Nevada GOP's sundown caucus becomes raucous
Poll
 | 2 votes (15.38%) | ||
| | 1 vote (7.69%) | ||
| | 10 votes (76.92%) |
13 members have voted
This really bothers me. I think the constitution puts it quite well:
Quote: First Amendment -- United States ConstitutionCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Granted, this happened at the state level, and arguably outside of government, I think that NO branch of government or anything to do with government should show any favoritism towards religion. For this reason I always applaud when courthouses in the South are forced to remove memorials to the Ten Commandments. What we have here is the Nevada GOP saying you must be a member of a Sabbath-observing religion to caucus at a particular time. I would think that a political party would be respectful of the rights afforded us in the Constitution. This is yet another reason I'm drifting away from the Republican Party.
I might add another unfair thing about this is only Clark County residents were allowed to participate. If a Jew from Reno flew down for this he would have been turned away.
So, the question for the forum is what do you think we should have done in Nevada.
Quote: WizardYesterday was the Nevada caucus, which was held on a Saturday morning. In an effort to accommodate Sabbath-observing Jews, Sheldon Adelson (Venetian owner) and the Nevada GOP had an additional evening caucus, coincidentally near my home. However, initially at least, to participate one had to sign an affidavit stating that his/her religious beliefs prevented him/her from attending the caucus that morning.
This really bothers me. I think the constitution puts it quite well:
Granted, this happened at the state level, and arguably outside of government, I think that NO branch of government or anything to do with government should show any favoritism towards religion. For this reason I always applaud when courthouses in the South are forced to remove memorials to the Ten Commandments. What we have here is the Nevada GOP saying you must be a member of a Sabbath-observing religion to caucus at a particular time. I would think that a political party would be respectful of the rights afforded us in the Constitution. This is yet another reason I'm drifting away from the Republican Party.
I might add another unfair thing about this is only Clark County residents were allowed to participate. If a Jew from Reno flew down for this he would have been turned away.
So, the question for the forum is what do you think we should have done in Nevada.
I see your point, but basically a state party can already decide to apportion its delegates in an way it chooses to. Therefore I don't look at a caucus or a primary the same way I would a general election. You are playing the game that the party wants you to play, so they can make any rules they'd like. In 2008 (and perhaps again), Democrats had quotas that a percentage of each state's delegates had to be gay, or Muslim, or Asian, or other minorities. So basically, there was favoritism shown to certain groups (some religious) in their selection of delegates as well. Since those were the actual delegates to the convention and not merely a "middle man" type system like the NV Caucus, I think that was even more offensive than what happened last night. But it's their party, and they make the rules.
Quote: cclub79I see your point, but basically a state party can already decide to apportion its delegates in an way it chooses to. Therefore I don't look at a caucus or a primary the same way I would a general election. You are playing the game that the party wants you to play, so they can make any rules they'd like. In 2008 (and perhaps again), Democrats had quotas that a percentage of each state's delegates had to be gay, or Muslim, or Asian, or other minorities. So basically, there was favoritism shown to certain groups (some religious) in their selection of delegates as well. Since those were the actual delegates to the convention and not merely a "middle man" type system like the NV Caucus, I think that was even more offensive than what happened last night. But it's their party, and they make the rules.
That's true that the party can give its delegates to whomever it chooses. It is also true I may take under advisement their discriminatory practices when I vote.
Regarding the racial quotas for delegates, that bothers me too, but not as much. I think you're referring to just the actual people who show up to the convention. They are told who to vote for. That policy was for appearances only. It looks good on TV to have a mixture of color.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about either to understand the difference.
However, here's my opinions.
If residents for any county can go to the morning caucus in other counties, then the same should be true of the evening caucus.
If any county has a caucus at any specific time, then all counties should have one at the same time.
Both of the above opinions might be negated by my lack of understanding of what a caucus really is.
Most important, no caucus should be limited to any specific demographic group. To do so enables analysis of the data, putting the concept of a secret ballot at risk.
Personally, I strongly prefer a normal primary, where you can show up at a convenient time, and be in and out in minutes. The Nevada caucus takes about 90 minutes.
You did not quote the clause of the Ammendment correctly. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It is the part after the comma that judges trample all of the time, but that is for another thread.
A counter-argument could be made that by having the vote during the day there was an "Establishment Issue" as it was stating that Saturday voting was making some other day the Sabbath and Jews (and Seventh Day Adventists if there are any out there) were being discriminated against.
