I asked Guy Cecil, the national political director for the Clinton campaign, where he ""forcefully raise[d] the prospect of a courtroom battle?" as suggested by the Houston Chroncile.

"Absolutely not. There was no threat, 'direct or veiled' to engage in litigation. We asked that the results of the call be put in writing," he said.

Mo Elliethee, a Clinton campaign spokesman, elaborated for me.

"The campaigns have been discussing primary night procedures and we asked for those procedures to be put in writing before we agree to them. It is standard operating procedure for our campaign - and we presume any campaign - to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it."

My guess is that the campaign is worried about what happens when the voting stops and the caucus starts and believes that the Texas Democratic Party isn't prepared to run the caucuses competently. Remember, Texas awards delegates in two parts; two thirds to the winners of 31 state senate district primaries, allocated proportionally; and then to the winners of a statewide caucus; only those voters who can prove they voted in the primaries can participate in the caucus.

The call where Cecil allegedly made his threats lasted ninety minutes long and featured participants from both campaigns. By singling Cecil's request to put the party's interpertation of its caucus rules on paper, the party might simply be trying to ward off potential challenges to its procedures on caucus night... or trying to embarass the Clinton campaign.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.