[Edit: 5pm: This story has been updated with additional information and a statement from the Secretary of State.]
When Rhode Island Board of elections chose to open only 144 of the state’s 419 polling stations for the April 26 primary, some cried foul. The move was seen by some as an attempt to stifle voters who might turn out for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton. (On the Republican side, a Donald Trump victory was never in question.) RI Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Platform Committee, was cast as a political insider working for the Clinton campaign, though all polling locations were and are determined by local municipalities and the RI Board of Elections.
With the release of a giant crop of leaked DNC emails from Wikileaks, Gorbea appears to be exonerated from the charge of electioneering. However, the emails do seem to indicate that operatives within the Democratic National Committee were interfering in the election on a national level, placing more than a thumb on the scales in Clinton’s favor, even as they attempted to manage the public’s perception of their interference. Favoring one candidate over another is a violation of DNC rules.
The Wikileak emails show that ahead of Bernie Sanders’ big win in the Rhode Island primary, highly placed operatives in the Democratic National Committee were worried about the optics of the RI Board of Election’s decision to not open more than a third of the polling places, mistakenly believing that Gorbea was the one who made the decision.
On April 25 DNC Deputy Communications Director Eric Walker wrote to his boss, Luis Miranda, “Bernie leads Hillary by 4 in the latest poll. If [Clinton] outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They’ll probably complain regardless, actually. We might want to get out in front of this one with an inquiry to [Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo], even though she’s one of ours.”
By “one of ours” let’s assume Walker simply meant, “a Democratic governor”.
The next day was April 26, the day of the actual primary. Having been informed by DNC Northeast Regional Political Director Erin Wilson that, “We’ve got a pretty close relationship with Nellie,” Walker suggested contacting Gorbea directly.
“Was thinking a letter so that if press asks us about it, we can show we are responsive and active,” wrote Walker, “If we’re crying foul in AZ, we might need to do the same – at least nominally – in RI so we don’t look like hypocrites.”
This prompted DNC National Political Director Raul Alvillar to write, “I am fine with that. Before we do that we should talk to [Gorbea] to get all of the details.”
Walker responded, “I would like to be on this call, but first, I don’t think we even need a statement. We just need something to cover ourselves.
“I think when we start getting inquiries, if we have a letter to the [Secretary of State] that we can point to, it will show that we are engaged and that we don’t just pipe up when it’s a Republican administration closing poll locations.
“We can make the point to reporters individually off the record that it’s not apples and oranges: Arizona more serious because the state was covered under [Voting Rights Act] and has had a history of problems – Rhode Island doesn’t have those same historical issues.”
The primary in Rhode Island was in full swing just before 1pm when Erin Wilson came back with more information. “[Pratt Wiley, DNC National Director of Voter Protection] and I were reminded that in RI, the Secretary of State doesn’t manage elections, but they’re run by the Board of Elections that are appointed by the Governor. Apparently the number of polling locations they’ve opened are consistent with the numbers opened in 2008 and 2012, and they’ve also increased the number of poll workers, ballots and booths to accommodate any unexpected surges. For example they’re telling us that they printed 300K ballots for an expected turnout of 180K. Again, these decisions are made by the Board of Elections.
“The Secretary has been traveling to polling locations all morning/afternoon and they haven’t seen any issues. Apparently the longest wait they’re seeing is 25 minutes.
“So, if we do write a letter, it would need to be to the Board of Elections. I’d be a little cautious about pulling the trigger on it too soon. Can we give some of this info on background to show we’ve made inquiries to the state if we start getting calls and then punt it back to RI?”
Eric Walker, now having been in contact with Gorbea, writes, “To be clear – no inquiries yet, but RNC will be pushing it.
“Pratt just swung by my desk – [Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea is] ready to go on record with these points defending their approach, which is good.
“I think that if DNC press office gets inquiries about hypocrisy between AZ / RI then we can direct them to RI [Secretary of State] comment, and explain on background that it’s not as dire as AZ and that RI doesn’t have the same VRA baggage.”
The final email on Wikileaks regarding the issue came from DNC National Political Director Raul Alvillar, who wrote, “Perfect. This is good.”
Of course, the entire issue of whether or not the Board of Elections declined to open more polling stations to favor Clinton in the primary went away when Sanders clobbered Clinton, taking 55 percent of the vote. This upset caught local machine Democrats completely off guard and surprised national pundits.
From reading the emails, it seems clear that Gorbea answered concerns from the DNC and coordinated a response to criticisms of the Board of Election’s decision as to the number of polls to open, but no evidence of outright collusion for the purpose of electioneering can be seen in them.
According to Nicole Lagace, Senior Advisor and Communications Director to the Secretary of State, “The DNC reached out to Secretary Gorbea on April 26 to inquire about the decreased number of polling locations in Rhode Island for the Presidential primary. We explained that we do not oversee polling locations and that was the end of that correspondence.”
[Andrew Stewart contributed to this reporting.]
