DNC panel recommends redo of vote that elevated David Hogg to vice chair after procedural concerns
A Democratic National Committee subcommittee on Monday recommended that the organization invalidate one of its February vice-chair votes over claims that it unfairly disadvantaged female candidates.
The move, which won't be official unless the entire DNC votes to approve it, could open up new races for the positions held by David Hogg, a Florida activist, and Malcolm Kenyatta, a Pennsylvania state legislator.
The challenge by Oklahoma Democratic Committeewoman Kalyn Free, who unsuccessfully ran against Hogg and Kenyatta in the February race for vice chair, is not related to the ongoing tension between Hogg and the national party over his push to support primary challenges against incumbent Democrats.
Instead, it was based off Free's claim that the handling of the vice-chair vote gave the two men an unfair advantage amid the national party's requirements that its executive committee achieve gender balance.
Nevertheless, the Monday evening vote by the DNC Credentials Committee sets up a high-profile decision for the national party in the coming weeks as it will now be up to the full body to vote on whether to call for a new election for the vice-chair positions held by Hogg and Kenyatta.
This is all happening as DNC Chairman Ken Martin has been separately pushing a reform that would 'require all party officers — including myself — to remain neutral in primaries" as Hogg has been signaling he's planning to take sides.
DNC rules require that the national party's executive committee "shall be as equally divided as practicable" along gender lines. (If the committee includes members who identify as non-binary, they don't count for the purposes of gender division.) As DNC members met earlier this year for the multi-hour process of voting in a new slate of officers, the vote for the three vice chairs being the last position to be filled, it became clear that the party needed to elect at least one man to the final two vice chair spots to maintain the required gender equity on the seven-person executive committee.
The party then decided to hold a single vote to decide the final two slots instead of holding separate votes for each position.
Free claimed that the combined ballot unfairly benefited Hogg and Kenyatta, the only two men left in the race, because members had to vote for at least one man on the combined ballot. She argued it's possible they could have voted differently if the ballots were separated.
Follow live politics coverage here
Representatives for Hogg and Kenyatta disagreed with the challenge, arguing that the party was well within its discretionary right to make a move to shorten the lengthy voting process in real time.
The challenge to the DNC election dates from late February, well before the disagreement between Hogg and the party went public. But now, the 400-plus member DNC will have to vote on whether to call for a new election that could cost Hogg his position against this backdrop.
In a statement Monday night, Hogg noted that the issue was over how the national party handled the election, not any accusation he nor Kenyatta did anything wrong. And he added that "it is also impossible to ignore the broader context of my work to reform the party which loomed large over this vote."
"I ran to be DNC Vice Chair to help make the Democratic Party better, not to defend an indefensible status quo that has caused voters in almost every demographic group to move away from us," he said, adding that he views the vote as a way for the party to "fast-track" an attempt to remove him from his position.
But Martin, in a statement of his own issued after the vote, framed the debate as strictly about a failure of parliamentary procedure and one he's looking to party members to decide.
"During my campaign for Chair, I pledged to run the DNC with integrity, openness, and fairness. I am disappointed to learn that before I became Chair, there was a procedural error in the February Vice Chair elections," he said.
"The Credentials Committee has issued their recommendation, and I trust that the DNC Members will carefully review the Committee's resolution and resolve this matter fairly," he added.
The decision came after a three-hour virtual meeting, livestreamed on the party's YouTube page, that stretched even longer because the 18-member committee tied on its first ballot, which triggered another round of debate. The committee membership has been held over from the appointments by the previous national party chairman, Jaime Harrison, not new appointees by the new chairman.
Eventually, the side that supported the recommendation for a new election won over key opponents, and approved a resolution with the support of 13 members declaring the election to the vice chair seats held by Hogg and Kenyatta "incomplete." It recommends the DNC hold new elections for both seats "as soon as practicable," with only the candidates eligible at the party's final ballot. Hogg and Kenyatta would be allowed to run again, but it's not a given they'd win the seats.
Mark Mallory, a credentials committee member and former mayor of Cincinnati, said during the meeting that he supported the decision because while "our former chairman did not do anything to intentionally disenfranchise any of the candidates running for vice-chair. However, the result has been just that."
Mallory compared the process to when a patient with a broken leg has to go get the bone reset at the hospital.
"That process is painful too, but it is a part of the recovery of the initial incident," he said. "We have, I believe, a responsibility to act."
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
BROADCAST BIAS: Media's LA riot coverage relies on a sneaky trick to look less one-sided
Democrats and their publicity partners at the broadcast TV networks have often preached about how President Donald Trump's actions – like his pardons – are an affront to the "rule of law" in America. But when it comes to Trump's attempt at mass deportations, the media-Democrat alliance lines up fiercely against any attempt to remove immigrants who have ignored the rule of law. Riots broke out on June 6 after several immigration raids in the Los Angeles area by U.S. Immigrations and Custom Enforcement enraged the left, as so-called "peaceful protesters" tried to block entrances and exits for the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building downtown, where detainees were being processed. In a legal sense, it is not merely a "protest" to obstruct law enforcement. It's a crime. It is not "protest" to throw bricks at ICE agents or police, or set cars on fire. But the broadcast coverage of this unrest sounded disturbingly like the excuse-making for the George Floyd riots of 2020, when violent mobs were described as a "racial reckoning." Once again, the TV networks used the mantra that the protests are "mostly peaceful," like it was a tiny sideshow, and Trump calling out the National Guard to quell the violence was treated as a provocation that worsened the crisis. The original, radical "idealism" of these protests – that ICE shouldn't be deporting anyone, like deportations were tyrannical – served as the rhetorical underpinning of the biased coverage. Any idealism from the Republican side – favoring that "rule of law" and for protecting law enforcement personnel from violent attacks – was dismissed as Trumpian blather. By Monday morning, the network morning shows kicked into anti-Trump gear. ABC "Good Morning America" host George Stephanopoulos warned viewers that Trump's ordering in the National Guard "is the first time since 1965 that a president's ordered troops in over the objections of the governor," and "California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the action as inflammatory, called on the administration to rescind it, said they were manufacturing a crisis." When Democrats can't keep control of their cities, pointing it out is "manufacturing a crisis." It's like Stephanopoulos never stopped being a Democrat press spokesman. It's subtle wordplay, but the networks have a sneaky habit of not putting the party label on Trump's Democrat opponents. One might say their party should be obvious from their opposition, but in a setting of violent action, the avoidance of party labels was far too common, especially at ABC. On Wednesday night, June 11's "World News Tonight," reporter Matt Gutman announced "in an emotional press conference, 37 mayors coming together" against Trump, no party labels needed. Arturo Flores, the mayor Huntington Park, was described as "a combat veteran, appealing to the military." Flores bizarrely argued about illegal immigrants: "These are Americans." As a legal matter, that's untrue, but ABC put that concept on screen: "Officials: 'Remember, You Are Dealing With Americans." That's just "Officials," no party ID needed. Flores also lit into Trump as "a dictator" and "a tyrant." Nobody ever fact-checks politicians who call Trump a dictator. Gutman then added Newsom attacking Trump for calling out the National Gard, without the party label. On Thursday night, ABC evening anchor David Muir repeated the tactic. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was abruptly interrupted at a press conference by "California Senator Alex Padilla," and he was forced to the ground and handcuffed. This transparently partisan stunt was treated as deadly serious, complete with a Padilla soundbite full of quavering moral outrage about how Latino farm hands and cooks are treated by the feds, with no mention of party. It's subtle wordplay, but the networks have a sneaky habit of not putting the party label on Trump's Democrat opponents. Late in that Thursday story, ABC reporter Matt Rivers did highlight the party when "Democratic Governors" lectured House Republicans at a hearing about their laxity on illegal immigration. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul told Viewers that Trump engaged in a "flagrant abuse of power." ABC did not show Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz being pressed in that hearing about his smears in a recent commencement speech where he accused ICE agents of being "Trump's modern-day Gestapo." Nobody "fact checks" that, and no Republican question or concern from that hearing was mentioned by ABC. This is why Republicans and independent voters are shunning ABC, CBS and NBC as talking-point assembly lines for the Democrats.


Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump Just Revoked California's EV Rules. How Much Is California To Blame?
President Donald Trump just revoked California's permission to enforce its nation-leading clean-car rules — and Mary Nichols understands why. 'No one likes being regulated,' she told me ahead of Thursday's Oval Office signing ceremony. Nichols knows that better than almost anyone. As head of California's Air Resources Board for 17 years, she brought the world's biggest automakers to heel using the state's unique authority to go further than the federal government in setting vehicle emissions standards. It's those same automakers who lobbied Trump to 'rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating California's electric vehicle mandate once and for all,' as Trump put it Thursday. It didn't have to get to this point. California officials had been in talks with automakers prior to the November election about how to keep them on board, but the state overplayed its hand, Nichols said. 'Many people were acting on the assumption that it was going to be the Democrats continuing in power,' she said. 'So the state felt like they had all the cards in their hand, and then after the election, it was pretty hard to reset the conversation.' To hear Nichols tell it, California may have gone too far this time in nudging the industry to ever-higher sales of zero-emission vehicles. The rules would have required automakers to hit increasing percentages — 35 percent by model year 2026 and 68 percent by model year 2030 — before reaching 100 percent of new-car sales in 2035. Maybe that would have worked if it were just about California. But a dozen other states are signed on to California's targets, and they have been slower and less generous with incentives and EV charging infrastructure. Where California has more than a quarter of its new car sales coming from EVs, New Jersey is at 15 percent, and New York is under 12 percent, according to the industry's latest figures. 'They were definitely having issues with the California program because they didn't think they could meet the sales numbers in the mandate, especially [Gov. Gavin] Newsom's target of nothing but ZEVs with a deadline attached to it,' Nichols said. 'That was scary, and even the interim targets were going to be hard to meet.' The pendulum has swung against California before: The George W. Bush administration was the first to attempt to deny California's permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to require automakers to sell increasing percentages of zero-emission vehicles, and Trump went further in his first term by attempting to revoke the state's already-issued authority. But Republicans had never resorted to doing it through Congress, via an untested maneuver that congressional watchdogs have warned is likely illegal but that still drew 35 Democratic votes in the House and one in the Senate (Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), in the tradition of Detroit's John Dingell). It's a far cry from the bipartisan consensus that reigned when President Richard Nixon famously signed the Clean Air Act, which set federal air pollution levels for the first time but gave California permission to continue going further, owing to its decade-plus of vehicle emissions rules aimed at the smoggy Los Angeles basin. The automakers have been steadily lobbying against the rules since then, with a brief ceasefire from 2009-16, when ten automakers and the United Auto Workers signed a nonaggression pact in President Barack Obama's Rose Garden with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the EPA. That it happened at the same time that the federal government was taking an equity stake in General Motors was no coincidence, said Nichols, who helped broker the pact. 'They saved them from bankruptcy,' she said. California has less recourse this time around. Where Newsom signed deals in 2019 with Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW and Volvo to abide by the state's rules even in the event of federal cancellation, he now only has Stellantis, which signed a separate agreement last year that goes through model year 2030. And several of the state's allies are peeling off. California had 12 other states signed on to follow its lead as of last year, but it now has 10, after Republican-led Virginia dropped out and Vermont delayed enforcement by 19 months. And Democrats are getting cold feet, too: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed an executive order in April delaying enforcement, and Democratic lawmakers in New York introduced a bill this year to delay their participation by two years. (California and the other 10 states immediately sued Thursday to preserve the emissions standards.) 'If it was only California, I think [automakers] wouldn't have been as eager to jump in on the federal level and work with the Republicans, but it's the fact it's the other states that had the California standards that were killing them, especially New York,' Nichols said. That echoes the automakers' argument. 'The problem really isn't California,' John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a statement after the Senate's vote last month to overturn the rules. 'It's the 11 states that adopted California's rules without the same level of readiness for EV sales requirements of this magnitude.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Granderson: Don't wait for an election year to listen to Black men
