Court rules FL primary lawsuit as "moot". Activist will take it to the Supreme Court.

[madfloridian]

How long does a lawsuit go on like this? I have been writing about it since 2007. The Tampa activist said he would continue on with it, vowing to take it to the Supreme Court.

Court rules Florida primary challenge "moot"

ATLANTA - A frustrated Florida Democratic activist plans to appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals panel dismissed his claim that the national party improperly stripped the state of its delegates to the national convention.

Victor DiMaio had asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule that the Democratic National Committee disenfranchised Florida's voters by taking away the state's delegates last year when Florida Democrats defied the party by scheduling their presidential primary before Feb. 5.

A three-judge panel ruled Friday that the challenge no longer needs to be resolved, and that if the Democratic National Committee adopts a similar rule in 2012, critics could file another lawsuit then.

DiMaio, though, said he hopes the nation's top court will ultimately clarify whether the party had the right to make the decision.

DiMaio said last year he would use Rule 11 to continue on to the Supreme Court. This is getting a little tiresome.

Suing the DNC for reverse discrimination

After a failed lawsuit in August 2007 against the Democratic National Committee, Attorney Mike Steinberg and political consultant Victor DiMaio filed an appeal to get Florida delegates seated at the DNC convention in August. They spoke today at the Hillsborough Tiger Bay Club in Tampa.

Steinberg says he and DiMaio have filed an amended complaint as part of their appeal.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no federally funded organization can discriminate based on race. What Steinberg and DiMaio discovered was that Democratic primaries in Nevada and South Carolina were allowed to occur before the window of other primaries because of their racial demographics.

If they lose the appeal, Steinberg has a backup plan to use Rule 11, which would take the case out of circuit courts and move immediately up to the Supreme Court.

There is one also filed against the State of Florida about the primary fiasco. It was filed by DNC member, Jon Ausman. I am not able to find updates on it yet. His lawsuit questioned if the state were engaging in "unconstitutional meddling in the party primary process."

[davepc]

1. maybe time to give it up already and address the issue through the party chair now.

[madfloridian]

4. It's not an issue that can be addressed that way.

Not through just one person. Since Obama controls the DNC now, it should be easier to deal with.

Axelrod is really the top of the chain of command, next to the WH.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/3478

Yep, let Dimaio just sit down with now and get his way of involving the courts in party business.

[bluestateguy]

2. In the "I have no life. I have nothing better to do with my time" category

The Court should mess with him and issue an order immediately restoring all Florida delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

[tekisui]

3. The Supreme Court will dismiss it on the grounds of being moot as well.

[madfloridian]

11. I hope so.

It's gone on too long.

[gratuitous]

5. Florida knew the rules, assented to the rules, then broke the rules

They were penalized for breaking the rules they knew were in place and that they voted to approve. What's the beef? As a private entity, the Democratic Party is not subject to the Civil Rights Act anyway. Steinberg and DiMaio are getting bad advice from their attorneys, who must be pocketing . . . oh. Nope, they're just stupid.

[madfloridian]

10. Good points.

It was pretty clear what was happening. :hi:

[Jim Lane]

6. I don't support this suit but I'm surprised they considered it moot

There's an exception to the mootness doctrine. If you read Roe v. Wade you'll find more discussion of mootness than about reproductive rights, because the woman who brought the case was no longer pregnant by the time it reached the Supreme Court. Under the basic doctrine of mootness, that fact would mean that the case should have been dismissed.

In Roe v. Wade, however, the Court did consider the merits. The reason was the exception to the mootness doctrine for issues that are "capable of repetition but evading review". The typical timetables of human pregnancies and human (or at least U.S.) lawsuits are such that any errors in the lower courts would evade Supreme Court review because the woman involved would have had an abortion or given birth by the time the Supreme Court could hear it. Therefore, the Supreme Court took the case, and has taken subsequent abortion cases under similar circumstances, so that it could provide guidance for the lower courts hearing future such cases.

In this instance, according to the linked article, the plaintiff filed his suit in 2007. It was dismissed because he lacked standing, not yet having voted in the primary. If that's the rule, however, then the issue is indeed one that would evade review. He can sue about the 2012 primary but the Democratic National Convention will be over and done with by the time the case could reach the Supreme Court. In fact, the time lag from the Florida primary to the Convention would be about the same as the time from a woman's discovery that she's pregnant to her giving birth. On the analogy of Roe, he should be able to pursue this case now.

That way, the DNC can make its rules for 2012 knowing what the law is. If the law is "You have to let each state pick its delegates whenever it wants to," then at least Florida won't get an advantage over all the states that comply with some kind of rational schedule. Florida will move to early February to have more influence, other states will move ahead of Florida to have more influence, New Hampshire will move to December to preserve its first-primary-in-the-nation status and keep its influence, Iowa will move to November to stay ahead of New Hampshire and keep its influence, some other state will cut in ahead of Iowa to have more influence, and Congress will have to act to stop the whole silliness. Congress should expressly empower the DNC and RNC to referee the scheduling and to penalize noncompliant states. Even better, Congress should set up a system of rotating regional primaries, but that might be too big a change to hope for.

[madfloridian]

7. The courts should NOT decide party business.

Why do you want the courts involved in party decisions?

This should have been left alone and both FL and MI should have followed the rules they voted for in the party.

[Jim Lane]

8. You misunderstand me.

I wouldn't go so far as to endorse a blanket statement that the courts should never be involved in party decisions. For example, parties were prohibited from holding "whites only" primaries, clearly a correct decision. In this particular case, however, I said that I don't support the suit. I agree with you that the parties should be free to set scheduling constraints and to penalize the states that don't comply (even states that voted against those rules).

What I said was that, IF the courts are going to deny that power to the parties, then it's better that they do so well in advance of the primary season, as opposed to doing so during the run-up to the conventions. Therefore, they shouldn't dismiss this suit as moot. They should reach the merits and rule on it. I hope they reject the plaintiff's argument, but even accepting the plaintiff's argument, if that's their decision, would be less objectionable if done in 2009-10 than if done in the summer of 2012.

[madfloridian]

9. Thanks for clarifying.

Guess I misread.

It was a trying time here during that time. Hard to believe this lawsuit is still going on.

:hi: