2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum“New York’s Primary may have been unconstitutional.” Even Trump's kids couldn't vote for him.
Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 04:20 PM - Edit history (3)
Edit: The First lawsuit filed by Mark Moody was ruled on today (picture below), tomorrow the lawsuit filed by Election Justice USA, regarding counting provisional ballots, will be heard.
There are two pending New York Primary lawsuits, one to be ruled upon today and the other filed by Election Justice USA will be heard tomorrow. Todays lawsuit filed by Mark Moody challenges the legality of the NY Primary, based on alleged violations of various parts of the NY Constitution. The judge suspended his ruling on friday to have the weekend to think it over.
Mark Moodys beginning statements in his lawsuit,
Mark Moodys hope is that the primary is entirely thrown out and that New York gets the chance for an open primary as there is considerable evidence: mass unknown voter party affiliation changes, possible election rigging, and widespread voter purges.
Moodys case is 1 of 2 notable cases surrounding the New York primary, on Tuesday May 3rd (tomorrow) the Election Justice USA [link:heavy.com/news/2016/04/new-york-election-fraud-lawsuit-results-voter-purge-hearing-open-primary-election-justice-usa/|lawsuit] will be heard in court, based on largely the same evidence, but with a different goal: EJUSA wants all provisional ballots to be counted. If the judge rules in favor of Tuesdays case it [link:heavy.com/news/2016/04/could-bernie-sanders-get-more-new-york-delegates-mark-moody-election-justice-usa-ny-primary-lawsuit/|could have an impact] on the results of the NY Primary election. This widespread voter suppression has become systemic in both parties. In Arizona it was so extremely overt it has even garnered its own wikipedia page.
New York voters who were falsely told they could not vote or were simply turned away, do not have to rely on these two cases to have their votes counted. They can get a court order today from a judge who is on call. From a Heavy.com [link:heavy.com/news/2016/04/what-to-do-if-cant-vote-new-york-primary-democrat-court-order-provisional-affidavit/|article] written by Stephanie Dube Dwilson you can, Get a court order today from a judge whos on call New York knows there are going to be a lot of voters with a lot of problems. If you didnt miss any deadlines or you were able to vote in the last primary and youre still being told that you cant vote, you can seek to get a court order to allow you to vote in the primary. This isnt as difficult as you may think, because New York has a system set up for this process today...
The Board of Elections has judges on call in each of the boroughs to help with voters who arent allowed to vote. Youll need to see a judge in your region[link:gothamist.com/2016/04/18/primary_voting_guide_2016.php|According to Gothamist], the list of available judges on call, and their hours, are:
The Bronx
Bronx County Board of Elections
1780 Grand Concourse
7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Brooklyn
Kings County Board of Elections
345 Adams Street
Fourth Floor
7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Lower Manhattan
New York County Board of Elections
200 Varick Street
7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Harlem
State Office Building
163 West 125th Street
Eighth Floor
9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Queens
Queens County Board of Elections
126-06 Queens Boulevard
7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Staten Island
Richmond County Board of Elections
1 Edgewater Plaza
6 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Gothamist recommends bringing documentation with you about your voter registration history, if you have it. Youll state your case to the judge and if he rules in your favor, he will give you paperwork that you can take back to the poll site. This paperwork will allow you to vote.
People are already reporting success with the court orders helping them vote..."
This begs a question for us as citizens in our nation: Can political parties which are entwined so tightly with every layer of the voting process truly be considered private? Does their private status exempt them from constitutional laws? Further clouding the issue is the lack of transparency in the system with laws and regulations on party affiliation and primary voting varying state by state. A number of states enforce regulation that makes political parties a semi-public arm of the government, while other states privatize our political system.
If the judges consider the political parties in New York a more public element then private. That would mean New Yorks constitution applies and the injunction moves forwards. Then perhaps we will get a proper open primary. Where everyone would be able to vote for who they wanted to. Where registration could happen at the polling station. The parties might still create issues like understaffing or stacking certain stations with workers heavily favoring a certain candidate; that will mostly amount to passive aggressiveness at best. Which as New Yorkers, will just be shrugged off. If the judge decides that the parties are not bound by the same laws as the government then the results stand. With all issues and controversies unresolved. Not in anyone's interest except the people who have allowed voter suppression to flourish in this country.
These cases are high profile. If New York rules in favor of its people then this will send a clear message of change across the nation. That the parties are public and for the people. It is our hope that with a favorable ruling that other states will follow suite. This would allow for a much more open and transparent process across the nation and will be a big blow to those who want to suppress certain voting blocs in our nation.
