Pledged Delegate Switcher May Lose Seat

Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson, who is a pledged Clinton delegate from Maryland, is the first to announce that he will switch his support to Senator Obama.  This is significant because he is not a Superdelegate who has the liberty to switch positions, but he is a pledged delegate who was elected on an oath to vote for Senator Clinton.

He the first pledged delegate to publicly switch before convention - he may also be the last.

This was an ill-advised move not just because it breaks the pledge Mr. Johnson took earlier this year, but because there are safeguards built within the Democratic Party rules which allow campaigns to protect their delegates.  Mainly, each campaign may review its delegate lists and scratch people off who they think are at risk of not upholding pledges.

When a delegate is elected at a district level organizing meeting, there are also alternate delegates elected.  The alternates are selected as back-ups in case the chosen delegate cannot attend the convention, or in case the campaign scratches a delegate from the list.

Looks like an alternate just got bumped up to delegate status in Maryland.

UPDATE:  Looks like Johnson may be safe afterall.  I've checked with a member of the DNC rules committee, and the following opinion was delivered:

I believe that once elected, that's it.  He stays.

 

BECAUSE, the rules say no delegate can be forced to vote against his or her conscience.  I believe the last time they could do what you're saying was in 1980.

 

Additionally, Clinton has been saying they are not bound.  It would be a PR nightmare for her to remove him.

Additionally, Matt from DemConWatch believes that the provision to strike names from district level delegate lists is only valid prior to district-level elections.

Comments

[Shock Mouse]

Given how many times Clinton herself has sad pledged delegates aren't bound, this is pretty funny.

[Chris O.]

It is some rather amusing karma for the Clintons, but I'm glad that this guy will most likely lose his seat, because pledged delegates should stick with who they pledged for until that candidate releases them.

Incidentally, if anyone remembers the Boston legal episode a while back about Shirley suing a pledged delegate, this fact would totally negate the whole premise of the episode.

[Roehl Sybing]

I'm guessing Maryland is more the exception than the rule when it comes to state party rules disciplining faithless delegates, considering what Hillary has said about pledged delegates. Otherwise, why hasn't she been called out on this?

[Tony in MI]

This is good news. The pledged delegates should not change their vote unless there is significant reason.

Jack Johnson might be just seeking headlines.

Or perhaps he wanted to undermine HRC's claim that "There is no such thing as a pledged delegate" as she sought to get pledged delegates to change their vote to her.

[J S]

Perhaps there is an argument to be made here. My assumption is that the rule allowing pledged delegates to vote against their pledge on the first ballot was put into place for one specific purpose: To allow the Democratic party to replace a presumptive nominee in the unlikely eventually that he (or she) disqualifies themselves in some way between the primaries and the convention. (I'm thinking something like Gov. Spitzer in NY, not that another candidate is polling better in August.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here's a case that can be made:

Sen. Clinton isn’t just playing the voters, she's playing a fair number of the Superdelegates as well. She knows that the party needs her to play nice to win in November, so Clinton knows there is no one to stop her pushing the envelope as hard as she can to stay alive, and hope to stumble on an argument or issue that makes traction. Or more likely sets herself up for a run in 2012. (I know, I know, but in Hillary’s “Fantasyland” you can always figure out a way to B.S. you way back into peoples’ good graces later)

Because the remaining Supers are afraid of making enemies of the Clintons, they have sat back and let her say that McSame is more qualified to be CiC than Sen. Obama is, that Obama isn’t a Muslim “as far as she knows” - and that only she can win over those (white) hard-working, (white) swing-state, (white) big-state, white voters. The Supers have sat back as the Clintons partnered with FOX news and Richard Mellon Scaife against the all-but presumptive Democratic nominee. The Supers have also sat back and let her demagogue Florida right into Republican hands, and let her ram the Rev. Wright and ‘bitter’ issues down voters’ throats - AGAINST A FELLOW DEMOCRAT. (A fellow democrat that has been very reluctant to attack someone from his own party, I might add.) The Supers have even sat back as Clinton shill George Stephanopolis introduced the last two shreds of Clinton opposition research into the legitimate media under the guise of a “debate”.

Because the Supers are afraid of making enemies of the Clintons, Hillary and Bill know that they can continue poisoning the well against the most transformative politician of this generation without penalty, and keep doing it until the last primary has voted on June 3rd. Then it will be up to Sen. Obama to try and pick up the pieces and organize a national campaign on-the-fly.

So maybe Jack Johnson was just showing some leadership.

[Eddie in ME]

He can't lose his seat. The campaigns are only allowed to vet the lists of delegates before they are actually elected. Once elected, they have no way to remove them.

[GCG - Austin]

Hmmm, while the conspiracy theorist in me is really uncomfortable with the DNC's position on this, the realist in me thinks that this is largely a non-issue. It would take a mobilization on so many fronts in order for someone to "game" the system using this approach.

While I don't like that someone is changing their vote, and in such a public way, perhaps he thinks he is is doing what some democratic leaders are suggesting to the supers: start to bring the party together to heal so we can win this thing in November.