Federal Judge Rules for Anti-Trump GOP Delegate

[Night Watchman]

Source: NBC News

Jul 11 2016, 10:56 pm ET
by Ari Melber , Pete Williams, Alexandra Jaffe, Brad Gold and Hallie Jackson

A federal judge blocked enforcement Monday of a Virginia law binding delegates to support the primary winner at the nominating convention.

It was a victory for Carroll "Beau" Correll, a delegate to the Republican national convention who argued that the law violated his First Amendment rights to vote for his preferred candidate. Correll supported Ted Cruz in the primary, while Donald Trump received the most votes in the state.

Correll said in an interview that the Trump campaign got "morbidly humiliated" by the outcome of the case.

"They put all their chips on the table and they lost all of them — if I were them I'd go hide in a closet in Trump Tower," he said.

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/judge-va-trump-delegate-unbound-voting-him-rnc-n607461

---

New life for #NeverTrump? I hope not, because Donnie as the R nominee guarantees we get the Senate back, and may even put the House in play!

[underpants]

1. I'm very surprised

[Blue_Adept]

2. This boggles

I figure I may just not know the details, but I always believed that delegates where there to represent those who had voted and that the binding is perfectly enforceable.

The delegate is NOT there to vote THEIR PERSONAL view but the will of the voters.

Wonder if this one will get overturned.

[happyslug]

3. No reason to overturn it, just ignore it at the convention

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)

This ruling only say the VIRGINIA LAW that binds a delegate to a candidate is NOT enforceable on the delegate by the State of Virginia (or its courts), but the Convention itself may adopt the same rule and this ruling will have no affect on that Convention rule.

The Courts have long ruled that what people do at the convention can NOT be fixed by state law, on the other hand the Courts itself have long ruled that the Convention itself may adopt such a rule even if state law forbids such a rule.

Freedom of Association includes the right to determine who may be in your group and what is expected of members of your group. The KKK can NOT get a court order to be a member of the NAACP, if the NAACP does not want them (and the reverse is also true, the NAACP can not get a court order to be a member of the KKK, if the KKK does not want them).

At the same time any group can DEMAND that its member do certain things, such as man a protest line or to vote as a block in a meeting. Failure to do what the group wants gives the group the right to expel the person NOT doing what he was told. Thus at the convention the Delegate must vote the way the Convention rules says he must, or be expelled and replaced by someone else who will follow the rules of the convention.

Thus no need to file an appeal, just ignore the ruling at the convention and force everyone to vote as set by the rules they were elected under.

[LiberalFighter]

5. This only invalidates government law. States don't have any right to force it on delegates.

The rules of an organization are a different issue. What happens now is that it makes it easier for the delegates to support changing the rules. That conscience part is important because from the time of the election to the convention people may begin to question whether they voted for the right person and the delegates may see that happening. So should the delegate stick with the results based on what happened 4 to 6 months before the convention? Or go with how people in their district closer to the convention?

The GOP also doesn't conduct all of their caucuses or primaries based on proportional results. In many of their contests it is winner take all. Unlike Clinton who got the majority of votes, Trump only got a plurality. That plurality was 44.5% of the votes. The majority of Republicans in a district may still not be happy with Trump winning.

[JustinL]

9. the decision seems to be consistent with a 1981 Supreme Court decision

Democratic Party of U.S. v Wisconsin, 450 U. S. 107

The case involved a clash between a DNC rule and Wisconsin law, described by the Court as follows (pp. 109-112, footnote omitted):

Rule 2A of the Democratic Selection Rules for the 1980 National Convention states: "Participation in the delegate selection process in primaries or caucuses shall be restricted to Democratic voters only who publicly declare their party preference and have that preference publicly recorded." Under National Party rules, the "delegate selection process" includes any procedure by which delegates to the Convention are bound to vote for the nomination of particular candidates.

The election laws of Wisconsin allow non-Democrats - including members of other parties and independents - to vote in the Democratic primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. The voters in Wisconsin's "open" primary express their choice among Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination; they do not vote for delegates to the National Convention. Delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Party. But these delegates, under Wisconsin law, are bound to vote at the National Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election. Accordingly, while Wisconsin's open Presidential preference primary does not itself violate National Party rules, the State's mandate that the results of the primary shall determine the allocation of votes cast by the State's delegates at the National Convention does.

By a 6-3 vote that didn't follow strict ideological lines, the Court ruled in favor of the Democratic Party. From p. 126:

But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules.

It would seem to follow that if RNC rules allow delegates to vote "according to their conscience," then Virginia cannot require the delegates to vote in accordance with the primary results.

[malthaussen]

4. If I were the judge, he's toast.

His First Amendment rights are in no way violated. The GOP is a voluntary organization. His vote under the First Amendment occurs on the day of the General Election. His vote as a delegate falls under the rules of the voluntary association.

I'm surprised, though, that VA has any law requiring delegates to vote one way or another. Again, the GOP is a voluntary organization, and their bylaws are their own business. I wonder how many other states have such laws? Had the case been couched in terms of government overreach, rather than the absurd First Amendment argument, I might have ruled differently.

This is why I'm not a judge, y'all.

-- Mal

[cstanleytech]

6. But thats just it this case was about a "state law".

The GOP can still have their own rules for their own delegates but they just will have to enforce the rules themselves and they cannot get the state to do it for them now.

[malthaussen]

7. Article sez it's a 1st Amendment issue.

That is what I consider unfounded.

-- Mal

[cstanleytech]

12. Thats because it was.

The state had no business making a law that told the delegates who they had to cast their vote for.

[Chan790]

8. It's tails either way for the GOP on #NeverTrump and the Senate.

Whether he ends up as the nominee...this case just fucked them. If they deny him the nod, they lose the Senate and WH as their voter-base revolts and if he carries the nod, he screws them in the GE and costs them the Senate.

It's a two-tailed coin, after they called "heads."

[forest444]

10. Cleave-land 2016.

Let the games begin.

[Angry Dragon]

11. Trump should go out and get his own delegates

[forest444]

13. 50 bucks a pop - a bargain at twice the price.

http://www.businessinsider.com/paid-actors-at-donald-trump-announcement-2015-6