The DNC is not the Party nor the highest authority in the Party. The highest authority of the Democratic Party is set forth in unambiguous terms in Article I of its Charter. That status belongs to the CONVENTION of assembled and representative delegates.
The DNC is merely a TOOL of the Party — with TWO and only TWO narrowly defined roles. One is PRE-NOMINATION and the other POST-NOMINATION.
The latter is to coordinate the multiple state party organizations in the sole national political campaign — the presidential — for the candidate nominated AT AND BY the Convention. Again — that body being the “highest authority.”
The key to this lawsuit lies in its PRE-NOMINATION role. Which is EXPRESSLY LIMITED to preparing the logistics FOR that Convention. It is not supposed to establish the content of the Convention. Nor is it to determine what the Convention does.
It is to provide a Convention that is as FREE AND FAIR as we expect elections to be. In this role — the DNC is in effect acting as a SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS would in preparing to hold an election.
It is in this role that Article V, Section 4 is entirely unambiguous — when it declares and demands that every single member of the DNC, whether official or staff member, is PRECLUDED from acting upon any preference for any particular candidate or campaign seeking the nomination. That role is EXCLUSIVELY given to the REPRESENTATIVE gathering of delegates which when assembled constitute the CONVENTION.
And it is furthermore the express DUTY of the Chair, in this case Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, to ENSURE that each and every member — official or staffer — remain entirely “impartial” and that there is NO preference to any particular candidate or campaign provided by the institution.
This is no mere “purported obligation” — as Bruce Spiva, who claims to be a “Voting Rights Advocate,” absurdly, dishonestly and therefore unethically states to the Court. It is an unambiguous directive of the highest authority of the Party upon the DNC, its members and staff, and its Chair.