Bernie people be mad. Again. Still. Forever.

After missing a deadline to file slates for the Democratic National Committee and the state party's executive board, Bernie Sanders's Nevada representatives are lashing out at the Nevada Democratic Party.

Foremost among those outraged is Democratic National Committeewoman Erin Bilbray, a Bernie Sanders backer who has accused state party officials of conspiring to  move up the date to file from April 29 to April 25, sparking a nasty email chain I have obtained and posted below. "I am saddened that this is the (Nevada State Democratic Party)  that my FDR grandparents help build," Bilbray said, without a trace of irony or self-awareness, to state Chairwoman Roberta Lange.

This is the final list of candidates. Missing the deadline will prevent Bernie boosters Heidi Swank, the assemblywoman, and Mark Manendo, the state senator, from running for the national committee slots on May 14 at the state convention. (Assemblyman Nelson Araujo/Douglas Gibson and Allison Stephens/Marla Turner filed in time.)

This, of course, comes on the heels of Clinton winning the caucus on Feb. 20 but then being swamped at the Clark County convention and facing the prospect of a decisive victory being placed in limbo until the state delegates vote on whom to send to Philadelphia.

Problem for the Bernie folks is that the deadline was clear in the rules, and only confused because the Bernie folks erroneously linked to a draft of the rules in a breathless petition protesting....the rules. The deadline was moved up on a conference call last week -- one that Bilbray and other Sandersites were on -- in order to give candidates for the slots more time to campaign before the state gathering in Las Vegas. "This was all unanimously approved on the call," one participant who requested anonymity told me.

Lange clearly was offended by Bilbray's insinuations and pointed out that the failed congressional candidiate had never previously objected to rules in place since 2008 and that Bilbray once actually tried to restrict campaigning. "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," Lange wrote to Bilbray. "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."

I am sure the May 14 convention will be peaceful.

Here's the email chain (I have removed addresses) --start at the bottom:


From: Roberta Lange 
Date: Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Is this about ego or what is best for the party?
To: Erin Bilbray, many others




I agree with you that what is important here is doing what’s best for the party, not for an individual candidate or agenda.  That is what we have been doing for over two years here with this Executive Committee as tensions have risen with both presidential campaigns and each step in the delegate selection process.  But our job here is to ensure a fair process for everyone where everyone is operating under the same set of rules and that is what we have done.  


Every procedure that needed to be filled to get these rules to the e-board were followed and ultimately this board has the authority to approve the temporary rules for the convention. 


I find your accusations about the SCC rules particularly concerning.   That section of our rules largely dates back to at least the 2008 convention and has been included in the 2010, 2012, 2014 and now 2016 rules.   You have demonstrated no objection until now despite serving on our e-board that entire time.  


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.  


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.  


I did not want, nor do I want, to get into a tit for tat on these e-mail chains.  Each of us on this committee has a responsibility as a leader to provide accurate information and not purposefully try to stoke fears that this state convention will be anything but fair. 


Heavily contested presidential races always provide their own unique set of challenges, but they are also great opportunities to expand our party and bring new Democrats into our big tent.  Let’s stand united to take advantage of this opportunity despite whatever individual disagreements we may have.


Thank you for everything each of you do.  



On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Erin Bilbray <> wrote:
Roberta & Marla, 
First of all, You did not tell the eboard that rules committee did NOT pass these rules. 
Second, you also did not explain that the rules now appoint NSCC for life unless they vacate their seat. 
You now claim to have made changes to the election rules verbally on the eboard call, but never sent those amendments in a written form to the EB.   Dwayne Chesnut, whose ethics have never been disputed, has stated that he downloaded the April 29th version of the rules from the NSDP website. 
The rules should have been made public prior to the Executive Board meeting.  We were NOT in executive session.  
Minutes were requested by two eboard members but were never sent out. 
Shocking that there is confusion. 
This is exactly how we disenfranchise voters.   The Clinton campaign should be just as concerned as the Sanders. 
I am saddened that this is the NSDP that my FDR grandparents help build.   
Erin Bilbray 
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 25, 2016, at 7:41 PM, Roberta Lange <> wrote:
Every communication delegates and alternates received from the NSDP were the rules that were on the website.  If there is confusion out there it is because others sent out the proposed rules prior to the board call and not the rules passed by the board.  I have verified with staff that the only rules posted on the website are the final rules with the April 25 date that is all the version that went to delegates and alternates.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Hawah Ahmad<> wrote:


I'm a little confused, I had it written as the 29th as well. Is there any way we can get the minutes so we know what is actually written and voted on? Also, I would like to urge everyone to check to make sure the emails were sent. I've received multiple calls asking questions about these dates and was also just told by my young dems (who are delegates) that they didn't receive any emails with these dates. I am incredibly concerned now.
On Monday, April 25, 2016, Roberta Lange < wrote:

On the call, we amended the election rules to change the deadline to April 25th at 5 pm and then allowed for 2 messages instead of 1 to be sent to delegates and alternates to allow for more communications to candidates. 


Those amendments were reflected in both the rules posted publicly on our website and the rules sent to delegates and alternates.  All notifications on this subject have listed the date of the 25th at 5:00pm.  


The deadline for nominations was nearly two hours ago and notification has gone to all delegates and alternates of the finalized list of candidates.   I am sorry that you are confused on this, but all communications to delegates and alternates has been clear and the deadline will remain as established.   


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
On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Marla Turner <> wrote:

Hello all,

Attached are the draft rules we will be voting on tomorrow.

As always these documents are for your own viewing and not to be shared or distributed.

The call will take place at 5 pm instead of6pm.

'Til then, 

On Apr 6, 2016 11:10 AM, "Marla Turner" <> wrote:
Hello E-Board: 
Please save the date for a conference call on Thursday, April 14th at 6PM to approve the election rules . The draft document will be sent to you soon under separate cover. 
Please reply to Roberta or me if you are UNABLE to attend. 
Thanks, and talk soon. 
My best to you, 
Marla Turner, Secretary
Nevada State Democratic Party
Cell: (702) 610-9043

<2016 Election Rules FINAL.pdf>

<2016 Convention Rules FINAL.pdf>