A quick review of why Michigan moved up its primary date:

In 2000, Representative Dingell and Senator Carl Levin went to the DNC to discuss moving up the date for the Michigan Primary. Both were promised by the DNC, the issue would be addressed. In 2003, Carl Levin threatened to move up the date of the Michigan Primary to coincide with the New Hampshire Primary. Carl was talked out of it by the Democratic National Committee and he relented. Both Dingell and Levin were promised a commission would be established to review adding states to the earlier part of the campaign. Out of the commission study and in 2007, came a Nevada Caucus and a South Carolina Primary. While not happy, Michigan agreed to keep their February 9th date as long as New Hampshire and Iowa did not move their dates up. When New Hampshire moved their primary date up, the Michigan legislature moved its date to January 15th.

As Rep. John Dingell stated:

"We tried to stay within the rules"

"We tried. But Iowa and New Hampshire have a hold on the whole thing. What you have with Florida and Michigan are two states who've said, Enough is enough!"

*************************

I am not sure what games are played at the DNC level; but, it is apparent that the DNC chose ignoring Michigan over everything else both now and in the past. Governor Granholm endorsed the "primary revote" and the Democrat controlled House did follow suit in Michigan. As expected, the Republican controlled Senate in Michigan has ajourned without taking up the matter of a "primary revote." It has done so in the hopes of creating Michigan into a swing state for McCain. The lever to swing the state Republican, which the Republicans will use, is Obama’s opposition to a "primary revote" in Michigan and the earlier elected delegates. What most people do not understand is the split in Michigan politics. There is a strong grass roots for Republicanism outside of Ann Arbor and Detroit, one which has kept the House of Representatives 50% Dem and 50% Repub in Washington.

What about a privately funded "primary revote?" Why not? The cries of buying an election are silly at best. The primary election is run by the state and falls under all state voting laws. The same issues that exist in a state run national election would exist in a state run primary election. The chances of vote fraud are what they are in either case. Funding of the election has no impact on validity or legality. The real issue is not to allow Michigan to be come a swing state for McCain and pushing him over the top for the Presidency.

Obama has reconciled with white America for a Reverend who has shown a vehement dislike of whites and Jews. Many have called Wright's comments racist; when in large part, they skirt the issue of racism. By dismissing Wright from his campaign and disavowing his statements, Obama has eliminated a future issue in the run for the presidency. The same as Kerry ignoring Detroit in 2004, Obama is making a similar, much publicized, and potentially more costly mistake of turning his back on the State of Michigan. A state which has the highest unemployment rate in the country, is the only state that never came out of recession for 8 years, has one of the highest concentrations of Afro-Americans outside of the South, has a high concentration of those living in poverty, has a nation that continuously ignores a major city needing federal aid for reconstruction, and is one of two states losing population (3%) because of the economy. Yet Michigan is a state that still has voted Democrat in the last 4 elections while the other states in question have split. Michigan is looking for a candidate that will pay attention to its issues beyond corn fed beef, ethanol, and rocks. It may be that Obama believes he can win the election without the State of Michigan. I tend to believe the election will be close for either Democrat Candidate against McCain.

It would be smart for Obama to reconsider his stance on Michigan.

Why Michigan challenged 'rules'

Political leaders in Michigan and elsewhere have long questioned the stranglehold Iowa and New Hampshire have on the presidential nominating process. In most election years, the candidates seem to spend more time in those two states than in all the others put together. The early states usually pick the party nominees, leaving the large majority of states with little influence in this critical national decision.

This year looks different: We're seeing one of the most inclusive nominating contests ever, with voters in every state having a real say in the outcome. But 2008 is the exception that proves the rule: The system remains deeply flawed. The story behind the Democratic National Committee's decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates shows why.

Back in 2004, Michigan Democrats considered taking the Iowa-New Hampshire issue to the party's national convention, but we agreed instead to the creation of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling to examine the process. After a year of study and public hearings, the commission expressed "serious concerns that Iowa and New Hampshire are not fully reflective of the Democratic electorate or the national electorate generally — and therefore do not place Democratic candidates before a representative range of voters in the critical early weeks of the process."

A crucial change was recommended:

• That additional states join Iowa and New Hampshire in holding early primaries and caucuses,
• and that New Hampshire's primary be the third or fourth contest.

In 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule providing that four states — Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina — could hold their presidential primary or caucus in January, with the rest of the states following. The rule dictated that the early states hold their contests in a specific order — with New Hampshire coming third — and no earlier than designated dates between Jan. 14 and Jan. 29.

While Michigan Democrats were disappointed that our state was not selected for one of the four early contests, we appreciated the new rule for adding a bit of much-needed diversity to the early nominating process and as a first step toward breaking the Iowa-New Hampshire lock. We announced that we would abide by the new calendar provided that other states did the same.

But last August, the New Hampshire secretary of state indicated he was going to schedule his state's primary before the date specified, clearly defying the sequence and timing the party had set. Michigan Democratic leaders repeatedly asked the Democratic National Committee if it intended to penalize New Hampshire for this violation, but the committee refused to act.

Rather than allow this broken system to persist, we challenged it by deciding to apportion our delegates according to the results of a primary scheduled by the Michigan Legislature for Jan. 15.

The Democratic National Committee proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. It gave New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. But Michigan and Florida, which had also moved up the date of its primary, were denied waivers. When Howard Dean, the party chairman, says that states should not be allowed to violate the rules, he ignores the fact that when the committee itself decided not to follow the rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present impasse.

Under pressure from New Hampshire and the other early states, the Democratic presidential candidates did not campaign in Michigan or Florida. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and three other candidates withdrew their names from the Michigan primary ballot. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and three others did not. The committee has so far refused to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations to the national convention.

Together with other Michigan Democrats, we are working to make sure our state's voters are not disenfranchised by unfair enforcement of the rules. We are looking for a practical, secure and fair way to redo our primary vote. It is in everyone's interest that the Michigan and Florida delegates be seated without a convention floor fight. But we are ready to take our strong case to the convention if need be.

We have not endorsed any presidential candidate; we only want to ensure that the Michigan delegates are seated at the convention and that the nominating process is reformed for future elections. Fairness and rationality in our nominating process are far too important to sweep under the rug for yet another election cycle.

U.S. Sen. Carl Levin

D-Detroit

Debbie Dingell

Member, Democratic National Committee

March 23, 2008