Superdelegates From Florida, Michigan May Be Seated

I've been reporter-skeptical of the fits and starts and floated "compromises" to seat half delegations and half superdelegations, and seat one Dingell and not the other and half the UAW and not the NEA or whatever... but there is one rules challenge in particular that may well, by the middle of next month, lead to the acceptance of Florida and Michigan superdelegates no matter what happens with regard a primary re-vote in either state.

Last week, DNC member Jon Ausman filed a petition with the party's rules and bylaws committee pointing out that the charter of the DNC uses the verb "shall" when describing the relationship between superdelegates and the convention, as in -- superdelegates "shall" be seated. The argument, basically, is that the charter supercedes any penalty imposed by the RBC. The counterarguement is that the verb "shall" is later qualified.

The 28 members of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws committee may well decide that the challenge has validity and may well decide to seat the superdelegates from Florida, and then, should there be a similar petition from Michigan, the superdelegates from Michigan.

There are Obama supporters on the RBC (Carol Khare Fowler) and there are Clinton supporters on the RBC (Harold Ickes), but the members of the committee have a reputation for looking at these things with a clear tablet.

What This Isn't

This ISN'T a compromise sanctioned by or floated by a campaign. Ausman was a Kucinich supporter. This DOESN't resolve the question of the earned or pledged delegates. The RBC might well decide that the challenge is NOT valid. And even a valid challenge can be appealed to the credentials committee in July.