IMHO this was a fair balance to all. Caucuses take more effort and individual time than a primary. Weekends lets most people participate. Either Saturday or Sunday can conflict with Mass/Services/Temple/misc. By far, more people attend on Sunday so have the primary Saturday. So have the caucus saturday and accomidate the minority who have the religious issue. And they accomadates ONLY for the religious issue, not for someone who preferred to watch College Hoops.
The Jew from Reno would need to take it up with the Reno/Sparks GOP.
I got to head to work now but can follow up with my 2008 adventure.
Quote: AZDuffmanA counter-argument could be made that by having the vote during the day there was an "Establishment Issue" as it was stating that Saturday voting was making some other day the Sabbath and Jews (and Seventh Day Adventists if there are any out there) were being discriminated against.
I'm all in favor of enabling as many people to participate as possible. In this case, I have no problem with the Saturday evening caucus to enable the Sabbath observing to participate. However, as long as they are making that exception, it should be available to everybody. There are non-religious reasons as well why someone may have not been able to make the morning caucus. The door was specifically closed to them on religious grounds. That is what bothers me. You're not a Jew or Seventh-Day-Adventist (I've yet to meet one in Nevada)? Sorry, go home, you're not welcome to vote at this time.
Quote: WizardI'm all in favor of enabling as many people to participate as possible. In this case, I have no problem with the Saturday evening caucus to enable the Sabbath observing to participate. However, as long as they are making that exception, it should be available to everybody. There are non-religious reasons as well why someone may have not been able to make the morning caucus. The door was specifically closed to them on religious grounds. That is what bothers me. You're not a Jew or Seventh-Day-Adventist (I've yet to meet one in Nevada)? Sorry, go home, you're not welcome to vote at this time.
I lean toward agreement with you. I'm just going to play devil's advocate: If it was open to everyone, many more may have chosen to caucus then when they COULD HAVE gone earlier, whereas the Sabbath-observers couldn't have gone earlier. Perhaps they only wanted a smaller, extra caucus for that reason. If everyone had the choice to go later with no restrictions, they'd have to get lots of rooms and caucuses and moderators and spend more money. Looking back, they should have just made them ALL after sundown. If this becomes an issue, that's what they'll do next time, and more people will probably be unavailable.
But I do think the requirement shouldn't have mentioned Religion, but SHOULD have made the people swear that they were unable to attend any other caucus during the day.
Quote: WizardI'm all in favor of enabling as many people to participate as possible. In this case, I have no problem with the Saturday evening caucus to enable the Sabbath observing to participate. However, as long as they are making that exception, it should be available to everybody. There are non-religious reasons as well why someone may have not been able to make the morning caucus. The door was specifically closed to them on religious grounds. That is what bothers me. You're not a Jew or Seventh-Day-Adventist (I've yet to meet one in Nevada)? Sorry, go home, you're not welcome to vote at this time.
I think we will have to agree to disagree here. To me, voting is being made too easy in the USA, inviting voter fraud. And to me, primaries/caucuses should not be open to those not registered in the party. Open Primaries mainly invite mischief.
In this case they are saying, "here is the time we meet, if it is important to you to be there then be there." Remember, it is not a general election.
Quote: cclub79If everyone had the choice to go later with no restrictions, they'd have to get lots of rooms and caucuses and moderators and spend more money. Looking back, they should have just made them ALL after sundown. If this becomes an issue, that's what they'll do next time, and more people will probably be unavailable. But I do think the requirement shouldn't have mentioned Religion, but SHOULD have made the people swear that they were unable to attend any other caucus during the day.
Quote: AZDuffmanIn this case they are saying, "here is the time we meet, if it is important to you to be there then be there."
Two good points above. I agree that it would double the logistics required if the evening caucus were truly open to anybody. However, avoiding religious favoritism should take a higher priority to matters of convenience. For that reason, perhaps no evening caucus at all is the best option, all things considered.
At the risk of going off topic, would it violate the Sabbath to walk to the caucus?
Quote: Wizardperhaps no evening caucus at all is the best option, all things considered.
But then you'd be denying someone the ability to participate because of their religion. I really understand your discomfort with this setup, but I don't think it was nefarious. If some of the casinos got together and said "Can we have a casino evening caucus for our dayshifters?" I imagine a similar arrangement could have been made. Another reason for the sworn statement was to ensure that people didn't caucus twice in the same day...
