Judge rejects Bernie Sanders’ supporter’s voting lawsuit

[Gothmog]

Source: Washington Times

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit by a Bernie Sanders supporter who argued elections officials in California were robbing unaffiliated voters of the chance to vote in the state’s June 7 Democratic presidential primary.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in San Francisco said Wednesday the Voting Rights Defense Project waited too long to request an injunction for radio and TV ads informing unaffiliated voters that they can vote in the presidential primary of the Democratic, American Independent and Libertarian parties.

The group had argued that county elections officials were failing to inform unaffiliated voters of that right, threatening to disenfranchise thousands of voters. Its lawsuit named California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and two county elections officials.

Padilla said the lawsuit was frivolous.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/1/judge-rejects-bernie-sanders-supporters-voting-law/

---

This lawsuit was frivolous

[UMTerp01]

1. ...

[bluestateguy]

2. if the judge deems a lawsuit frivilous, doesn't that mean the plantiff has to pay court costs?

?

[beachbumbob]

4. If sanders campaign had any money

Which I doubt...he's most likely trying to blackmail Hillary to pick up his debt...

[azurnoir]

8. Is that how Hillary got Obama to pick up $22 million of her debt 8 years ago?

[beachbumbob]

10. I hope so...bill and Hillary helped make Obama president

Bernie sanders had never helped any one but Bernie sanders...

[azurnoir]

12. So you're good with blackmail as long as Hillary is doing it?

beachbumbob (683 posts)
4. If sanders campaign had any money

Which I doubt...he's most likely trying to blackmail Hillary to pick up his debt...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1472548

[riversedge]

16. You have mixed up the people. Read the comment again.

[azurnoir]

19. sorry I thought the person that I was speaking made the comment

but then again all things tend to sound the same in an echo chamber

[beachbumbob]

17. I'm good for negotiating a deal for a benefit

Sanders ain't gonna help Hillary...it's pretty clear.

[azurnoir]

21. so you're saying Sanders will not endorse her? who will he endorse then?

[Thor_MN]

41. It's not a binary proposition...

He doesn't have to endorse anyone.

With him saying that he has money to campaign after California, he seems to be saying that he is hanging on to his ridiculous "super delegates don't count" meme.

Taken to extreme, his comment could be seen as an indication that he is considered reneging on his promise not to run as a third party...

[ananda]

26. No, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate running who ..

.. actually speaks for and represents people other than himself
and the corporate rich.

I cannot say the same thing about either Clinton.

[Hoyt]

27. Apparently, a lot of people do not agree with you.

[Orrex]

11. How on earth do you figure that?

That would be directly contrary to pretty much everything about Sanders.

[geek tragedy]

22. he didn't file this lawsuit nt

[Duval]

33. That is ridiculous!

But I think you know that.

[riversedge]

13. Actually, it was the CA Sec. of State...

that said that. But you might be right (vaguely recall something to that effect if so ruled by the Court).


Its lawsuit named California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and two county elections officials.

Padilla said the lawsuit was frivolous.

[Brother Buzz]

14. Padilla, our Secretary of State, said the lawsuit was frivolous

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I believe seeking relief of court costs is a separate matter that may, or may not be addressed down the road.

[Mark 750]

34. You better read the story again.

The judge?

[beachbumbob]

3. To say the least

Know the damn rules...shows what rank amateurs the sanders campaign has been run by...$200 million wasted on a campaign not smart enough to know or learn the primary rules AND inform their supporters...but whine when the rules aren't bent to them....we have saved America from sanders...

How difficult is it to actually Google each states primary rules?....obviously too difficult for sanders campaign and supporters

[tonyt53]

5. And it is all a reflection directly on Bernie. He has done nothing to help them.

[beachbumbob]

7. We saved America from incompetence

If you can't even google state primary rules how the hell can you lead and govern the country....Hillary has the chance to save America twice...from sanders and from trump

[Arkansas Granny]

20. He could have mentioned it when he had their attention

at those big rallies he's had. An opportunity lost.

[2banon]

29. As a point in fact. I've personally heard Bernie talk about this in California ...

as recent as a couple of days ago.. shame on you for promoting lies about a Democratic Party Candidate.

[Arkansas Granny]

30. Who pissed in your Post Toasties?

I did not spread lies.

[2banon]

31. I beg to differ.

you said:

He could have mentioned it when he had their attention

at those big rallies he's had. An opportunity lost.

This is promoting a falsehood, disinformation. It's untrue.

in other words, it's a lie.

[LannyDeVaney]

46. "As recently as two days ago ..."

Pretty much confirms what the judge said when calling the lawsuit frivolous. Two days ago was too late.

[justiceischeap]

42. Can you change your party affiliation in CA this close to the primary? Or is CA an open primary?

If not, then his speaking about it a few days ago does no good.

