http://thebernreport.com/first-time-voters-in-new-york-registered-in-record-breaking-numbers/

While the registration period for voters in the state of New York has now passed, the surge of last minute registers seems to bode well for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

In the 10 day period between March 10th and 20th, close to 41,000 new voters, energized by a platform that many of them can relate to, took the next step in getting involved with the political process. Nearly half of those have never voted before, a Demographic that Sanders has dominated by large margins in states all over the country that have already voted.

The 20,000 first-time voters that registered in New York is an “unprecedented surge” of voter interest according to officials in that state. The delegate rich state of New York votes on April 19 and is a key part of the campaign for Bernie Sanders and another chance for him to make up ground in the fight for pledged delegates.

We need to give credit to those stepping up and voting for the first-time instead of acerbically repeating the mantra too bad those people coming to Sanders' rallies don't show up to vote .... Looks like quite a few will be!

A little birdie told me to post this before I turned in this evening. Goodnight.

Sam

http://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-could-block-300000-registered-voters-from-the-polls/

 Johnny Randle, a 74-year-old African-American resident of Milwaukee, moved to Wisconsin from Mississippi in 2011, the same year the state legislature passed a law requiring a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot. Randle, with the help of his daughter, petitioned the DMV to issue him a free ID for voting because he could not afford to pay for his Mississippi birth certificate.

After a five-month “adjudication process,” the DMV denied his request. His daughter ultimately tracked down his Mississippi birth certificate, but the name listed, Johnnie Marton Randall, did not match the name he’d used his entire life, Johnny Martin Randle. The DMV said that he would either need to correct his name through the Social Security Administration and get a new Social Security card reflecting the name on his birth certificate or go to court to “change” his name and “provide court documents reflecting that your name has legally been changed to read as ‘Johnny M Randle.’” But Randle worried that any change to his Social Security information might interrupt the monthly disability payments he survives on. (This account comes from a new lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s voting restrictions filed by Democratic lawyer Marc Elias, Hillary Clinton’s campaign counsel.)

Randle was forced to choose between his livelihood and his right to vote. As of the April 5 presidential primary, he is still not able to vote in Wisconsin. After voting without incident in the formerly Jim Crow South, he was disenfranchised when he moved to the North. Stories like Randle’s are why the Wisconsin Supreme Court dubbed the voter ID law a “de facto poll tax” and it was blocked in state and federal court until a panel of Republican-appointed judges reinstated the measure in 2014.

This is a very interesting article. I am posting it and then turning in so I won't be making any comments tonight (sorry). Also, if this a dup, I apologize for that.

Sam

Just saw this crawler under CBS News Channel 9. My first instinct was to just start crying. Now I am thinking, who do we hold accountable for this? Who do we call, who do we write?

This is outrageous.

Sam

His face looks noticeably thinner. Looks like he is losing weight. He seems to be working really hard. I hope he takes care of himself.

Sam

My heart goes out to the people of Flint. This debacle should have never happened. But The Hill reports Flint's pipes might be fixed by May:

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/274340-flints-water-pipes-could-be-fixed-by-may

By that time, hopefully, those responsible for this betrayal to this community will be facing retribution. One cannot allow a poisoning of a community to happen and then walk away simply as if it didn't.

Sam

A really nice read this early in the morning (3:23 am).

The most fascinating fact about this particular election to me is that Bernie Sanders identifies income inequality causation occurring as a result of the top one percent usurping 99 percent of all new income, and the top one-tenth of that one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That very disparity is one of the direct causes of the shrinking middle class and the growth of poverty in this Country.

The salient focus of this contest between Clinton and Sanders for me is the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton are in the top one-tenth of that one percent. In other words, they are among the top targets Sanders pinpoints as a huge part of the problem. No one discusses this latter point in election debates. Yet there the elephant in the debate room sits.

What rational person actually thinks that if elected Hillary Clinton will seek to change the formula which has so enriched Bill's, Chelsea's and her lives to establish a fairer distribution of income and wealth to the middle and poor classes of people in this Country?

So Bernie identifies the problem as he sees it, and part of the problem is standing there on the debate platform along side him purloining planks of his platform. Is that not surreal? Obviously, her political cronies know she is saying what she believes she should say to get elected, but if she does in fact prevail, she will take office and do whatever she wants. But voters who support her actually buy what she is selling. What logical explanation is there for that? And additionally, do they not see the elephant?

Sam

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/respondeat+superior

[Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.

