From Scrutiny Hooligans:

The superdelegate system is not perfect but it has worked for us quite well over the years and frankly the superdelegates have never needed to cast any superdelegate votes to alter what the voters did during the primary elections,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. “Never. That’s not the case this year either. The concern many of us have, of course, is that our numbers would shrink in terms of having influence over and involvement with what happens at the convention.“

And apparently the Hispanic Congressional Caucus stands with them as well.

Well alrighty then. As long as electoral corruption benefits their unspecified interests it's ok? Their influence would shrink?

Tom Sullivan admits to "getting schooled" because:

. . . speaking of weedy, annual precinct meetings here occur either at the polling place where the precinct normally votes or at an alternate publicly accessible location nearby. But getting access to community centers, libraries, etc. for the meetings on a set day and hour once a year is problematic, putting many party meetings in conflict with community groups’ scheduled monthly meetings. It’s a chronic problem. So at a state convention a couple cycles ago, a (white) delegate proposed modifying state party rules to allow meetings to be held in people’s houses. Seemed innocent enough.
Black delegates erupted in protest (mostly older women). How many of their friends would feel welcome attending their annual meetings at a strange house in a strange (possibly white) neighborhood? No way, they argued. Such a change would suppress participation among their community. They insisted — no, demanded — the existing rules be kept in place. Only neutral, public locations for the meetings. The proposed change failed.
It was a real eye-opener (and not the last). Their lived experience gave them a very different perspective on what appeared at first to an older, white male to be an innocuous request. I got schooled.

I'm having a little trouble seeing how the precinct meeting example relates to superdelegates. Apples and oranges.

This type of discussion is ripe for a pie fight, but my experience on Skid Row has shown me that older establishment blacks tend to have a conservative reactionary opposition to change. Blacks and Hispanics are just as likely to be low information voters as whites. The vast bulk of all voters are low information voters.

If there is a rational reason for the Black and Hispanic caucuses to oppose eliminating superdelegates, it was not presented in this article.

http://scrutinyhooligans.us