David,
I believe what you are proposing with regard to the election of delegates to the Mpls
DFL City Convention requires a constitutional ammendment to theM
pls DFL Constitution. I'd start by getting a copy of the constitution from the
chair of the Mpls DFL.
Each election cycle the local party unit, (Mpls DFL) usually sets up a constitution
committee for the city convention that is charged with
reporting to the convention any proposed constitutional ammendents
for consideration by the city convention. I believe that might be the proper course
of action to pursue to achieve your goal of changing the delegate
election process.
Of course I could be wrong, but that's how you would go about it if you lived in St.
Paul.
P.S. to supplement the attempt to change the constitution you could also draft a
precinct caucus resolution in support of the proposed constitutional ammendment. It
couldn't be decided at the precinct caucus level but it would be a way to build
support and visibilty for the ammendment.
Dennis Hill
St. Paul DFL Ward 2 Co-Coordinator
>Second, Fredric hits on a longstanding major gripe of mine: that the DFL
locks in its 2001 delegates at its 2000 (presidential or legislative year)
caucuses. This means any candidate not organized two years before election
day (i.e., many non-incumbents) can't influence the party endorsing process
by getting their grass-roots supporters to become delegates. (St. Paul, on
the other hand, picks new delegates during the city election year.)
Although at the major-office level, the DFL endorsement process is wheezing
like a dying man, it still has great influence at the council level. It has
always seemed to me a violation of the DFL's alleged grass-roots ethos to
lock in its selectors so far in advance. I suppose the argument FOR doing so
is that attendance is higher during even-numbered years. But in a state
that's justifiably proud of its same-day voter registration, it seems
ridiculous to shut down city council delegate selection 11 months before a
city election year even begins, and 21 months before the election itself.
(I've always hoped some new Democratic voter who just hit town arrival would
sue the party for disenfranchisement, since the rule is also in effect a
residency requirement mandating that you live here in February 2000 to
decide the party's nominee in 2001. But I admit this is only symbolic, since
the party has wide latitude to make its own rules.)
I've always believed these restrictive rules exist to protect incumbents and
insiders who show up annually. I think it is one reason the DFL is not as in
touch with the electorate as it should be.
I'm pondering offering a resolution at my local caucus to change the
practice. Of course, one resolution at one caucus won't do much. Anyone have
advice about how to make a bigger impact?
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
**************************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments have been scanned for viruses.
NDIS/ADCS University of Minnesota
**************************************************************************