An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.

In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.

I am not going to disagree with you H20 Man, but I am going to add some food for thought. I worked for decades in the legal community in DC, for various law firms, in different support capacities, for some extremely intelligent, successful attorneys. I first learned this phrase from one of those attorneys when one day I said to my boss, "If I have made a mistake, I will take the full responsibility for it." He then quoted that phrase and told me that as his employee, he would be legally responsible for any mistakes on my part. I always remembered that and took extreme care with the work I performed during my employment in the legal community.

This concept leads me to believe that if one of Hillary's assistants is thrown under the bus and Hillary receives simply a slap on the wrist, those responsible for assessing if a crime or crimes were committed, how did it happen, why did it happen, and what harm resulted from these crimes will not feel satisfied with the outcome. Many of us here at DU look at most occurrences through a political lens, but in Washington, the political capital of the world, while politics is all-important, there is one terrain that is more important: national security.

Up until this last week or so, I just assumed this email debacle was a tactic summoned into the public view as an attack on Hillary Clinton's reputation. Then I took the time to read some of the emails, and in all honesty, I was appalled at the content. I thought immediately this will never fly with the Intelligence community, and someone will pay for this breach. I do think Comey is taking a very intense approach into delving into the details, and I see him as a man who is a stickler for playing by the rules.

There are a lot of rumors afloat in DC, and I will wait for the official announcement from the investigation as to what process will ensue.

But politics aside, H20 Man, I honestly do not believe that the Intelligence Community that protects our national security will overlook these events and simply give participants a slap on the wrist; I believe certain individuals will be taking the position that a person who has allowed these type of breaches to happen on his or her watch is not a person who can be entrusted to hold the reins of control over our national security.

In no regard is this an opinion presented to diss Clinton and promote Sanders politically. Sanders will not benefit if Clinton is charged or if she drops out of the campaign as a result of a deal reached with government officials. We will see Joe Biden jump in on the Democratic side of the aisle to take Clinton's place. After all, he supports the TPP and Sanders opposes it ....

With the highest regards,

Sam

I noticed the article didn't mention Independents, and I also know Bernie traditionally has prevailed with the Independent vote thus far. This is very encouraging, and thanks for posting it.

Sam

rather than trying to take over the FDR Democrats in the current party. Those of us who have been Democrats for a long time and support, as Bernie says, the government working for all of the people, will never lie down in the dirt with them. We should start making that statement well known - the FDR Dems and the Third-Way Dems cannot peacefully and rightfully co-exist in the same political party. And we were here first.

Sam

I had been thinking how can this possibly be legal when the Constitution specifically delegates the right to run Presidential elections to the individual states, not to political parties. I found there were many people who believe kicking aside a candidate who prevails via acquiring the most legitimate votes in primary contests to usher in another candidate better suited to there preferences is unconstitutional.

Here is one example:

Superdelgate Intervention Unconstitutional

Even critics of superdelegate deals tend to underestimate the gravity of the issue. In its very essence, the superdelegate system is unconstitutional. It destroys the right of primary voters to choose their own nominee. It offends the principle of one person one vote. In three primary cases (Nixon v. Herndon, 1927, Nixon v. Condon, 1932, Smith v. Allwright, 1944) the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to vote in a primary (a right which includes the right to be counted and respected), is protected by the Constitution. Officials cannot legally circumvent the vote. These were discrimination cases, but the arguments apply directly to the superdelegate situation in the Democratic primary.

Up to a point, a political party is master of its own house. But no party, or group within a party, can legally tamper with primary results. In Terry v. Adams (1953), the Court ruled against the "Jay Bird Association," a group of powerful white Democrats who tried to create a private enforcement process within the Democratic primary. Justice Clark ruled that "any part of the machinery for choosing officials becomes subject to the Constitution's restraints."

The superdelegate system flouts the very purpose for which primaries were conceived. "Fighting" Bob LaFollette, the Wisconsin progressive who organized the first primaries in 1903, hated boss-controlled conventions. The aim of the primaries is to remove the nominations from the hands of professionals and the wealthy donors whom professionals obey. The superdelegate issue should not be resolved through deals or negotiations. The integrity of elections is not negotiable. The superdelegate system deserves to be abolished. (bolded emphasis added)

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/02/18/screw-voters-let-superdelegates-decide

I wonder what Lawrence Tribe would have to say on this subject....


Sam


Footnote: (reposted as a separate thread at the request of another DU'er)