OK, the Rules Committee is meeting (again?) next week. And, again, we are talking about "changing the rules." The question is, what were the original rules, have they ALREADY been changed, and can/should they be changed again.

The following is my off-the-cuff-and-on-the-side research and framework for a resolution. In keeping with my journalist background, I have periodically tried to flesh out some of the gaps. In keeping with my political background, I have also brought this to the attention of people on several sides of this intra-party squabble and have brought it to a couple of media outlets, because I thought it could provide a basis for moving towards resolution.

At this point, I am interested in getting feedback on these comments. And, if anyone can fill the gaps or correct any errors, please do. (ping DNC members!).
*********
As we know, the Democrats (and the Republicans) wanted to protect and control the caucus/primary calendar. The Democrats' efforts began (this cycle) with its "Call to Convention," setting forth rules and procedures. In addition to the calendar restrictions, this document set out THE PENALTIES for states that violate the calendar.

Here's the "Call to Convention" (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf)
Rule 20.C.1.a. (on page 24) has to do with challenges for "violation of timing". It states that if a state moves up (or back) its primary/caucus in violation of the desired calendar, the penalty SHALL BE a reduction of the pledged delegate allocation by 50% (exactly what the RNC did to FL and Mich.). And, no unpledged delegates ("super delegates") may vote.

So, did the DNC violate its own rules by ENTIRELY cutting off Florida and Michigan? More likely, the DNC legitimately voted to change the penalty to ZERO delegates. So, even if I'm missing something and the DNC didn't violate the rules, couldn't this be the basis for a resolution - "falling back" to the original rule?

Please note, I have sought, but have not yet seen, the minutes of DNC meetings, at which actions may have been taken to change Rule 20... or Rule 11. (Rule 20 refers to Rule 11, which sets forth the acceptable time frames for the delegate selection process. Interestingly - and perhaps, importantly - Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (but NOT Nevada) also were in violation of Rule 11; so, there likely WAS some subsequent action to permit those three to move up, to refuse Michigan and Florida, AND to change the punishments.

Sure, Rules can be changed. But, the committee that promulgated the initial rules - and the DNC that approved them - initially thought that a flat refusal to seat any of the delegations was TOO PUNITIVE. That might form the basis for returning to the initially-approved penalty of 50% reduction.
*******
So, go ahead and let 'er rip.