Genuine Question re: DNC MI/FL legal memo: If the 50% sanction is mandatory...

    By azpaull on Thu, 05/29/2008 - 4:56pm |
    I haven't had a chance to fully analyze the DNC legal memo that is setting up the Rules & Bylaws Comm meeting, but a nagging question keeps popping up:

    --If the RBC can only reduce the 100% sanction re: MI&FL to the 50% sanction that was "automatic" under the Call To Convention, why wasn't that 50% mandatory sanction applied to the other states that moved in front of the Call To Convention calendar?  New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina (but not Nevada) ALL moved their primaries/caucus ahead of the Call To Convention calendar.--

    The legal memo seems to state that the RBC's hands are tied because of the automatic/mandatory sanction.  What I am unclear on is whether the RBC removed that sanction from IA/NH/SC at that 12/3/07 meeting. 
    Anyone?

    (The memo does seem to answer many of the gaps in my previously-posted analysis - http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/change-the-rules-which-rules-a.php .  I touched on the IA/NH/SC issue in that post, but the new memo seems to bring it to the forefront.)

    Latest Comments