Primary elections are NOT private functions........

[suston96]

Once Primary elections are sent to the people, the voters must be treated equally and all votes must count. Parties cannot make rules and manipulate participants and results on whims and political hackery.

Every vote cast, once it is cast, must be counted and the delegates elected must be allocated. I cannot believe I am explaining this to Democrats.

Try this, especially those who believe that primaries are private political events not subject to federal election laws and federal voting rights protection.

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?S=R&bid=9300875578&cm_mmc=shopcompare-_-base-_-isbn-_-na

The Battle for the Black Ballot: Smith V. Allwright and the Defeat of the Texas All-White Primary

by Zelden, Charles L

The history of voting rights in America is a checkerboard marked by dogged progress against persistent prejudice toward an expanding inclusiveness. The Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Allwright is a crucial chapter in that broader story and marked a major turning point for the modern civil rights movement. Charles Zelden's concise and thoughtful retelling of this episode reveals why. Denied membership in the Texas Democratic Party by popular consensus, party rules, and, from 1923 to 1927, state statutes, Texas blacks were routinely turned away from voting in the Democratic primary in the first decades of the twentieth century.

Given that Texas was a one-party state and that the primary effectively determined who held office, this meant the total exclusion of Texas blacks from the political process. This practice went unchecked until 1940, when Lonnie Smith, a black dentist from Houston, fought his exclusion by election judge S. E. Allwright in the 1940 Democratic Primary.

Defeated in the lower courts, Smith finally found justice in the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 8-1 that the Democratic Party and its primary were not "private and voluntary" and, thus, were duly bound by constitutional protections governing the electoral process and the rights of all citizens.

The real meaning of Smith's challenge to the Texas all-white primary lies at the heart of the entire civil rights revolution. One of the first significant victories for the NAACP's newly formed Legal Defense Fund against Jim Crow segregation, it provided the conceptual foundation which underlay Thurgood Marshall's successful arguments in Brown v. Board of Education. It was also viewed by Marshall as one of his most importantpersonal victories. As Zelden shows, the Smith decision attacked the intractable heart of segregation, as it redrew the boundary between public and private action in constitutional law and laid the groundwork for many civil rights cases to come.

It also redefined the Court's involvement in what had been a hands-off area of "political questions" and foreshadowed its participation in voter reapportionment cases. A landmark case in the evolution of Southern race relations and politics and for voting rights in general, Smith also provides a telling example of how the clash between national concerns and local priorities often acts as a lightning rod for resolving controversial issues. Zelden's lucid account of the controversies and conflicts surrounding Smith should refine and reinvigorate our understanding of a crucial moment in American history.

[hiaasenrocks]

1. Which participants were manipulated?

[suston96]

2. Manipulated? The argument around here has been that presidential primaries.....

...are political party functions and that political parties can make any rules they want. Sorry, not so.

What participants were manipulated" All the voters who turned out for the elections in both states and who were told that their elections were null and void and that their votes counted for nothing..

[hiaasenrocks]

3. Yes, "manipulated." Your wording.

I think it's possible to make an argument that voters in MI were manipulated because the ballot was not complete.

However, voters in Florida had their chance. All the candidates were on the ballot. FL saw huge turnout. Those who did not vote chose not to do so, and there was nothing preventing them from going to the polls to make their voice heard -- even if they knew it wouldn't count.

So I'm not arguing the point you're making about party rules. I'm addressing the notion that somehow all voters in both states were manipulated or disenfranchised or something along those lines. It's not true.

[suston96]

4. Do I need a bouncing ball? Their votes were ignored and no delegates were allocated....nt

[hiaasenrocks]

10. That is a fact. No argument there.

But the discussion is about the rules and fairness. It's not as black and white as you'd like it to be.

[CK_John]

8. In MI the candidates filed to remove their names, DK screwed up the paper work twice so he remained

on the ballot. Hillary looked ahead and decided it was an advantage to stay on the ballot in case they were reinstated. Just because the others made a rookie mistake, don't blame her.

Also it is a party function, note the 2 parties have different rules and numbers on delegates and in some states the primary or caucus were held on different days from us.

Also their are many parties that hold only a convention to determine their nominee, i.e. the Greens.

[hiaasenrocks]

11. I think we're mostly in agreement.

The OP seems to be crusading for something from a standpoint of some kind of widespread, undeniable voter disenfranchisement. Which we all know didn't happen.

If anything, Michigan might have a slight argument here. But Florida, no way.

[mohc]

5. "National party rules regarding delegate selection take precedence over state laws"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=450&invol=107">Findlaw

I'll let people read the court decision for themselves instead of quoting it here. The only time federal election law comes into play would be if the party's rules violated election law. The fact that the state's rule do not violate federal laws is not enough to strike down the party's rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. Hillary seems to respect the DNC as much as Lieberman did

but then, her allegiance seems to be to the DLC.

