Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The "we didn't understand the laws" claim didn't work - (Original Post) DURHAM D Jun 2016 OP
Here is another link from the Washington Times. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #1
K & R SunSeeker Jun 2016 #2
GOOD! Ignorance is NOT a defense - nor a reason to file a frivolous lawsuit! BlueCaliDem Jun 2016 #3
I agree - a waste of time and money. sarae Jun 2016 #13
This was to be expected Gothmog Jun 2016 #4
Doesn't that make it 3 for 3 now? sheshe2 Jun 2016 #5
Yep puffy socks Jun 2016 #12
Hee's the San Francisco Attorney's Office charlyvi Jun 2016 #6
Thanks for the link with more details. nt DURHAM D Jun 2016 #8
K&R. nt UtahLib Jun 2016 #7
Ah... the "do-over" suit. OilemFirchen Jun 2016 #9
HOT AIR!!! ~"I think Judge Alsup summed it up well in two words: ‘hot air.’ " Her Sister Jun 2016 #10
Judge savalez Jun 2016 #11
Are they helpless? charlyvi Jun 2016 #14

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
3. GOOD! Ignorance is NOT a defense - nor a reason to file a frivolous lawsuit!
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:35 PM
Jun 2016

The rules are on the Secretary of State's site. It's not hard to find, and if you're really as passionate and driven to vote for Sanders in the California Democratic Primaries, a little googling would've gotten to where you're supposed to be to read the rules that's equal for everyone.

charlyvi

(6,537 posts)
6. Hee's the San Francisco Attorney's Office
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:50 PM
Jun 2016

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 a 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.

http://www.sfcityattorney.org/2016/06/01/federal-judge-calls-sanders-backers-arguments-hot-air-denies-bid-emergency-injunction/

OilemFirchen

(7,143 posts)
9. Ah... the "do-over" suit.
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:14 PM
Jun 2016

'Cause nothing sez integrity more than "gimme another chance 'cause I'm stupid".

savalez

(3,517 posts)
11. Judge
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:27 PM
Jun 2016
Fed Judge: "not a single decision in history of the universe" backs "hot air" theory of Bernie supporters' lawsuit in California.


charlyvi

(6,537 posts)
14. Are they helpless?
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:43 PM
Jun 2016

This i in the PDF document below the article. It's an actual explanation of the filing. Could they not have just logged on to the CA elections page and learned what the rules are. This suit makes it sound like the State of California failed by not notifying them of the rules via TV, email, social media and snail mail. Has all self reliance vanished from our public life?




3. The impact of failure to inform NPP voters (no party preference voters) of their right to obtain a “crossover ballot” and to vote in the Presidential primary is significant, as is the failure to inform party-affiliated voters of their right to re-register as no party preference voters and still receive the Presidential primary ballots of the Democratic, American Independent, and Libertarian parties. All Californians’ voting rights have been and will continue to be denied or unreasonably infringed upon due to the lack of oversight of the California Secretary of State and county Boards of Elections.

http://www.sfcityattorney.org/2016/06/01/federal-judge-calls-sanders-backers-arguments-hot-air-denies-bid-emergency-injunction/
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»The "we didn't understand...