Bob Rae's delegate troubles and the Liberal Party rules
By my reading of the Liberal Party rules, Bob Rae's problems in British Columbia should not be so easily fixed as suggested by the news reports. Either the paper has it wrong, or the Liberal Party is giving Bob Rae a pass.
From the Toronto Star:
Liberal leadership hopeful Bob Rae's campaign manager in British Columbia has resigned over problems with delegate forms for the party's upcoming convention.
Mason Loh, a former Liberal party candidate and well-known political operative in the province, took the fall Friday after it was discovered that at least 37 nominated Rae delegates had not personally signed their own candidacy forms — a breach of party rules.
All of those forms had been handled by Loh or his operatives, said Bryan Baynham, legal counsel for the Rae campaign in B.C., and irregularities were also found in a "significantly larger" numbers of forms. As a result the Liberal party and the Rae camp decided to reject all candidate forms that were handled by Loh.
The problem is that this is against the rules:
9.3 Challenges. If a person entitled to vote or be elected as a delegate at the Meeting or any other interested party (who is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada) wishes to challenge any individual’s right to vote or to be elected as a delegate, then the member must do so before 5:00 p.m., local time, on Friday, September 22, 2006. Challenges may be made with respect to:
(a) whether the member has provided proof that he or she or a member of their immediate family has paid for their membership8 and whether that membership has otherwise been paid in accordance with the Constitution of the Relevant PTA or Relevant Commission;
(b) if the Constitution of the Relevant PTA or Relevant Commission provide for the signing of an application for membership, whether the member has signed an application for membership;
(c) whether the address shown on the membership list is accurate;
(d) whether the member resides at such address;
(e) where relevant to the class of membership, whether the age or birth date indicated on the membership list is correct;
(f) whether the member is a member of another federal political party; and
(g) whether any other qualifications under the Constitution of the Relevant PTA or Relevant Commission have been satisfied.
The deadline for challenges passed over two weeks ago.
Now there is the issue of the replacements:
None of those delegates will be allowed to attend next month's convention. However, there are Rae alternates to replace them in all but a couple of ridings so the immediate impact on the race may be negligible.
But according to the rules:
13.2 Promotion of alternates before the Convention. Where any delegate notifies the General Secretary in writing signed by the delegate on or before 5:00 p.m., Ottawa time, on November 23, 2006, that the delegate does not intend to attend the convention, then the General Secretary or their designate may, if practicable prior to the opening ofregistration:
(a) cancel the delegate’s certificate of election;
(b) determine the identity of the person who:
(i) sought election from the same body;
(ii) was not elected as a delegate and has not already been promoted to delegate;
(iii) declared in their “Notice of Intention to Stand” support for the same Leadership Contestant as the delegate they are replacing;
(iv) satisfies all the following criteria:
(A) is a youth, if the delegate position was for a youth;
(B) is a senior, if the delegate position was for a senior;
(C) is a woman, if the delegate position was for a woman;
(D) is a man, if the delegate position was for a man;
(E) received more votes than any other person in the same demographic category who sought election from the same body but was not elected as a delegate and has not already been promoted to delegate;(c) declare such person elected as a delegate and issue a certificate of election; and
(d) forthwith make reasonable efforts to notify him or her of this change of status.
The key thing is that alternates are there to replace legitimate delegates who are not able to make it to the convention, not bogus delegates.
That makes sense -- alternates are not an insurance policy for cheaters. If Bob Rae's delegates have to be thrown out, those votes are gone.
So what happens if, after the deadline for challenges has passed, it is discovered that some of the delegates were ineligible. By my reading, the Appeals Procedures applies:
14.1 Decisions made in the delegate election process, including the results of a Meeting, may be appealed to the Permanent Appeal Committee in accordance with its rules.
14.2 An appeal to the Permanent Appeal Committee may only be commenced by notice of appeal in writing received not later than 72 hours after the time fixed for the commencement of a Meeting (or such longer time as the rules of the Permanent Appeals Committee may allow) or, if a decision is made outside a Meeting context, not later than 72 hours after the decision requiring review has been made (or such longer time as the rules of the Permanent Appeals Committee may allow).
