home

Hearing Thursday on Nevada Teachers' Union Suit

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:20:00 AM EST
Tags: Nevada 08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: A federal judge will hear arguments Thursday in the case.

In other Nevada news, the Las Vegas Review Journal will endorse Barack Obama. In 2004, the paper endorsed George W. Bush for President.

***

The Las Vegas Sun in an editorial today backed the lawsuit brought by the teachers' union challenging the at-large caucuses established in Las Vegas strip hotels.

As we see it, the caucuses were moved up so that all labor organizations and minorities in the state could get a bigger say, not just the Culinary Union.

Background here.

< Las Vegas Dems Debate: Post Debate Thread | Why Obama, And Democrats, Won The Debate >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hearing Thursday on Nevada Teachers' Union Suit | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:43:54 AM EST
    Regardless of the merits or motives behind the lawsuit, I can see how the at-large districts could create tension between the gambling industry and other folks.  If I had to work on a Saturday and couldn't caucus, I'd be pretty pissed that casino workers got taken care of by the state and I didn't.  

    I don't know much about Nevada, but I've lived in places dominated by an industry and it's a love-hate relationship, particularly if you're not involved in the industry.  You love the money the industry brings in, but you resent the influence they have.  

    casino workers and food-service workers (none / 0) (#2)
    by noodles on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:15:17 AM EST
    The at-large caucuses empower casino WORKERS not the "gambling industry" and I'm at a loss to see how this isn't simply a cynical attempt at voter disenfranchisement from the pro-Clinton crowd.

    I bet you could see it (none / 0) (#3)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:43:55 AM EST
    if you had to work that day but were not offered an at-large caucus.

    In addition, awarding delegates to the 9 casino at-large caucuses based on the giantic numbers of empolyees voting, dilutes the average neighborhood caucus delegate count.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#10)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:44:28 AM EST
    the at-large caucuses benefit the workers and I don't have a problem with those workers participating.  I think it's a better system because of it.

    But I don't think it's a coincidence that the folks who were accommodated happen to work for the most powerful industry in the state and those who weren't, don't.  

    So, while I think trying to make it so casino employees can participate is a good thing, I also think if I were someone who had to work and couldn't participate because I didn't get the same accommodation, I'd be very angry.  

    The lack of absentee participation and the limited hours of participation is one of the biggest problems with a caucus system.  Those problems are aggravated in a state like Nevada.  It's idiotic.

    Parent

    The way things look (none / 0) (#4)
    by koshembos on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 07:26:22 AM EST
    Democracy is quite a complicate creature. The casino poll places may be as honest and right as probably intend to be (allow casino workers, which are way more numerous than just the CWA, to caucus comfortable), but unions removed from gaming may not feel this way. I find it difficult to blame them for this discomfort.

    Since almost everyone is a sport fan, think about home court advantage. Would you give it away?

    Did you read the LVRJ endorsement of OBAMA (none / 0) (#5)
    by sammiemorris on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 08:21:42 AM EST
    http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13832767.html

    it's full of a right wing talking points blasting the Democrats, but particularly the Clintons.

    The endorsement of Obama revolves more about his likability than his pledge to bring change. According to the paper change = welfare state.

    Frankly, it would be an endorsement that I would repudiate.

    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:47:03 AM EST
    They endorsed Bush in 2004.

    There are many ways of interpreting all this Obama love from conservatives - they think he's the weaker candidate for the GE, they hate Clinton, they like some of his rightwing talking points, they genuinely like him - but whatever it may say about Obama, it definitely says that the Republican field is weak.  Incredibly weak.

    Parent

    Good grief! (none / 0) (#9)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    How could anyone consider this an endorsement!?!  Absolutely I would repudiate it, too.

    Parent
    That's an endorsement... (none / 0) (#14)
    by desertswine on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:36:43 PM EST
    like a slap in the face is a kiss.

    It's kind of like "let's pick our favorite disease."

    It's the worst "endorsement" I've ever read.


    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    Apparently the Obama folks have now realized that and have now taken it off their website.  Good for them.

    Here's Jon Ralston's take (via Taylor Marsh).  A sample:

    They could have been more patronizing. They could have been more disingenuous. They could have been more cynical (Just read the opening sentence.).

    But I don't see how.

    Neither do I.

    Parent

    Thursday (none / 0) (#6)
    by commissar on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:17:13 AM EST
    I'm quite certain the hearing is on Thursday.

    The LV Sun reported it that way; presumbly the "tomorrow" in your linked article is meant to be read by people today (Wednesday).

    That LV Sun editorial (none / 0) (#7)
    by commissar on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    didn't even mention (not a word) about the "late in the day" aspect of the suit. It might or might not be determinate, but it at least merits a passing mention in an editorial that wants to be seen as remotely plausible and fair-minded.

    BTW, I'd be interested in Jeralyn & Armando's legal view on 'laches,' 'estoppel,' and why/why not they are relevant to this suit.

    I noticed no one's undies were in a twist (none / 0) (#8)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 09:35:55 AM EST
    ...when the unions were up for grabs.  Now that they've endorsed Obama, suddenly it's not fair!

    Of course I'm assuming the same lawsuit would have been filed regardless of who was endorsed, I just find it silly that all the candidates waited until after the endorsements to say, "hm...maybe this isn't a good idea..."

    John Kerry points out the undie twisting... (none / 0) (#13)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    Just found this

    Parent
    DNC opposes voter suppression (none / 0) (#12)
    by commissar on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    Not kidding. DNC weighs in against the lawsuit.

    They were for (none / 0) (#16)
    by katiekat489 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:57:58 AM EST
    it before they were against it. The Clintons that is --but oh no  Obama gets the nod from the union and now it is wrong.This was decided months ago with the approval of all candidates.Question--if the endorsement came in for the Clintons would they be squealing like stuck pigs as they are now.?Case in point--Bill's little tirade in Oakland today.Give me a break.If they win this  they will lose even more ground.John Kerry has a good post on this and it is worth a read.

    Hearing Thursday on Nevada Teachers' Union Suit | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment