As I responded to comments on my piece (Through A Delegate’s Eyes) and did more research on various aspects of this whole story, there was something that kept gnawing at the back of my brain. Now that that the dust has (somewhat) settled, I’m able to identify what it is. It’s the realization that no one in that room expected that Clinton would win. No one.

Let’s backtrack. The procedures of the Caucus to the Convention process can be somewhat convoluted but the point of the State Convention is fairly simple.

Determine the allocation of the 12 remaining Delegates — 5 Party Leader Elected Official (PLEO) Delegates and 7 at-large Delegates

Vote in County break-off groups for the National Committeeman/Committeewoman as well as the Executive Board members by County.

Vote, according to your Presidential preference, in District break-off groups for the actual people who will fill the pre-allocated National Delegate slots.

Return to the full group to vote for the Platform.

Vote , according to your Presidential preference, for the actual people to fill the 12 at-large Delegate slots.

That’s a lot, but that’s it. It should have been a long but straightforward day. And knowing how the Sanders campaign had dominated in the County Conventions, I knew (and they knew) that they had a lot more Delegate slots. The chances of Clinton getting at least a 50.1% majority was, ironically, mathematically improbable. And indeed, it took filling 98% of her Delegate slots to Sanders filling 78% of his slots to win by a 33 Delegate margin. Keep in mind, Sanders had more Alternates as well since the campaigns were allowed up to half of their Delegate targets in Alternates. Sure, the campaigns would probably know who had registered online but to be counted as a Delegate or an Alternate, the person had to get their Credentials either on Friday night or Saturday morning. I suppose one could argue that the numbers on Friday night would be indicative of the outcome but since such an extreme turnaround would require nearly all of Clinton’s Delegate slots to be filled, it’s hard to accept that anyone on Friday night could predict a Clinton win.

So I think you can effectively argue that the Sanders campaign fully expected to be in the majority at the State Convention. And that, if they got lucky, they could have a significant majority.

Now I, like most other Delegates for both Sanders and Clinton, was focused mostly on the numbers. As I said, I didn’t expect Clinton to win but I hoped to keep the margin close — erroneously thinking that the 12 would be divided accordingly. As I have said, I didn’t realize that a 50.1% win would essentially be worth 2 delegates since the the 12 Convention-decided Delegates were divided into odd-numbered groups. So to me, these distractions about the Temporary Rules and the calling for the ouster of Roberta Lange were just the result of a segment of the Sanders misunderstanding what was really going on.

But what if there were people within the Sanders campaign and the Sanders delegation who saw their projected win as a way to possibly wrest power from the current State Democratic Party leadership? What would need to happen for them to do so?

Well first, they would need to change the Rules. As it has become such a point of contention, I found the Draft Rules from 2012 and compared them to the Rules from 2016. Although I couldn’t find the Rules from 2008, Politifact Nevada, in this article, says this, “Supporters of Sanders believed that the convention rules, which have been largely the same since 2008, gave an unfair amount of power to Lange, the convention chair.”

Now one thing that is pretty apparent is that the the Chair has a lot of power, but it has always been that way. For instance, in 2012, the Chair had the power to appoint the Committees. In 2016, the Chair has that same power. In fact, in many ways these rules are largely identical.

Here’s the curious part. Erin Bilbray was a leading figure on the Sanders side of the room. It turns out that she is a Super Delegate who has pledged for Bernie. She is a Super Delegate because of her leadership position in the State Party — she is the current National Committeewoman and sits on the Executive Board. She was on the April 14 call-in meeting of the Executive Board that approved the Temporary Rules unanimously, as evidenced by this e-mail chain between Chair Lange, Bilbray and others.