If you or anyone that you know needs information or wants to report voter suppression below is a list of resources and contacts for New York:
New York:
Cesar Perales, Secretary of State
Government Website
Contact Page
Email: INFO@elections.ny.gov or enforcement@elections.ny.gov
(Enforcement Counsel, NY BOE Risa S. Sugarman) or
800-367-8683 or 518-473-5086
Facebook and here
Twitter and here
Edit:
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Having such an extreme deadline puts a limitation on voters choice in candidates.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
TheBlackAdder
(28,189 posts).
How better to attract people into the party?
It doesn't leave a bitter taste with undeclared/Indys wanting to switch affiliations.
.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)This Court finds that, given what an uphill battle he faces, he is not entitled to stop gears that are already in motion, and have been for quite some time.
Order to Show Cause signed; application for Temporary Restraining Order denied.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)If someone was purged from the voting lists w/o a good legal reason then that's another matter.
FSogol
(45,484 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Political parties don't have to even put their nominations on the ballot because they are private entities, they just choose to put them on the ballot to make the process more open. It's constitutional for private entities to make their own rules.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)sought in the lawsuit?
The ruling was issued today.
https://twitter.com/JordanChariton?lang=en
synergie
(1,901 posts)It's like they miss the Fox "News" plan of being the communications directors for a particular party, and candidate. Nothing factual or evidence based, just a lot of Hillary hating, and lying for Bernie. Too bad their candidate just fails so badly with voters and their group is just so terrible at actually playing at journalism!
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)....when they don't even vote until the convention.
synergie
(1,901 posts)And Bernie himself, who insist that Hillary needs to meet a higher number of votes, including SuperD's than Bernie himself, who only needs to somehow hit the 50+1% with only PDs.
Right? Yeah, none of the Bernie media cheerleaders are quite good at math and fairness to the candidate they have no problem lying about or concealing their seething hate. The Turks routinely make pretty bad math mistakes when reporting the official counts.
Your statement is not true and not factual. Either you don't pay attention to what they're saying or you just ignore their errors because that's how the Bernie Blinders work.
They're embarrassing themselves quite a bit, as are the rest of the Bernie media, like HAHAGoodman, and Seth Abrahmson, who ALSO suck at math and truth telling. It's amusing how so many supposedly former CONS are so very Pro-Bernie. Trump and the Kochs are cheering him on as well.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)"Your statement is not true and not factual." What that super's don't vote until the convention? What are you really trying to say?
mythology
(9,527 posts)But there isn't a viable argument for why the super delegates would flip given the overwhelming lead Clinton has in the pledged delegates.
synergie
(1,901 posts)to change their registration in time to vote in the primary of a party they were not a member of. Trump's kids messed up and so did Bernie's.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)candidate! They're on board with overturning the will of the voters when that will was clearly AGAINST their candidate. They were plotting and pulling some interesting things in the two they lost. Whenever the people vote for Hillary, there must be cheating. Like when NYDN asked Bernie simple questions that the protective media had not bothered to before, it was a plot and an INQUISITION, how DARE they expect The Anointed One to have details or understanding of the issue, his only issue! How unfair! And all those times Bernie, his campaign staff and Jane have been blanketing the media, why it was a blackout!
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Voter suppression is OK if Sanders wins.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)Has this been a main topic in the Clinton camp? I think not. I tried to bring up the alleged voter suppression in Utah (Bernie won there) and it was deleted by the Hillary Clinton Group. I haven't seen any posts about voter suppression in states where she has won, that seriously discuss the issue, most of the sentiment seems to be like yours. Ohhhh it's just the Sander's voters crying wolf, guess what, it's not.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Rules are rules. You can't cry foul after the game has been played.
synergie
(1,901 posts)This is how the Tea Party got started, no one questioned the contradictory views they held and just let them rage on. It's a lesson in what NOT to do.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)They, themselves say they will not be swayed.
synergie
(1,901 posts)actually fleshed out, his are vague gestures and words with no policy details to back them up. He's got nothing and it would seem that he knows it, thus the flip flopping and the Trump like need to create havoc at a "contested convention" when he's losing badly in the popular vote, the pledged delegates (even with the dirty politics he's been playing on that front) and the SuperD's and the even more dirty politics of harassment and abuse he's sinking to with them.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)In my opinion he is a Karl Rove plant and a fraud.
brooklynite
(94,529 posts)Your constitutional rights apply to your right to vote for CANDIDATES running for elected office. They do NOT apply to the process by which a candidate is nominated by his or her Party. You are welcome to say that a Primary election sponsored by the State Government should be open to all, and you are welcome to say that you were injured by being forced to pay (through taxes) for an election you were not allowed to participate in. You are NOT welcome to claim that this is "unconstitutional".
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)....you're not the master of what is welcome and not, or are you?
synergie
(1,901 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]