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jan/30/spokesman-adelson-not-involved-scheduling-caucus-a/
Quote: WizardTwo good points above. I agree that it would double the logistics required if the evening caucus were truly open to anybody. However, avoiding religious favoritism should take a higher priority to matters of convenience. For that reason, perhaps no evening caucus at all is the best option, all things considered.
At the risk of going off topic, would it violate the Sabbath to walk to the caucus?
We do all kinds of things to help people vote. I think you are hung up because this is religious. Not to be offfensive to you, but this kind of thing is what makes religious people so defensive. People that will say we need to be tolerant of other views yet as soon as it involves religion, they say we can't have that. Early voting because people work; ballots in multiple languages; you name it somewhere they alllow it. But let it be about religion and then a different story.
Again, not saying you on all of it, just explaining it.
Now, onto the subject of the later.........
"Breaking the Sabbath" means different things to different orders of Jews. IIRC there are Liberal, Traditional, and Orthadox orders of Jews, and minor orders between. I have heard of Orthadox families where flipping a light switch is "work" and not allowed. I knew of a grocery store in a chain where I worked where they couldn't even have the non-kosher items in the same part of the storeroom as the regular stuff, and a Rabbi did spot inspections. Once at a Monte Carlo Night we were not allowed to start the games until sundown. Nice lady who ran the Bar Mitzvah was very apologetic and explaining, I simply said, "oh, I know the deal, sundown. Not an issue." She stressed it was "a few more tradidional members" who they needed to do it for. Point being don't expect similar answers, Judaism is not monolithic.
FWIW at another MC Night a Jewish Dealer explained to me that if a Jew goes to "Synagogue" they are more contempory and if they go to "Temple" they are more tradidional. But even then he said you cannot go by that alone.
Quote: cclub79But then you'd be denying someone the ability to participate because of their religion. I really understand your discomfort with this setup, but I don't think it was nefarious. If some of the casinos got together and said "Can we have a casino evening caucus for our dayshifters?" I imagine a similar arrangement could have been made. Another reason for the sworn statement was to ensure that people didn't caucus twice in the same day...
I want as many people who want to vote to get the chance. However, as I said before, avoiding religious favoritism trumps that. To me this would be as bad as restricting voting hours for Jews, and nobody would stand for that. Regarding no evening caucus at all, nobody is forced to stay at home for religious reasons. That is a personal choice.
Regarding the casino/day shift point, I would be fine with that as long as everybody had such access. The party should not be approving some groups and denying others.
Again, I think the best thing to do is scrap the damn caucus and have a primary, preferably that allows for absentee ballots.
Quote: WizardThat is a personal choice.
Saturday, Wiz, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that they don't work, they don't drive a car, they don't #$%&@ ride in a car, they don't handle money, they don't turn on the oven, and they sure as #$^ *don't %#&^%$ vote*! ;)
Edit: for effect
C'mon, I'm not the only one who thought of this, right?
I think it's kind of sketchy, too. I have no problem if they extended it a day or whatever, but that day should be open for everybody else as well. What's the big deal, anyways? If they can do it on Sunday, why can't they do everyone?
Walking to the caucus wouldn't violate the Sabbath per se, but attendance might. Certainly participating, which would involve speaking on a microphone, absolutely would. Heck, it might even without the mic.Quote: WizardAt the risk of going off topic, would it violate the Sabbath to walk to the caucus?
AZ's Bar Mitzvah story is typical of the varying amounts of observance as well as thehipocrach within the religion.
If it was such a big issue as she made it seem, the woman hosting that event should have not allowed AZ and his team in the building until sundown.
Quote: WizardSo, the question for the forum is what do you think we should have done in Nevada.
Nothing wrong was done here, the actions were NOT unconstitutional.
The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.
The questioned action did NOT cross the line; in essence it asked those who wanted to vote "after hours" to state affirmatively that they had a good reason not to vote earlier.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWalking to the caucus wouldn't violate the Sabbath per se, but attendance might. Certainly participating, which would involve speaking on a microphone, absolutely would. Heck, it might even without the mic.Quote: WizardAt the risk of going off topic, would it violate the Sabbath to walk to the caucus?
That's not entirely accurate. I had a couple of deeply Orthodox friends who walked to football games at our college on Saturday afternoons. Nobody had any problem with that.
