I had to take a short sabbatical from blogging to attend to the realities of my life. The the uninitiated this is code for "I had to do the work that pays the bills". Last week that work was defending the tenure rights and due process rights of teachers in the event of a demotion in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Having completed that task I decided to squeeze in a quick blog. I have to tip my hat to people who are able to blog daily while still holding down a job. I became interested in blogging after attending a meeting in which a prominent female blogger spoke about the importance of female voices in the bloggesphere. It was after that talk and hearing from other women who had given blogging a try that I decided to take a turn at it as well. I have since discovered the pleasure and the agony of this form of communication. The upside is the opportunity for me to express my deeply held opinions and beliefs to an audience that consists of more than just my five year old daughter who appears to be fascinated always manages to bring the conversation back around to princesses and cookies. I have also had the opportunity to meet other like minded people. The downside is that not everyone is going to agree with your point of view and a thick skin is definitely a job requirement. The other challenge for a blogger is the desire to blog ahead of the main stream media. It is actually quite amazing how much of a delay there is between when stories begin to develop and when you actually hear about it on CNN or read it in your local paper. I would encourage anyone who has written or considered writing a letter to the editor to think about starting a blog. The only requirements are a computer, a Internet connection and a opinion. I found the tools here at www.blogger.com to be very user friendly but there are other ones.
Sphere: Related ContentTuesday, April 15, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
My Take on DiMaio v. the Florida Democratic Pary and the DNC
I know that it won't make the traditional list of things to do in Atlanta, but if you are in Atlanta you should definitely make time to stroll through the halls of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals located at 56 Forsyth Street. The grandeur of the courtroom with it's moldings, massive windows, and carved ceilings is truly an impressive sight. Unfortunately, they do not allow cameras in the courtroom and I am too lazy to go browsing the Internet for photos. I was in the 11th Circuit to hear the oral arguments in the case of Victor DiMaio v. the Democratic National Committee and Florida Democratic Party. The guy (Appellant) who brought the appeal is an active democrat from Tampa, Florida, Hillsborough County, who filed his suit prior to the January 29, 2007 primary. I had the opportunity to speak to him and he was a nice guy who seemed to have sincere intentions. The District Court in Florida dismissed Mr. DiMaio's case with prejudice for lack of standing (basically he was the wrong person at the wrong time) which prevented him from refiling his case. To over simplify the issue: at the time that Mr. DiMaio's filed the case he had not suffered any harm or damage because the primary had not occurred yet and he had not voted. In my opinion the District Court should not have dismissed this case with prejudice because once the election had occured and the Appellant had actually voted then he would have had a better case evidencing damage and consequently standing. I believe that this techinical problem with the case is actually the most important issue, however, it is the underlying facts surrounding the possibility of the Florida delegates not being seated that has drawn the national spotlight. The Court comprised of Justice Tjoflat, Justice Marcus and Justice Vinson heard the case and Counsel's arguments on standing which were brief and quite frankly uncompelling. There was a rush to get to the sexy stuff, an Equal Protection Argument. The oversimplification of this argument is that the National Democratic Party treated the democratic voters of Florida differently than democratic voters in other states, but then came the first body blow. The Appellant had to admit that the Florida Democratic Party never went to the National Democratic Party and asked for permission to hold it's primary on January 29, 2007. Then there was the admission that at some point in 2007 the National DNC made an offer to the Florida party to run a caucus primary which the DNC would pay for, moreover this offer was not made to any other state, notably Michigan. Kinda makes the Equal Protection Argument fall a little flat. Oh and by the way the State of Florida was not a party to this suit, which left me feeling as if all the talk about the Republican lead Florida legislature creating the problem was mostly rhetoric to explain having started a small campfire and found yourself in the middle of a forest fire you can't control and now you need someone to blame because you can't go back to your friends and tell them you burned down their tents.
The Florida Democratic Party did not escape completely unscathed but the court noted about ten minutes into their argument that they had made their case. This left about 10 minutes on the clock which went unused, in the world of appellate argument, that is like calling the football game at half-time.
You would have to have a crystal ball to guess how the court will rule, but given that it will likely be 4 -5 weeks before the court makes a ruling, I don't know if it will even matter in time for this election. I would put my money on the 11th Circuit finding that the Appellant did not have standing but that the case should not have been dismissed with prejudice, but rather that the case should have been dismissed without prejudice. This would allow the Appellant to re-file his complaint. I also predict that the court will not rule on the merits of the case, but the political pundits have mostly been wrong all year so I will be in good company if I am to.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
DiMaio v. Democratic National Committee and Florida Democratic Pary
On Monday, March 17, 2008 in Atlanta the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case of a Florida Activist, Victor DiMaio who brought a complaint against the DNC alleging that the DNC violated federal law or national party rules by deciding to take away Florida's vots in the national presidential nominating convention, as a result of the State moving its primary election up to January 29, 2008.
A wealth of information is available inclusing the briefs and other court documents at:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/DiMaiov.DemocraticNationalCommittee.php
I will hopefully make it into the courtroom to hear the oral arguments and will be able to blog about it later in the day.
