However, Tedski's post in response to my original post shed some light on the likely basis of the rumor.
Apparently Janice Brunson, a National Committeewoman and a Clinton supporter, objected to the number of proxies that Charlene Fernandez (and her supporters from Yuma County) brought to the meeting - 38 distributed over 4 attendees - and is seeking a bylaw change to bar someone from holding more than 3 proxies.
From a Brunson email quoted by Tedski in his post -
I urge immediate consideration of a bylaw limiting the number of proxies any one person can carry to a State Committee meeting and cast in any Party election.
At the meeting of April 26, one person carried 45 proxies. Based on the outcome of elections - not only for party first vice chair but also for presidential delegates - these proxies were cast as a block, clearly swaying outcomes. I learned during the meeting that this had been prearranged by a small handful of committee members.
There was more, and I recommend reading his entire post, but let me summarize -
She thought it was unfair that political maneuvering took place at a political meeting.
Anyway, I have my doubts that such a move will gain much traction - for this change to take place, it would probably have to be supported by the very same rural Democrats that she is seeking to disenfranchise.
Probably not gonna happen... :)
Proxies are allowed specifically to help ensure that rural Dems have a voice in the Party. In a state as large and rural as AZ (and outside of Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, this *is* a very rural state), it's very difficult for activists from the state's hinterlands to make four hour (or longer!) trek to one of the metro areas for a meeting of the state committee.
Perhaps a better solution would be to find a way to encourage fuller participation from all over the state, not just the urban areas, and no, I don't have any idea how to pull off that one.
BTW - Apparently Tedski viewed as a challenge my suggestion in the earlier post to check his blog because he would probably scoop me on the details.
Couple of points here -
1. No challenge intended, just a compliment - when it comes to the inner workings of the state party, he's got waayyyy better sources than I do. Period.
2. I was right - he did have the details before I did. :)