Heading into the final stretch of the 2024 election, it seemed every cable news program had a segment dedicated to this one question: What will Black men do? Progressives on the ground were voicing concerns about Black male voter turnout long before the 2022 midterms. But because the overturning of Roe vs. Wade enabled Democrats to avoid a 'red wave' then, the urgency regarding Black men was muted. That quickly changed once former Vice President Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee and media personalities such as Stephen A. Smith and Charlamagne tha God began questioning her qualifications without a hint of irony. In the end, nearly 75% of Black men voted for Harris, and all of those cable news segments about the concerns of that voting bloc went away. That's unfortunate because in many ways the question at the center of it all — 'What will Black men do?' — is more relevant today than it was seven months ago. Since President Trump has retaken office, federal civil rights offices have been gutted, grants for minority business programs canceled and the names of enslavers are making a comeback on military bases. Cable news may be waiting until the next election to talk about the concerns of Black men, but the Black community can't wait that long. Khalil Thompson and Bakari Sellers agree. The pair are part of the leadership team for Win With Black Men, a political advocacy group that began in 2022. Thompson said he was inspired to start the group by Win With Black Women, which started after the murder of George Floyd in 2020. Both organizations were key to jump-starting the enthusiasm for Harris, especially financially, with each raising millions of dollars within days of her campaign's launch. Now, with the election behind us and three years of a hostile White House administration ahead of us, Thompson's group has announced an 18-city listening tour starting in July to strategize about ways to help the community outside of the political system. The goal is to reach 3,500 Black men in person and another 25,000 through a national survey in hopes of building a database to better serve the community. Thompson said it's particularly important to keep people engaged now that the election is over because of how the White House continues to test the limits of both presidential power and the support from his party. 'There has to be a moment where right is right,' said Thompson, a former operative for President Obama. 'We raise our children to understand the basic tenets of being a good person. ... We need to build a system that can adequately accommodate and support the vast majority of people in this country who just want to enjoy this small amount of time we have on this planet. I see the protests happening and the raids and I'm reminded of Ruby Bridges or the lunch counter in Greensboro. What is happening now in our cities — ripping parents away from their children — doesn't speak to our better angels.' Sellers added: 'Democracy is participatory, and a lot of time people forget that. The choices are to be on the sideline or get engaged — either way, you are involved.' He made that choice at a young age, becoming the youngest Black person in elected state office across the country in 2006, as a 22-year-old state representative in South Carolina. His early social justice work echoes that of his father, Cleveland Sellers, who was part of the leadership for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee during the civil rights movement. 'I'd rather get in the fight, be knocked around a little bit, face terror head on, knowing I'm doing it for a just and righteous cause,' Sellers said. Thompson said that in addition to engagement, Win With Black Men is looking to be a vessel for helping people financially with their utility and grocery bills, as the steep federal cuts and job losses threaten to send millions of Americans into poverty. The current fundraising goal is $2.5 million. And while the organization is nonpartisan, Sellers said a prominent Democrat is the unofficial North Star: 'We need to get back to the politics of Jesse Jackson. Meet people where they are, focus on the working class and facilitate conversations that uplift people, not demean them.' Few things are more demeaning than feeling like your voice matters only once every four years. If nothing else, this upcoming listening tour is a reminder to Democrats that Black men are more than a vote. @LZGranderson If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.