14.3 Decisions of the Permanent Appeal Committee are final and not subject to appeal.
14.4 The Permanent Appeal Committee has all the powers necessary to give effect to its decisions, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the powers to postpone a Meeting, declare a Meeting void, order a new Meeting, declare persons ineligible to vote at a Meeting and declare a nominee duly elected at a Meeting.
Notice that according 14.4, the Permanent Appeals Committee does not have the power to appoint alternates. A nominee delegate is either declared elected, or not. Or a whole new meeting might be called.
By my reading of the rules, the most likely outcome for Bob Rae is that he will lose these delegates altogether. Now 37 delegates might not seem like a lot. But where there are 37 problems, there may very well be many more.
More interesting, though, is that the rules are very explicit. That suggest one of three possibilities:
- I've completely confused the rules, and Bob Rae's alternate delegates can step in.
- The report is wrong, and Bob Rae is in deeper trouble than we think.
- The report is right, but so am I. That would mean that the Liberal Party is changing the rules to give Bob Rae a pass.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
these guys are so crooked they can't even run a convention with out trying to steal something!
Posted by: the bear at October 8, 2006 08:54 AM
It was my understanding that the challenge deadline was cited as the reason for clearing Ignatieff of any claims of having signed up Dead Liberals.
It wouldn't appear that the rules completely foresaw the specific situation being claimed in BC (i.e. where a candidate, not a challenger, withdraws the eligibility of a delegate), so the Party might well be allowing some "creative" application of the alternate-delegate rules to fill in the gap. That itself is not entirely unreasonable (that is, dealing with unforeseen circumstances).
Posted by: Paul O at October 8, 2006 09:56 AM
Well, you can't say the Rae campaign isn't kicking back as hard as they can, to deflect the attention somewhere else. I'm actually a little surprised they haven't tried to blame this on Stephen Harper.
"Another former Liberal cabinet minister, Lloyd Axworthy, has crawled out from the dark, damp basement of obscurity to gorge on the flesh of a Liberal leadership candidate."
Posted by: neo at October 8, 2006 10:36 AM
Demarais want Rae as leader, so Rae will be leader--end of story>
Posted by: George at October 8, 2006 01:56 PM
The leadership constitution has lots of grey areas which aren't covered very well. Nobody really understands it all.
My guess is that those 37 will be declared inelligible and those spots will go as vacant Rae spots. Now, each candidate can back-fill up to 2 spots per riding, so I don't see why he wouldn't be able to fill most of them that way. If he did that, it would probably still cost him, but maybe only 10-20 instead of the 37.
Posted by: UWHabs at October 8, 2006 03:12 PM
Go for it Bob - I am looking forward to my Rae days again and I still cant find a family physician since you cut back medical school enrolments during your reign of terror in Ontario!
Posted by: Independent Voter at October 8, 2006 05:47 PM
so, the liberals, left of center. but are they your enemy? i am a leftist, but i know most american conservatives don't want me to die because of my beliefs. why are we each other's enemies? we can't even have solidarity with our own citizens/cityoens? what good can come of such enmity? even if we disagree with each other, does that necessarily mean we are each other's enemies? i am 22 yo, and i don't understand this malevolence. God save us from ourselves.
Posted by: ryan at October 8, 2006 10:08 PM
To ryan:
Why are we each other's enemies? I don't think we are, but too many of us (and I include myself in that "us" from time to time) sure behave as if we are. I think it all boils down to good, old-fashioned, human nature, which is something that curses all of us, no matter where we sit on the political spectrum (for myself, I'm a card-carrying Conservative). You're right, we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable, and I'm going to try to do better myself.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at October 9, 2006 12:09 AM
Well said Brian - we seem to be adopting the American style of politics - left against right.
Its no wonder that a lot of Canadians are voting with their feet, particularly among younger Canadians.
I catch myself doing the same thing, particularly with the Liberals who cost me a very good position in the Federal Civil Service because of their draconian "Official Bilingual Policy" which the Conservatives seem to be following.
Posted by: Undecided voter at October 9, 2006 01:55 PM
I'm an American and I resemble that remark!
There's nothing wrong with partisanship. I prefer sharp differences to the mushy middle. The problems here in America come from the RINOs not the conservative Republicans; or from the DLC not from the socialists. With the the sharp differences you know what you're voting for. Vote for a RINO or DLC candidate and you will get something entirely different.