Here is the relevant section:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Erin Bilbray wrote: Roberta, Marla & Zach, The eboard passed the attached election rules by unanimous consent. However these rules are not the ones posted on NV Dems. Please note that the election rules we passed had the eboard filing deadline this Friday, April 29th. The ones posted had the deadline today. I am sure this is an innocent error. But please make sure we correct it quickly. Thank you. Erin Bilbray Sent from my iPhone

You can read the whole thread but basically Bilbray has no apparent qualm about the Temporary Rules from the time that they are passed on April 14 until April 25, two hours after the deadline to submit to become a candidate of the Executive Board. Apparently there was a draft that had April 29 as the deadline. The amendment was apparently made verbally on the phone meeting and the reason for the change was to give more time for the candidates to campaign. Significant Sanders supporters wanted to run for the board but missed the deadline. After this e-mail, Bilbray changes her entire tune about the draconian nature of the Temporary Rules even though she approved them and, as a long-standing member of the board (she’s apparently been on the executive board since 2008), had no issues with them. What’s more, she also suddenly had problems with the Decorum Section, the way that State Central Committee members keep their seats, the authority of the Chair and any other number of items.

Here’s text from Roberta Lange’s final response to Erin Bilbray and others on that e-mail thread:

”We did make changes on our e-board call as most boards do. Two amendments to the Convention rules that you made were approved by the e-board. You did not submit those in writing prior, because as a board we discuss the issue at hand and do our best to come to a consensus and do the best job we can for the party.”

Also, this segment:

“On the call and in subsequent social media posts you have fueled the false idea that the decorum rules are designed to limit debate and arbitrarily remove attendees. Once again the vast majority of those provisions date back to 2008 and until now have had no objection from you. The only objection we show was in 2012 you actually asked for further restrictions on candidate campaign activities on the floor to prevent interruption of speakers.”

So why does she seem to be deliberately lying about this? Here’s a video from the Convention that is just a Sanders Delegate with a phone but she interviews Erin Bilbray on the floor and Bilbray out and out appears to lie. This video is long because it also includes the Final Credentials Report and the “Minority Report” but in it, Bilbray complains that there’s been no room for debate, no ability to make motions and that an attempt to toss the Temporary Rules to replace them with Roberts Rules was unfairly tossed out. This is not some potentially uninformed Sanders Delegate who is frustrated by the convoluted process. This is a long time party insider who seems to be deliberately misleading this group of people. She also claims that she did not vote for the Temporary Rules when this e-mail thread, clearly shows otherwise.

Clearly Bilbray was upset about the deadline and there was in fact a lawsuit regarding this that was dismissed in the main claims. The judge essentially said that the Sanders did a poor job of disseminating the correct deadline information. There is also this petition that highlights what rules the Sanders people found to be the most unfair with a link to how they think the rules should change.

But Bilbray had to have known that Lange had not pushed through an amendment that discounted the County Convention results because Sanders had a ton of Delegate slots at the State Convention. She had to have known that the power Chair Lange had has been relatively unchanged for a significant number of years. She had to have known about all of this but it seems that she got information wrong, got upset, and started a process that would attempt to overrun the State Leadership.

And I think she counted on having the majority of Delegates in order to do it. Because no one could know that 462 Sanders Delegate slots would go unfilled.

When Sanders failed to get the majority, Bilbray seemed to be a part of the group that actively led to more chaos, more anger, more vitriol. Do I think she was alone in the attempted coup? No. According to this piece by a Sanders Delegate, the Sanders campaign had hired a Parliamentarian. (Interestingly the Clinton campaign apparently did not). Fringe candidate Dan Rolle was the one who officially called for Lange’s ouster and there is video of Joan Kato, the Sander’s State Director in Nevada saying this in a pre-convention meeting with Sanders Delegates:

“I don’t care if the Chair is up there herself... er whoever the chair is...or er whoever becomes the chair. You should not leave.” (Source video — CNN — Kato’s speech to NV Sanders Delegates)

Many have focused on the should not leave part. The section that strikes me is the “whoever becomes the chair” part. Was there an active plan to get Lange replaced during the Convention? That would be a flagrant disregard for the Bylaws and a total disregard for order. But if these leaders were telling Sanders Delegates that this should, and could, happen, well then what is that but inciting a mob?

There is also the “Minority Report” issue and in the Facebook video Bilbray seems a little surprised by the announcement but then she also catches herself saying that the Bernie Sanders campaign created this report before switching and saying it was the Credentials Committee. (It’s at about the 6:30 mark). I think the “Minority Report” was an unexpected development and has been pretty thoroughly debunked. As I’ve said, I think the Sanders leaders fully expected to win and to use their numbers to force through things that made them unhappy — like candidates not being able to run for executive board positions because they missed the filing deadline. When this didn’t happen, they became more aggressive in their tactics.

