The Politico v. The DNC -- Why I Think The DNC's Interpretation Is Correct.
For those of you following this arcane but potentially important debate, here's why I think the DNC is right.
Here's Rule 20:
Standing committee members selected pursuant to a Plan found in non-compliance by the RBC shall not be included on the membership roster by the DNC Secretary nor shall those individuals be allowed to participate as members at the standing committee meeting
What the rules and bylaws committee of the party has always interpreted this passage to mean is that members of the Florida standing committee group can't vote on matters related to Florida and that members of Michigan's standing committee group can't vote on Michigan matters.
But Michigan DOES get to weigh in on any challenge relating to Florida, and Florida DOES get to weigh in on any challenge relating about Michigan.
The rule does not stay anything about the size of the committee, which another rule sets at 186.
In fact, another rule gives the DNC the ability to include as part of its sanctions the taking away of a state's standing committee representation.
So if a state is found in non-compliance, the DNC can, if wants to, include standing committee banishments in its sanctions. But the presence of that option means that said taking away is not automatic, as the Politico contends.
I suppose that the DNC's rules and bylaws committee could decide to re-interpret the rule so as to follow the Politico's sense of how the world works, but that would be weird.
Read the rules for yourself.