And as far speaking on a microphone, the labor is in turning on the device, not using it. You can hear microphones being used in many large synagogues on any Saturday. Congregations hire non-Jews (Shabbos goy) to perform all the actual physical labor entailed.
Quote: SanchoPanzaCongregations hire non-Jews (Shabbos goy) to perform all the actual physical labor entailed.
Hypocritical ones do, anyway.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThis is fodder for an entirly different thread, but...
AZ's Bar Mitzvah story is typical of the varying amounts of observance as well as thehipocrach within the religion.
That is becoming a huge policy issue on the national level with Washington's ordering one religion that has very firm positions on birth control to issue contraceptives, despite the fact that many surveys show a preponderance of the members of the religion use them.
Quote: NareedHypocritical ones do, anyway.
Hypocritical how? Sounds more like tolerant ones that do it to me.
Quote: WizardA caucus is like a primary, but you're required to show up at a particular time. It is dressed up to look like a meeting, where participants can make a statement, but who cares about that? I'm sure sure everyone goes in knowing who they are going to vote for. Personally, I strongly prefer a normal primary, where you can show up at a convenient time, and be in and out in minutes. The Nevada caucus takes about 90 minutes.
The whole primary process seems out of whack to me. Granted they are not an election, but Florida decided to hold their primary on 31 January (which was forbidden by the Republican party). In punishment, the RNC will only count half their delegates.
So the Republican citizens of Florida are now voting two men = one vote in the primary. As a practical matter, it probably won't decide the nomination. But theoretically it shouldn't happen. There should be a lottery that determines when the states get to hold their primaries or caucuses. It should always be on a Tuesday, so there is no religious bias. It should be the luck of the draw if a big state like Florida gets the first primary. Possibly New Hampshire might end up in the final week.
Nevada almost moved their caucus to January (before Florida). But the Republican party promised preferential seating and hotel room at the Republican convention, so they agreed to move it to after 1 February.
Only 1.65 million people voted in the FL Republican primaries. Out of a state of 19 million people. That's a small fraction of the 4 million Floridians that voted for McCain in 2008. And their votes are only going to count for half as much as normal.
Forget the issue of Jews leaving their home to vote on Saturday. More people should be voting in primaries. They should experiment with voting by computer in primaries to work out the bugs and see if it can be adopted to the general election.
The whole process seems susceptible to corruption and favoritism.
Quote: pacomartin
So the Republican citizens of Florida are now voting two men = one vote in the primary.
Not really. There's no such thing as 1 man = 1 vote in primaries for either party. Delegates are assigned to each state based on a formula involving the number of elected Republicans in the state (Senators, Congressman, etc) plus bonus for winning a state in the Previous Presidential election (Missouri gets a nice bounce even though they barely went McCain in '08). Those are bonus delegates, NOT the same as super delegates that the Democrats had, wherein all of your Senators and Congressman were also delegates.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Alloc.phtml
2. First Amendment: Congress may not pass a law to endorse a religion and no law shall interfer with a person's practise of a religion.
3. No person should be forced to vote instead of going to religious services, whether it is on a Saturday or Sunday.
4. With the exception of Puerto Rico, which is not a state and has no voting rights, no state in the U.S. votes on a Sunday.
5. What outrage would there be if the voting was Sunday morning and the choice was between voting and religious services?
6. This is a fundamental problem with caucuses where you are forced in a short time frame to be there or not vote.
7. There is no reason not to have a 12+ hour voting window to accomodate LIFE.
8. Voting on Saturday discrimates and segregates all people who observe Saturday as the Sabbath.
9. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling has to do with the religious aspect of Ten Commandment monuments. The Ten Commandments as "historical and educational"
monuments with no religious connotations are legal.
Quote: AZDuffmanIOpen Primaries mainly invite mischief.
You'd love Minnesota's open caucuses. There's no party registration in MN, and the only rule is that each person can only caucus with one party. I'd expect a lot of left-leaning voters to attend the GOP's caucuses on Tuesday. Any kind of organized anyone-but-Romney strategy on their part would definitely benefit the Big O. But I'm probably just being fooling thinking that the left could be orgainzed;-)
Caucuses with a short timeframe are a very bad idea. Looking at who voted in NV's Caucus, it seems that either there are very very few Republicans in NV under the age of 45 or younger workers weren't comfortable asking off of work to participate. There were apparently about 6x more voters in the 45-65 demo than in the 18-45 demo.