]]>
The Democratic National Committee got underway at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia this afternoon. In one of the first — and potentially most contentious — meetings, the Rules Committee was scheduled to consider, among other items, a proposal to eliminate superdelegates.
In advance of the 1pm meeting — which staff members said was already running 45 minutes late because of a pre-briefing — there were at least 100 would-be audience lined up in the hallway of the convention center outside room 120, waiting for seats. The press was held behind a barrier at the end of the hallway, waiting
One of the folks waiting for a seat was Rhode Islander David Segal, the executive director of Demand Progress, who said he was there to support the superdelegates proposal.
“The main thing I’m here for and have been organizing around is the superdelegates issue. It wouldn’t affect who’s credentialed at this convention,” said Segal, “But going foreward, the only delegates would be pledged delegates based on the caucus and primary processes that map to popular support.”
Asked how important it was to have a Rhode Island delegate on the Rules Committee, Segal replied, “Very important because of who that delegate is — we have a principled organizer in Aaron Regunberg.” Regunberg’s efforts had helped to “his presence has done a lot” to facilitate support for the proposal, Segal said.
At about 1:30, members of the press were admitted, with the meeting already in progress.
]]>
This country has a problem, and it’s a big one. Our democracy is being corrupted by those who are supposed to champion it. Sadly, it is a problem that has been exacerbated by the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. And it is killing the party.
This year’s presidential primary campaign is case in point. The debates are meant to showcase the Democratic candidates, and the Democratic Party. Wasserman-Schultz’s obvious allegiance to front runner Hillary Clinton is preventing the American people from getting an opportunity to really hear all of the candidates.
To put it bluntly, the debate schedule is a complete farce. Never have there been debates scheduled at such inappropriate times. Democrats should want to showcase our candidates. The contrast with the Republicans are stunning. Why would the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee not want people to see these debates? The only reason that Wasserman-Schultz could possibly have for doing this is to prevent candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley from having a truly national forum to promote their issues, viewpoints, and differences with the other candidate.
The proof is in the numbers. The Republican debates, which have been shown in the middle of the week, have averaged 18.3 million viewers, while the three Democratic Debates have averaged just 10.7 million viewers. Even Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii), a vice chairwoman of the DNC questioned Wasserman-Schultz about the lack of debates and was subsequently disinvited to attend the second debate. If the goal of Wasserman-Schultz is to prevent the American people from learning about the candidates, then she is doing a bang up job!
Along with the debate times, there is the threat that Wasserman-Schultz has placed on the candidates who participate in more debates not sanctioned by the DNC. If they take part in any other debates, they will be banned from participating in future Democratic debates. This of course hurts the campaigns of Sanders and O’Malley the most. This is not how a democracy should work.
And then there is the drama of the “untimely accidental breach” by the DNC’s campaign data management company NGP VAN. Instead of doing the right thing, Wasserman-Schultz again attempted to circumvent democracy. The contract, which is signed by the candidates and the DNC, allows the candidate accused of breaching voter information 10 days to investigate, report, and resolve any issues. Bernie Sanders and his campaign were more than willing to abide by that, and they emailed the DNC with their intent to perform a full investigation. But instead of working with Sanders, Wasserman-Schultz went nuclear. She shut off the Sanders campaign’s access to the most fundamental tool of any campaign–the voter file. Think about that for a second. She prevented the Sanders campaign from accessing their own data, data they paid for. Because this was illegal, the Sanders campaign had no choice but to sue. Soon after the lawsuit was filed, the DNC caved and restored the voter file.
In the latest news, the DNC and DWS has awarded Kroll Industries, which is owned by Altegrity, which is owned by our very own Providence Equity Firm, which was bought for over a billion dollars back in June 2010, the honor of doing the “independent” investigation. [Note: Providence Equity Partners no longer owns Altegrity or Altegrity’s subsidiary Kroll, because Altegrity went bankrupt this year. The new name for Altegrity is Corporate Risk Holdings, and it still owns Kroll but is now independent from Providence Equity Partners. See here and here.] Kroll’s history is one of dubious distinction. They have been described as a sort of “private CIA for the Powerful” and they have Goldman Sachs and Chevron written all over them. With a history of falsifying data and illegal wiretapping, Kroll’s is exactly the agency who should not be doing the investigation, hardly independent. There are also direct ties to the Democratic National Committee. The former Deputy Finance Chair for the DNC, Betsy Blumenthal, is now the Senior Managing Director for Kroll Industries. This in itself may be a conflict of interest.
Additional information can be found with the below links.
This whole debacle undermines the Democratic Party. People are sick and tired of the antics of the Chairwoman. In a Moveon.org petition over 55,000 people have signed asking for Wasserman-Schultz’’s resignation. She is alienating new voters and those who are voting for Sanders. And she has definitely put a wedge between the party establishment and its liberal base. This is not what makes a healthy primary campaign or a healthy party. For the sake of both, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz needs to be replaced as soon as possible.