by the Constitution.” 450 U.S.
at 123-24, 101 S.Ct. at 1020 (footnote omitted). The Court in LaFollette also observed
that a state must demonstrate a “compelling” interest to warrant interference with the
party’s constitutionally-protected associational rights and that the State of Wisconsin had
not met its burden of establishing such a compelling state interest. 450 U.S. at 126, 101
S.Ct. at 1021. Therefore, in the absence of a compelling state interest, which in this case
DiMaio has not even alleged, the Court cannot require Florida delegates to the
Convention to vote there in accordance with the primary results where the primary
violates the DNC’s rules. In the Court’s view, and in light of the cited Supreme Court
decisions, the DNC can insist that the FDP choose delegates through a method that
complies with DNC Rules or else not send any delegates to the Convention at all.
Furthermore, DiMaio, as an individual voter, has no more right than the State of
Florida itself to compel the DNC to seat delegates in violation of its own Rules. See
Bachur v. Democratic Nat’l Party, 836 F.2d 837, 841-42 (4th Cir. 1987) (determining that
the voter’s right to vote for delegates was outweighed by the “broad, encompassing First
and Fourteenth Amendment protection enjoyed by the National Party” in the
establishment of delegate selection rules). Besides, DiMaio makes no allegation that he
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 10 of 13
11 Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of citizens of
the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Section 2 confers on
Congress the “power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
-11-
will not be permitted to vote. The State of Florida will hold its presidential primary on
January 29, 2008, and he will be entirely free to vote in that primary for the Democratic
presidential candidate of his choice.
Although DiMaio relies upon the Supreme Court’s holdings in Smith v. Allwright,
321 U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944) and Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, 73
S.Ct. 809, 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953), in asking the Court to declare the DNC’s actions
unconstitutional, his reliance is misplaced. The factual issues and questions of law
presented in this case are clearly distinguishable from those cases. Smith and Terry
involved claims that the rules of two Democratic parties in the State of Texas, which were
prescribed by the State, were racially discriminatory because they excluded blacks from
even voting in the party’s primaries and thus violated the Fifteenth Amendment.11
DiMaio, on the other hand, fails to allege that he will be barred from voting based on his
race or color and, furthermore, fails to demonstrate any state action. Instead, his
complaint merely sets out a speculative claim of unequal treatment based upon the DNC’s
refusal to recognize the results of Florida’s primary election and refusal to seat the Florida
delegation.
In closing, the Court would echo the words of the Supreme Court that this is a case
in which the Convention, and not a court, is the proper forum for determining this intra-
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 11 of 13
12 The Court is aware as a matter of public knowledge that another lawsuit was
just filed in the Northern District of Florida challenging the DNC’s decision not to seat
Florida delegates to the Convention selected in compliance with section 103.101(a). The
Court emphasizes that its decision in this case is framed only by the allegations of
DiMaio’s complaint.
-12-
party dispute with regard to the seating of the State of Florida’s delegates. See Cousins,
419 U.S. at 491, 95 S.Ct. at 549 (citing O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1,4, 92 S.Ct. 2718,
2720, 34 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1972)). In the Court’s view, and in light of the specific allegations
of DiMaio’s complaint measured against controlling Supreme Court precedent, it is a
matter of foregone conclusion that this Court is not the appropriate entity to decide
whether the Florida delegation to the Convention should be seated in the event the State
of Florida proceeds to hold its presidential primary on the date specified in section
103.101(a). See Wymbs v. Republican State Executive Comm. of Florida, 719 F.2d
1072, 1082 (11th Cir. 1983).12
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 12 of 13
-13-
ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1) Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Complaint (Dkts. 10 & 11) are granted.
2) This case is dismissed with prejudice.
3) The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, terminate any
pending motions/deadlines, and to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on October 5, 2007.
s/Richard A. Lazzara
RICHARD A. LAZZARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Counsel of Record
Case 8:07-cv-01552-RAL-MAP Document 18 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 13 of 13

Oh, what a wicked web we weave.

Another Florida voting fiasco is proof that America needs BINDING primaries (NOT caucuses) in EVERY state. The conventions should be done away with; they would be irrelevant if all the primaries were held on the same date and the decision of the voters were FINAL. The current situation is Florida SHOULD be unconstitutional.

lol @ people thinking the lawsuit will go anywhere.

SadState,
You make a good point, I don't know that these are Democrats behind this manuever. The Republican governor has been most annoying about tampering with the Democratic nominating process.

You heard it from me two weeks ago. The FLORIDA RE-VOTE TRAIN will not be stopped. This move ticks it forward. Those Democrats down in Florida appear to have some deep pockets. I always thought we were the po' party.

Karl and Ron,

Your diversion will not silence those who care about this issue. Go back to the Obama camp now. Run along...

I think the DNC needs to come down off their God Like Throne.

I beleive they are hurting the voter, through it all,And the party.

The suit was rejected at the District level in Tampa. I hope the Court of Appeals in Atlanta will do the same.

It's about time. I am ready to figh DNC. My vote has to count in Florida. Otherwise, John McCain has alots of new voters in November.

Jessy in Tampa

Jake-

How do we know from that article that this was filed by Democratic Lawyers? The suit is filed on behalf of a democrat, DeMiao who would like his vote counted. Perhaps the attorneys are Republican...Uhmmmm?

why shouldn't they I know I would be ticked off this is crazy Howard Dean and gang should be replaced what a sham this race has been and Nancy P shes worth nothing to this party or whats left of it.