This is something I've spoken about before in regards to the Sanders' campaign. They had to know going into this that they would have to appeal to Indie voters. So why wasn't the campaign prepared to educate those Indies on how to register for the primaries ahead of time? It shows a lack of coordination, a lack of organization and a lack of understanding of the primary rules that haven't changed since 1984 (I believe).

One of the jobs of Presidential candidates is to get people registered to vote (and to get down-ballot Democrats elected) and if you see that Indies are going to be an issue for closed primaries, you reach out to them and you explain how they can change their status so they can participate. I mean, when you don't do your homework, homework you knew about ahead of time, you don't get to complain that the rules aren't fair--because these particular rules have been in place since 1984 and it's not like they changed them in the middle of the primaries. When you rile up your supporters with claims of fraud, when in fact, you just weren't aware of the rules or don't want to follow them, it's hard to have respect for that type of campaign.

[2banon]

45. Just got back from eye surgery. I'll try and respond with one eye.. gonna be tricky

for me, my first ever experience doing this. LOL. I should probably attempt this later when I use two eyes to read all the text. Just gonna respond to the initial question.

California has a "semi open" primary. So if anyone had registered as NPP or (non partisan preference) voting in the primary must request the party ballot of their choice or they won't be able to vote on any presidential candidate.

If the NPP registered voter votes by mail in ballot, they have to either have requested in advance, their party preference or they can surrender their ballot in person at their precinct poll on June 7th and request their party preference ballot and vote then. This is in the event they missed the May 23rd deadline to change party registration. .

Just skimming through with one eye at a glance, it looks like you might be confused with who is responsible for helping Congress Critters get elected. That responsbility is on the party elites of the House and Senate. they each have their own organizations supposedly for the purpose of funding, promoting campaigning for downticket to each of those houses. Presidential candidates are not any obligation to work for down tickets especially, as far as Bernie goes, he's already working on behalf of the a PROGRESSIVE Dems, I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want him helping Blue or Yellow Dogs or other corporatists. we have far too many of those who may as well be republicans, imo. .


apologies in advance if I mistaken anything, didn't read accurately. When i get this patch taken off, I'll have another look- see!

[2banon]

28. speaking of knowing the damn rules.. you're bashing democrats, it's against the rules

got it?

[LuvLoogie]

6. The judge is a corporatist establishment shill that hates democracy.

The fix is in. This election is stolen from the people.

Add your lament here

[riversedge]

9. Oh, they will be coming as sure as the sun comes up in the morning.

[COLGATE4]

15. I heard it was the Bildergerg group, ably assisted

by the Illuminatri who put the fix in. Alex Jones swears it is so.

[TexasTowelie]

18. It looks like you hit all of the buzz words

in your first sentence. Kudos.

[leftynyc]

43. Wow

Got any more sore loser talking points you want to throw into that post? Or was that poorly done snark?

[enlightenment]

23. Well, that Washington Times title is a bit misleading, isn't it?

No surprise - but another example of lazy reporting.

Justia.com is a pretty neat little website. It allows you to look up court filings.

Here's the lawsuit docket:

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2016cv02739/298952

Here is the case name and the plaintiffs and defendants:

Voting Rights Defense Project v. Padilla et al
Defendant: Alex Padilla, John Arntz and Tim Depuis
Plaintiff: American Independent Party, Voting Rights Defense Project, Clara Daims and Suzanne Bushnell

Now, I haven't looked up Clara Daims and Suzanne Bushnell - they may be Sanders supporters. But the American Independent Party sure as heck isn't, and the Voting Rights Defense Project represents all the citizens of California, not just Sanders supporters.

Point is that the WT is misrepresenting the nature of this case to make another slam against Sanders and his supporters - and a whole bunch of people on DU (based on this thread) have jumped on that wonky-wheeled bandwagon with alacrity, which just goes to show that foolish is as foolish does.

[Goldfish]

25. Thank you for clarifying this.

You are so right about this bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon and looking foolish.
Will be adding more names to my ignore list-- it sure is growing long!

[leftynyc]

44. Awwww

You and your whopping 66 posts already have a long ignore list. Heaven forbid you have to converse with those who disagree with you.

[Gothmog]

35. Judge Rules Against San Francisco Bernie Sanders Voters Who Claimed Primary Voting is Too 'Confusing

This lawsuit was a sad joke http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Francisco-Bernie-Sanders-Voters-Sue-Claim-California-Primary-Voting-is-Too-Confusing-381514681.html

A federal judge rejected on Wednesday a lawsuit by Bernie Sanders supporters who argued elections officials in California were confusing and robbing unaffiliated voters of the chance to vote in the state's June 7 Democratic presidential primary.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in San Francisco said the Voting Rights Defense Project waited too long to request an injunction for radio and TV ads informing "no-party preference," or unaffiliated, voters that they can vote in the presidential primary of the Democratic, American Independent and Libertarian parties.

The group had argued that Alameda and San Francisco county elections officials were failing to inform unaffiliated voters of that right, threatening to disenfranchise thousands of voters. Its lawsuit named California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and two county elections officials.

As the drama unfolded in court, Sanders, who has no official tie to the lawsuit, spoke at a community panel with Asian American leaders in Palo Alto.

Padilla said the lawsuit was frivolous, as did the other two registrar offices. "We don't think there is any merit to the allegations," San Francisco City Attorney spokesman Matt Dorsey said before the ruling. Both counties provided documentation that they have extensively promoted "crossover voting" online, by snail mail postcards and other means. Both registrars also testified they train their workers and cover "cross-over voting in detail."

[enlightenment]

37. Look, all I did was link to the docket.

I don't give a rat's arse what a newspaper or other media editor/writer uses as a headline. It doesn't change who filed the suit.

Believe what you like.

[Gothmog]

38. The Sanders campaign encouraged this silly lawsuit and it flopped

[riversedge]

24. "Bernie supporters made absolutely no showing of violation of law" per the Judge...

TWEET
TODAY! U.S. Dist Ct Jud Alsup ruled from bench, CA Bernie supporters made absolutely no showing of violation of law

[ucrdem]

32. Welp, that didn't take long.

When Padilla was AG of Los Angeles he had a reputation as a kind of no-nonsense guy. A lot of people assumed he was Republican as the mayor at the time was GOP (Riordan) but he was basically a get-the-job done guy who rarely made it into the news.

[Gothmog]

36. Federal judge calls Sanders backers’ arguments ‘hot air’—denies bid for emergency injunction

The San Francisco City Office has some great comments on this silly lawsuit http://www.sfcityattorney.org/2016/06/01/federal-judge-calls-sanders-backers-arguments-hot-air-denies-bid-emergency-injunction/

SAN FRANCISCO (June 1, 2016)—A federal judge in San Francisco delivered a blistering rejection to a bid by supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign for an emergency court order that would have imposed significant eleventh hour requirements on elections officials in California’s June 7 Presidential Primary.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup described allegations by plaintiffs’ counsel as “hot air” shortly before ruling verbally from the bench, colorfully noting that “there’s not a single decision in the history of the universe” equating plaintiffs’ alleged facts with a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Alsup added that plaintiffs’ made “absolutely no showing of a violation of federal law.”

“I’m gratified by the court’s ruling, which strongly affirms what we said from the beginning: that literally every violation these plaintiffs alleged was inaccurate,” said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “I think it’s unfortunate that plaintiffs proceeded with litigation, even after we took time to demonstrate that their case had no basis in reality. We’ll never know for sure if this lawsuit was just a political stunt, but I think Judge Alsup summed it up well in two words: ‘hot air.’”

San Francisco, Alameda County, and state elections officials were sued on May 20 by an unincorporated association of Sanders backers called the “Voting Rights Defense Project,” who together with the American Independence Party and two San Francisco voters leveled an array of allegations that Herrera called wholly baseless. Specifics of the injunction order sought by Sanders’ supporters included: requiring poll workers in California’s 58 counties to individually inform “no party preference” voters of their right to request a partisan presidential primary ballot; compelling statewide television, radio, internet and email announcements to inform voters about state election laws; and, “if possible,” to extend California’s voter registration deadline—which already passed on May 23 for eligibility to vote in the June 7 primary—until election day itself. The original civil complaint filed on May 20 sought additional injunctive relief, which included a requirement for California elections officials segregate ballots already cast by unaffiliated voters, and to allow “re-votes” by those voters for presidential primary candidates.

[Eko]

40. Yep, they failed.

[Gothmog]

47. California: Sanders Fans’ Fight Over Voter Rules Tossed | Courthouse News Service

This is not surprising http://thevotingnews.com/sanders-fans-fight-over-voter-rules-tossed-courthouse-news-service/

With the California primaries long over, a federal judge tossed a suit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters accusing election officials of violating their voting rights in the run-up to the June election. U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the case as moot on Thursday, telling plaintiffs’ counsel William Simpich that “there is plenty of time to take an appeal.” The lawsuit was filed less than three weeks before the June 7 primary by a group of Oakland-based Bernie Sanders supporters calling themselves the Voting Rights Defense Project. The American Independence Party and two San Francisco voters joined in the lawsuit. In their complaint against California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and San Francisco and Alameda County registrars John Arntz and Tom Depuis, the plaintiffs claimed that election officials failed to inform voters who registered without declaring a party preference of their right to request a crossover ballot that allows them to vote in the Democratic, American Independent and Libertarian primaries.

They also claimed that voters who express a party preference can change that preference, and that not allowing them to do so violates the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.

The plaintiffs asked Alsup in the complaint to extend California’s voter registration deadline until Election Day, so voters could switch parties and to allow unaffiliated voters to recast their ballots.

Simpich further asked at an injunction hearing that a list of voter rights be disseminated online, emphasizing that nonpartisan voters who want to vote for Bernie Sanders can request a new ballot from a poll worker.