[elixir]

6. Agreed, thank you for posting this.

[HeraldSquare212]

7. That was a 14th Amendment claim, I don't think Florida or Michigan have a similar claim.

[suston96]

9. Fourteenth Amendment? Very broad in its protection.

If it is a national primary then voting rights must be equal and fair across the country.

[mohc]

14. In fact it does

From the link I posted above:

Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party's rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 , controlling. Pp. 120-126.

(a) The National Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association under the First Amendment, and <450 U.S. 107, 108> this freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State, and necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only. Here, the members of the National Party, speaking through their rules, chose to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in any binding process leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention. Pp. 120-122.

[suston96]

17. Incomplete extract.......

From your link:

The question in this case is not whether Wisconsin may conduct an open primary election if it chooses to do so, or whether the National Party may require Wisconsin to limit its primary election to publicly declared Democrats. 21 Rather, the question is whether, once Wisconsin has opened its Democratic Presidential preference primary to voters who do not publicly declare their party affiliation, it may then bind the National Party to honor the binding primary results, even though those results were reached in a manner contrary to National Party rules.

Not the same question. We are dealing with primaries held AFTER several other states' dates. Not a compelling reason to deny 2 million voters their voting rights.

[mohc]

21. It does not need to be the *same* question.

The significant part of what you quoted was "...it may then bind the National Party to honor the binding primary results, even though those results were reached in a manner contrary to National Party rules". The nature of the violation of party rules is not at issue, the courts basically ruled that the state was free to violate the rules and hold a primary that it wants, but that they could not bind the party to the results. Florida and Michigan are under no obligation to hold new primaries, as the ones they held are perfectly legal. But similarly, the DNC is under no obligation to seat the delegations chosen by these primaries.

[theboss]

39. Where is the discrimination within the group?

Everyone in Florida was treated equally. Equally bad, but treated equally.

Here's an analogy. If I own a restaurant and refuse to serve blacks, I am breaking the law.

If I own a restaurant and refuse to serve anyone, I am not breaking the law.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. so the states that broke the rules are more important than my state, North Carolina

that didn't break the rules?

Cause the fact is everyone wants to decide the primary before my state even voters.

Some even want to count Michigan's Soviet Style election and Florida's party violating election
rather than count North Carolina's legal election.

And some would be fine to disenfranchise voters in MI and FL by seating the delegates even though voters knew the primary broke the party rules.

[Independent-Voter]

15. I could not agree more about NC

MI and FL representatives knew the deal, and chose to say 'fuck it' and push the issue. Sorry, but those voters have no one to blame then their elected reps. Stop bitching.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

16. Utter Crapola...

And by that I mean that Smith v. Allwight has no bearing on what happened in Michigan and Florida. All voters in Michigan and Florida were treated equally -- it's not as though the votes of some were counted and the votes of others were not.

Additionally, the Texas case effectively disallowed African Americans from holding public office bacause Texas was essentially a one-party state at the time. Refusal to recognize ANY delegates from Michigan or Florida treats all the candidates equally. And in the case of the Michigan Primary, it would be unfair to those candidates who names were removed from the ballot.

[hiaasenrocks]

18. Exactly.

I've raised similar points in a few posts above, but the OP has yet to explain exactly how people were denied their voting rights.

The only possible argument here is about Michigan, and even then it's kind of a difficult argument to make.

[suston96]

19. "All voters in Michigan and Florida were treated equally -- " Yes, they were.....

.... all screwed out of their elections equally. None of their votes counted. LMAO!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. But as long as they were treated equally under the rules

There was no discrimination. The DNC has rules, and Michigan legislators chose to ignore those rules. They have no one to blame but themselves if their votes didn't count.

Personally, I hope the DNC will allow statewide caucuses in March/April so their voices in Michigan and Florida can be heard. But I think this sends a clear message to the rest of the states that you can't just ignore the process -- otherwise the first primary for the 2012 Presidential Campaign will be held sometime next week.

[hiaasenrocks]

23. We're talking to a wall.

By the way, any progress on the stapler problem?

:rofl:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. I've definitely decided to get a new one...

Tried bringing some staples from home (that one works fine) and there was no difference.

Maybe I should have posted a "STAPLER UPDATE" in the Lounge.

Somebody recommended that thread for the Greatest Page...

[hiaasenrocks]

26. That was a funny post and thread.

I might have rec'd it. Don't remember.

I'm sure there were lots of people reading and thinking, "Enough with the staples!"

I just find little things like that funny. Larry David could probably get a whole episode of CYE out of stuff like that.

[themaguffin]

22. The become invalid once FL & MI BROKE THE RULES THEY AGREED TO

Jesus, it's not rocket science.