During the Platform vote, Bilbray was also one of the people to speak against the Platform. I watched as a person (I now assume their Parliamentarian) coached her through giving a motion to change the plank to a call to abolish Super Delegates. Again, she had to have known how to actually get this Platform plank changed and that her motion was Out of Order. So why is she doing this?

Clearly, there is no love lost between Bilbray and, for lack of a better word, the establishment. As this Las Vegas Sun article details, she lost badly in 2014 in her race against Joe Heck for a House of Representative Seat even though her campaign started promisingly. But if this was really just a pissing match between Bilbray and Lange, then Bilbray did a huge disservice to herself. She did a huge disservice to the Sanders Delegates who looked to her to lead them through this process and she did a huge disservice to the Sanders National Campaign in a way that may seriously damage attempts to get Sanders’ message into the platform at the DNC. Instead of calling Bilbray a hero, Sanders supporters should be furious at how she seemingly tried to manipulate the situation to her own end.

EDIT: Of course Sanders, as any leader does, has a chance to shine or falter when confronted with such things and his response could have gone a long way towards smoothing this over.

ADDITIONAL INFO:

The Temporary Rules are pretty clear about what changes can be made to them.

c. Once approved by the Executive Board of the Nevada State Democratic Party prior to the convention, these rules shall serve as the temporary rules of the convention until convention rules are permanently adopted by a majority vote.

d. Any motion to amend the Convention Agenda, the Temporary Convention Rules, or the Convention Rules shall require either a privileged resolution from the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Nevada State Democratic Party or a petition signed by twenty percent (20%) of all convention delegates.

e. Motions to amend the Convention Agenda, the Temporary Convention Rules, or the Convention Rules shall only be adopted upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all delegates

It’s also pretty clear that Suspension of the Rules is also not really possible.

III. Suspension of the Rules

a. These rules of the 2016 Nevada State Democratic Convention may only be suspended by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all convention delegates.

b. These rules shall only be suspended in the instance where an unforeseen circumstance in these rules has prohibited the convention from conducting its required business.

c. Under no circumstances shall these rules be suspended for taking any action contrary to expressed intent or will of these rules.

d. Either the Parliamentarian or the Convention Chair shall rule any motion to suspend the rules out of order based on the above criterion.

Roberts Rules are part of the procedure but there are other rules elements as well.

IV. Parliamentary Authority a. The 2016 Democratic State Convention shall be governed in the following order of authority: The Charter and The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, the Nevada Delegate Selection Plan for the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the Charter and Bylaws of the Nevada State Democratic Party, the Rules of the 2016 Nevada State Democratic Convention, and the most current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order.

FYI, the part about the NSCC board and their ability to serve if they would like to continue to serve is also in the 2012 Rules. And apparently has been in the rules since 2008.

This is from 2016:

IX. Election of Members to the State Central Committee a. Members to the State Central Committee shall be elected at the convention. b. All current members of the State Central Committee shall be given an opportunity to serve another term as a committee member. c. Convention attendees who indicate an interest in becoming a State Central Committee member during the registration process shall be given preference for open State Central Committee positions. d. Any person who does not wish to serve an additional term shall have his or her place filled by the county chair from that county.

This is from 2012:

IX. Election of Members to the State Central Committee a. Members to the State Central Committee shall be elected at the convention during county caucuses. b. All current members of the State Central Committee shall be given an opportunity to serve another term as a committee member. c. Convention attendees who indicate an interest in becoming a State Central Committee member during the registration process shall be given preference for open State Central Committee positions. d. Any person who does not wish to serve an additional term shall have his or her place filled by the county chair from that county.

EDIT: Even had Sanders won the State Convention, it would have meant a difference of 4 National Delegates. Since a 2/3 of the delegates were already allocated based on the original caucus, the final tally, had Sanders won the State, would be 18-17 Clinton. Instead, it ended up being 20-15 Clinton. There was never an opportunity to switch the State. And while a difference of 4 National Delegates might be important to some, top political people know that 4 delegates at this point will not make a bit of difference in the long run — which makes their behavior more perplexing.