Posted by: Jack Wayne at October 9, 2006 03:53 PM
I think I'm insulted by that remark of Undecided's. I think by Canadian law, I am deserving some reparations...or perhaps I'll just claim some land for my own....
From what I have seen, Canadian politics has been and is as partisan as our own. U.S. liberals, and the Democrats in particular, have become shrill because they haven't found their way thru minority status yet. Of course, they may take the House back! GASP! That would put a ripple in Hillary's plans, wouldn't it!
Another part of the situation is the emergence of talk radio as a force. This has given conservatives a voice, as well as some kooks on the right and left (e.g. Air America, which is infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Mike Savage, who is insulting, devisive and wacky at times, but also has some things correct). What talk radio and the cable news channels have done is make the MSM less important in our lives. It has also brought to light how slanted news reporting can be. Someone wrote that even though Walter Cronkite was a liberal, he tried to keep it out of his reporting. Most of the time he succeeded.
I don't know that I agree with that, but more often now, the news reporter does have an agenda, and thanks to the dumbing down of America, he is more obvious about it.
Actually, I like to read about Canadian politics, because some of it is just so fantastic. Canada is the only place that Native Indians (First Nation people for the PC'ers) could just seize land purchased from them and make the government buy it back. That wouldn't happen in the U.S. Even if the Dem's were in control, we'd send in the SWAT teams to kick them out.
I am rambling, but I guess that my real point is that before you go pointing fingers, perhaps you should clean up your own house. In other words, Undecided Voter, the pot (you) just called the kettle (the U.S.) black....
Posted by: cincimaddog at October 9, 2006 09:37 PM
I think I'm insulted by that remark of Undecided's. I think by Canadian law, I am deserving some reparations...or perhaps I'll just claim some land for my own....
From what I have seen, Canadian politics has been and is as partisan as our own. U.S. liberals, and the Democrats in particular, have become shrill because they haven't found their way thru minority status yet. Of course, they may take the House back! GASP! That would put a ripple in Hillary's plans!
Another part of the situation is the emergence of talk radio as a force. This has given conservatives a voice, as well as some kooks on the right and left (e.g. Air America, which is infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Mike Savage, who is insulting, devisive and wacky at times, but also has some things correct). What talk radio and the cable news chaneels has done is make the MSM less important in our lives. It has also brought to light how slanted news reporting can be.
Someone wrote that even though Walter Cronkite was a liberal, he tried to keep it out of his reporting. Most of the time he succeeded.
I don't know that I agree with that, but more often now, the news reporter does have an agenda, and thanks to the dumbing down of America, he is more obvious about it.
Actually, I like to read about Canadian politics, because some of it is just so fantastic. Canada is the only place that Native Indians (First Nation people for the PC'ers) could just seize land purchased from them and make the government buy it back. That wouldn't happen in the U.S. Even if the Dem's were in control, we'd send in the SWAT teams to kick them out.
I am rambling, but I guess that my real point is that before you go pointing fingers, perhaps you should clean up your own house. In other words, Undecided Voter, the pot (you) just called the kettle (the U.S.) black....
Posted by: cincimaddog at October 9, 2006 09:42 PM
Ryan's comments sound like Rodney King's plaintive, "Can't we all get along?". Never have, never will. That's the political way.
Posted by: mike s at October 10, 2006 10:37 AM
Undecided voter suggests: "Its no wonder that a lot of Canadians are voting with their feet, particularly among younger Canadians."
Younger Canadians are rightly apathetic because voters can no longer discuss anything interesting such as natives, muslims, immigrants, or homos. What's left to argue about? Medicare? Senate reform?
It's now way more fun to snort Ritalin and stand on the road.
Posted by: JJ Joseph at October 10, 2006 01:14 PM
Don't get excited, Buffalo Bob will not be the leader of the Adscam party, Iggy is da man. They're playing a game, all for show, to make it appear legit and not what it really is, a coronation.
They still would like to reincarnate Pierre Trudeau, so Iggy is the closest they could find. Some obscure, mysterious person who has no political experience and hasn't even lived in the country for over three decades, makes sense in the Liberal world.
Posted by: Biddy at October 10, 2006 07:26 PM
 
|
|