[suston96]

25. More from a link upthread......DNC rules .....

"The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end, (ii) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the presidential nominating process, . . . (v) restrict participation to Democrats only . . . ." Democratic National Committee, Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, Art. Two, 4 (emphasis added). <450 U.S. 107, 118>

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=450&invol=107

But hey, rules can be changed so that only real Democratic votes are counted......

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

27. You really should read the whole article before linking to it...

This case references Cousin v. Wigoda, in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that prohibited the Democratic National Committee from barring delegates to the national convention that, in the DNC's opinion, were improperly selected under the DNC's rules.

Justice Brennan: Thus, Illinois' interest in protecting the integrity of its electoral process cannot be deemed compelling in the context of the selection of delegates to the National Party Convention. Whatever the case of actions presenting claims that the Party's delegate selection procedures are not exercised within the confines of the Constitution - and no such claims are made here - this is a case where "the convention itself the proper forum for determining intra-party disputes as to which delegates be seated."

[suston96]

28. Sorry, don't buy it. 2 million voters thrown under the bus?

Violates the charter of the Democratic Party.

"The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end, (ii) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the presidential nominating process, . . . (v) restrict participation to Democrats only . . . ." Democratic National Committee, Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, Art. Two, 4 (emphasis added). <450 U.S. 107, 118>

Two million voters "participants" ignored on the whim of Democratic Party hacks?

What is sad is Democrats here refusing to even consider that principle of inclusion that is the chartered basis of our party. Shame!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. It's not yours to buy...

The DNC has the right to make and enforce its own rules. Florida and Michigan did not abide by those rules and, unfortunately, rank and file Democrats won't get a voice at the convention. It was a stupid move on the part of their respective state legislatures and, I hope, one that won't be repeated. This is not a "whim" on the part of the DNC -- if they allow every state to set its own rules, what's to prevent South Dakota from allotting itself 10,000 delegates?

Let me reiterate that I hope the DNC will allow for a state caucus so that these voters can be represented.

[suston96]

30. The DNC cannot "make up rules" that designate members' rights unequally.

If the party's charter assigns delegate selection to its members then that assignment must be fair and equal.

If the party allows one or two or three states to set up early elections then it must allow any other state that wants to do the same.

Section 4.
The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and
women. The delegates shall be chosen through processes which:

(a) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include
affirmative action programs toward that end,

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who
participate in the Presidential nominating process.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Is there something about "all Democratic voters full, timely, and equal opportunity to participate" that isn't clear to anyone?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. They didn't...

The rules the DNC made, had they been followed, would have provided all voters with full, timely, and equal opportunity to participate. When Florida and Michigan chose to break those rules, they created a situation where their right to participate was forfeited.

I will say for the third time, I hope that the DNC will allow state caucuses so these voters can be heard.

[suston96]

32. The right to participate in an election cannot be forfeited. Give them a fine or whatever else....

But you cannot punish voters because of actions over which they have no control.

That is a moral repugnancy against a citizenry of a republic of mammoth proportions.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. The right to vote most certainly can be forfeited...

For any number of reasons -- failing to register, for one.

And it's unfortunate that rank-and-file voters in Michigan and Florida got let out, but that the blame lies with their respective state assemblies, not with the DNC.

And I'm starting to wonder why you haven't commenting on this, my fourth, statement to the effect that these voters should be allowed a state caucus. Is it because you only want these results because they favor your candidate?

[suston96]

35. No state caucuses - they are unconstitutional and must be stopped. They do not maximize attendance.

We need a federal elimination primary weekend, followed by a federal general election weekend - with nationally standardized paper ballots.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

36. You might want to let the Supreme Court in on your little secret...

Caucuses are not unconstitutional. They may not be the best way to pick a candidate, but they are legal.

[Indenturedebtor]

37. They broke the "law" as it were

They decided to break the rules and jump the gun on other states AND to compress the primary season which would allow less time for voters to get to know the candidates.

If I know the rules before I start playing and I still try to cheat I can't cry foul when I'm punished for cheating. But really it's not about punishment. There is really NO reason why they should have gone and done that. These states tried to change the whole makeup of the Dem primary with funny business. Forget it. Disenfranchisement pfah. That's like crying foul when someone gets fired for stealing office supplies.

Speaking of staplers: http://www.virtualstapler.com/

Have you seen that badboy before? YEAH BABY!!!!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. OMG! That is hysterical

Stapler Haiku! What a scream! Does Hiassenrocks know about this site?

Anyway, your non-stapler point is well taken, and I think and even better analogy would be if a state requires you to register to vote prior to the election, you have no right to just show up on Election Day and demand the right to vote. There's massive difference between not liking the rules as they are, and simply ignoring the rules.

[Little Star]

33. I wish this whole mess would make it's way to the Supreme

Court,along with the disenfranchisement issues caused by caucuses. This should never happen again.