The DNC committee recommends a repetition of the votes that David Hogg increased after procedural concerns to the deputy chairman

The DNC rules require that the Executive Committee of the National Party is “divided equally” according to gender -specific direction. (If the committee includes members who identify as a non-bobage, they do not count for the purposes of the gender department.) Since the DNC members met for the multi-hour process of voting in a new selection of officers at the beginning of this year, the vote for the three vice chairpersons of the last position, which was occupied, was occupied that the party was decided at least one man from the ultimate vice chair.

The party then decided to hold a single voice to decide the last two slots instead of holding separate voices for every position.

Free claimed that the combined ballot paper and Kenyatta wrongly benefited the only two men in the race because the members had to vote for at least one man on the combined ballot. She argued that it was possible that they could vote differently if the ballot papers were separated.

Follow live politic’s reporting here

Representatives of Hogg and Kenyatta did not agree with the challenge and argued that at its discretion of discretion, the party had the right to shorten the lengthy voting process in real time.

The The challenge of the DNC electoral data from the end of February, long before the disagreement between Hogg and the party went to the stock exchange. But now the more than 400 member DNC has to vote on whether a new choice should be demanding that Hogg could cost its position against this background.

In an explanation on Monday evening, Hogg found that the problem was how the national party was dealing with the election and no accusation that he and Kenyatta did wrong. And he added that “it is also impossible to ignore the wider context of my work in order to reform the party, which was strongly emerging about this vote.”

“As a DNC Vice Chair, I am presented to do the Democratic Party better to defend a status quo that cannot be anchored to be anchored, which caused voters in almost every demographic group to move away from us,” he said, adding that he regarded the coordination as a way for the party to remove it from his position.

Kenyatta posted on social media that during his respect for coordination with the decision of the committee, he disagreed and she described a “blow into my face”.

He also burdened the characterization of some who consider the vote as the youngest in the saga between Hogg and the party.

“I worked my A-out to get this role and did the job every day since I kept it,” he said in a long thread on X.

In his own explanation after the vote, Martin became the debate as exclusively a failure of the parliamentary procedure and one that he defeated at party members to decide.

“During my campaign for the chair, I committed myself to operating the DNC with integrity, openness and fairness. I am disappointed to find out that there was a procedural error in the Vice Chair elections in February in February,” he said.

“The Committee on References has published its recommendation, and I trust that the DNC members carefully check the solution of the committee and solve this matter fairly,” he added.

The decision took place after a three-hour virtual session, which lasted even longer on the party’s YouTube page because the 18-member committee tried on his first ballot, which triggered another round of the debate. The membership of the committee was held by the appointments of the previous chairman of the National Party, Jaime Harrison, not by the new chairman.

Finally, the page, which supported the recommendation for a new election, was obtained through important opponents and a decision approved with the support of 13 members, in which the election to the deputy seats by Hogg and Kenyatta was “incomplete”. It recommends that the DNC -Hold -new elections are “as soon as possible” for both seats, with only the candidates in the party’s last ballot papers. Hogg and Kenyatta are allowed to run again, but it is not a matter of course that they would win the seats.

Mark Mallory, a member of the reference committee and former mayor of Cincinnati, said during the meeting that he supported the decision because “our former chairman did nothing to deliberately spark one of the candidates who ran for the deputy chair. However, the result was exactly that.”

Mallory compared the process when a patient has to get the bone reset in the hospital with a broken leg.

“This process is also painful, but part of the restoration of the first incident,” he said. “I think we have a responsibility to act.”