The Feinstein Censure Resolution Is Alive, But Is It Kicking?

by Thomas Gangale
12 June 2008

Last November, a resolution to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein was brought to the Executive Board meeting of the California Democratic Party. The resolution cited the senator's vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as United States Attorney General, "thereby elevating to the highest position in law enforcement a man who refused to renounce the right of the President to resort to torture and who refused to recognize waterboarding as a form of torture." Also cited was her vote to confirm Judge Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit "despite his clear record of racism and gender discrimination."

The resolution was late in terms of that particular CDP E-Board meeting, thus according to the party rules, the resolution required the unanimous consent of the Resolutions Committee for it to be considered by that body. It didn't get anywhere near unanimous consent. There was some shouting and shoving over the next couple of days, including a classic "blocking the camera" cameo appearance by Bob Mulholland in the meeting's general session, but party rules provided no procedure for bringing the resolution to a floor vote.

However, a resolution that is late for one meeting is automatically timely for the next one, and the next CDP E-Board meeting is this weekend. The Resolutions Committee resolution will consider the resolution, and it will probably vote it down. The CDP rules provide a recourse for a timely resolution that has failed in the Resolutions Committee: 135 Executive Board members, or 40% of the members, whichever is fewer, may sign a petition to bring the resolution to a vote in the general session of the meeting. So, this is the next hurdle that the resolution must pass.

The question is, should it pass?

The resolution has the support of the Courage Campaign, MoveOn.org, Progressive Democrats of America, at least three caucuses of the CDP, at least three county Democratic central committees, and more than 30 Democratic clubs. These censures sent a strong message to Senator Feinstein. She appeared to get the message. While the storm was brewing last November, she reversed her position on a bill that would have given telecom companies retroactive immunity when complying with warrantless federal government spying on Americans. She took the next available turn to the left.

A lot of California Democrats believe that Senator Feinstein should make a number of additional left turns, and we certainly need to hold her accountable for her votes in the Senate. However, seven months have passed since the censure resolution was first brought to the E-Board. Has it served its purpose? Does it make sense to continue scrapping with an elected Democrat as we march toward the autumn campaign season with the purpose of electing many more Democrats? Is it time to move on? E-Board members should reflect on these questions as they consider signing the censure resolution petition this weekend.