The dispute over events at the Democratic County Convention Saturday can be summed simply: party rules mandate that the overall delegate mix to the state convention ought to be close to the overall delegate mix at the county convention.

The convention delegates were split more or less 75-25 – a 3-1 ratio and a figure no one disputes.

But the final count of delegates from the El Paso Democratic County Convention was 157 for Hillary Clinton and 18 for Barack Obama, a ratio of about 9-1.

Despite the disparity in numbers, “I think when all was said and done in that convention when you look at it, 157 Hillary and 18 Obama was exactly the will of the people there,” said Ken Sutherland, chair of the Nominations Committee and a former county Democratic chairman. [Editor's note: The title of the committee was incorrectly given in an earlier version of this story, which was corrected at 3:30 p.m. MST on April 1, 2008]

Here’s how it worked:

-- The convention attendees chose delegates from among the representatives of the 170-odd precincts in El Paso. Some precincts were combined so the total of delegates from that process was 127.

-- The vote was based on the majority of the precinct representatives, said El Paso County Democratic Chairman Danny Anchondo. The overwhelming majority of precincts had majority support for Clinton, and the split ended up 120 delegates for Clinton and seven for Obama.

Where it got contentious was later in the evening, in Sutherland’s committee.

That’s where the 48 at-large delegates were picked.

According to the state party rules, “Poll results shall be used by the Nominations Committee and by the Convention as a whole as the basis for nominating and for electing At-Large Delegates so as to ensure the fairest possible representation of the Convention participants as a whole within the total delegation, without disturbing the Precinct Caucus election results.” [(10. Election Procedure in Presidential and in Non-Presidential Years, (d)(4)]

John Padalino, an El Paso lawyer who was observing the committee for the Obama campaign, said that the disparity in numbers – about 3-1 for Clinton at the county convention compared to the 9-1 ratio of state delegates that resulted – showed a disregard for the rules.

Padalino, who said he was speaking as an observer and was not authorized to speak for the Obama campaign, said the Nominations Committee should have awarded the bulk of the 48 at-large delegates to Obama, to bring the overall El Paso state delegate number closer to the 3-1 ratio. Instead, he said, the committee split the at-large delegates 37-11 for Clinton.

Further, the final vote awarding the delegates occurred on a reconsideration of the item that may not have followed the committee rules of order, he said. The first vote of the committee, a voice vote, appeared to go in favor of awarding the majority of at-large delegates to Obama in accordance with the state rule, Padalino said.

Before taking the second vote, the chairman, Sutherland, made observers in the packed room, including Obama supporter state Rep. Norma Chavez, turn off their electronic recording devices, Padalino said.

Sutherland said he took the second vote because on the first voice vote in the tense crowd people didn’t seem to understand the issue. On the second vote, using a roll call, the issue “was very clear,” he said.

Sutherland said he asked for the recording devices to be turned off because “In the spirit of the meeting I wanted people to be really candid about the proceedings.”

And on the key issue of picking at-large delegates, Sutherland said he interpreted the rule differently than the Obama supporters.

He pointed to the word “fairest” in the state rule.

“There were many pending precincts that had a large Hillary outcome but were never counted, which would have given them a higher percentage. It was either shenanigans or incompetence in the precincts, how these people were counted,” Sutherland said.

He said that although the state rules regarding delegates have provisions for who is counted as a delegate, because of his concerns regarding the undercounting of Clinton supporters, he and others thought that “If we tipped it more to Obama it wouldn’t have been fair and been a true representation of the votes. … It wouldn’t come under the key word ‘fairest.’”

Chavez said that was a weak interpretation.

“It was abuse of power against the minority,” she said. “We're not trying to unseat any Hillary delegates, to take any of the 75 percent. But do not submit a 90-10 split based on something not in the rules.”

Anchondo said the procedures were all within the rules.

“I know Norma is making a big issue of it but she took advantage of that part when she was chair. When you're in the majority you're in the majority and when in you’re in the minority you're in the minority,” he said. “This is the process the Democratic Party has been using since I’ve been around.”

Complaints about conventions by both campaigns were widespread in Texas. In McAllen, the Rio Grande Guardian reported that Obama supporters received an inordinate number of at-large delegates after the convention there. The Guardian reported that in Webb County, Obama supporters filed a complaint over the voting procedures for delegate alternates.

Chavez said that Obama supporters in El Paso will take the issue up with the state party.

In fact, Ryan Trujillo, a precinct 97 delegate, wrote a letter to the state party Monday.

“Obama had roughly 25 percent composition from the roll. Yet Obama delegate seating barely made 10 percent. Clinton delegation received almost all the precinct seating, BUT received nearly ALL of the At-Large seating. I thought the purpose of the At-Large selection was to mirror the initial head count. Minority reports were brought up twice in order to object to the execution of the rules laid out by the state party and twice were rejected.

“The process did not appear in anyway representative of a democratic and fair process and turned off ALOT of people attending. What incentive do they have to remain engaged if they see their efforts trumped by a majority? Silencing minority voices is the MO of another party, but not the Democratic Party. As I am not a delegate to the state convention, I want to know how I can officially file a complaint in addition to this correspondence.”

Chavez said that the issue could unseat the El Paso delegation.

“I would predict that the (state) committee on credentials will probably not seat the El Paso delegation,” she said. “The rules are in place, like Michigan and Florida, which will not be seated because they didn’t follow the rules. What Ken and Danny have done is put the delegation at risk by not following the rules.”

When asked whether such an action might not split the party in El Paso, she said, “everybody knows I'm a process person and I fight for the rights, voting rights and that's what this issue is about. They have manipulated the process. It sets a very bad precedent not just for El Paso, but the whole state for it to go unchallenged.”