I like Maine's system: Voting runs from 2/7-2/11. Votes from the caucuses are tallied over the weekend.
Quote: rdw4potusCaucuses with a short timeframe are a very bad idea.
Especially in Nevada. This is a 24-hour town with people working around the clock. The Saturday morning before the Super Bowl is a busy time and I'm sure a lot of votes were missed of those who had to work.
From the Wiz' description above, that is not what the affidavit asked.Quote: MrVNothing wrong was done here, the actions were NOT unconstitutional.
The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.
The questioned action did NOT cross the line; in essence it asked those who wanted to vote "after hours" to state affirmatively that they had a good reason not to vote earlier.
Quote: MrVThe questioned action did NOT cross the line; in essence it asked those who wanted to vote "after hours" to state affirmatively that they had a good reason not to vote earlier.
It did not in essence ask that. To caucus on Saturday evening one had to affirm they missed the morning caucus for religious reasons.
"Hundreds of people who crowded into the Adelson Educational Campus in Summerlin witnessed repeated clashes between local Republican party officials and would-be caucus-goers who resented being required to affirm their religious beliefs before being allowed to participate." -- LVRJ article.
That is pure and simple religious discrimination. I applaud those who attempted to caucus anyway for other reasons.
Quote: FaceSaturday, Wiz, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that they don't work, they don't drive a car, they don't #$%&@ ride in a car, they don't handle money, they don't turn on the oven, and they sure as #$^ *don't %#&^%$ vote*! ;)
C'mon, I'm not the only one who thought of this, right?
Haha, I had the same exact thought.
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I'M LIVING IN THE FUCKING PAST!"
FWIW I hate caucuses since you can't absentee vote. Now, to be fair, I didn't have such a strong opinion until recently I realized that I'm going to miss my local GOP caucus this year because I will be, ironically, in Las Vegas. But after reading up on it, I can't believe so many of our states still use this antiquated system. I do kind of like how it favors those who are more motivated and organized. It doesn't bother me that those who put forth more effort get to be counted. But the absentee thing is killer, especially considering all of our military brethren serving abroad who have no chance to have their voice heard in this important process.
Quote: AcesAndEightsBut the absentee thing is killer, especially considering all of our military brethren serving abroad who have no chance to have their voice heard in this important process.
In Nevada I believe there is an exception for the military serving overseas, and only them.
It seems to only catch Republicans.
Quote: AcesAndEightsFWIW I hate caucuses since you can't absentee vote. Now, to be fair, I didn't have such a strong opinion until recently I realized that I'm going to miss my local GOP caucus this year because I will be, ironically, in Las Vegas. But after reading up on it, I can't believe so many of our states still use this antiquated system. I do kind of like how it favors those who are more motivated and organized. It doesn't bother me that those who put forth more effort get to be counted. But the absentee thing is killer, especially considering all of our military brethren serving abroad who have no chance to have their voice heard in this important process.
I kind of think it is a quaint old thing, the caucus system and encourages actual debate. Dems go further in that direction with the "viability" rule but both systems make it more than some kind of run-off contest. OTOH, I understand the absentee thing and that if you have to work you are SOL for the most part. Perhaps Texas has the right idea, they do both a primary and a caucus and divide the delegates however.
Religious Jewish students will often be allowed to take the SAT and other tests on a Sunday if their rabbi writes them a letter. It's hard to say that is discriminatory.
Quote: teddysReligious Jewish students will often be allowed to take the SAT and other tests on a Sunday if their rabbi writes them a letter. It's hard to say that is discriminatory.
I've been thinking more about this. What bothered me before was that members of Sabbath-observing religions were given the opportunity to caucus at two different times, and everybody else once. That seemed like religious favoritism to me. However, I think an orthodox Jew would say he had only one opportunity because they take the Sabbath so seriously.
If I could be somehow convinced that somebody truly couldn't vote on a Saturday morning then I could take a special evening caucus a little better. However, I still resent being asked what religion I am. It seems so un-American.
A solution I think I would accept is that anybody wishing to participate in the evening caucus would have to supply documentation to show they could not have voted in the morning. A letter from an Orthodox Rabi would suffice. Another good reason might be work, in which case a letter from the employer must be submitted. The party should not have to scrutinize everybody's letter, but ensure nobody caucused twice. I think producing a letter says to me that going to the evening caucus was important to him/her, not just a matter of convenience.
