HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » pantsonfire » Journal
Page: 1

pantsonfire

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Current location: Internet
Member since: Mon Mar 21, 2016, 08:34 PM
Number of posts: 1,306

About Me

Delete

Journal Archives

Nevada Caucuses 2008 vs 2016

Three rounds:
1. Precinct Caucuses
2. County Conventions
3. State Convention

Nevada 2008:
1. Clinton 50.8% / Obama 45.1%
2. Clinton 51.1% / Obama 48.9%
3. Obama 55.0% / Clinton 44.8%

Nevada 2016:
1. Clinton 52.6% / Sanders 47.3%
2. Sanders 55.2% / Clinton 44.8%
3. Clinton 50.49% / Sanders 49.51%

As you can see, Obama steadily increased his percentage in 2008 and eventually won the state. In 2016 Clinton lost ground substantially during the county conventions and regained it at the state convention.

Does anyone here care about the alleged voter suppression in NY?

Not coming close to Arizona's batched primary, but 120,000 democratic voters purged, party affiliations changed without notice, etc.....Is this a Bernie supporter issue, in that it only becomes a topic when he doesn't win a primary? I'm concerned that many people here don't take the idea that voter suppression happened and is a blight against our democratic values, all citizens, democrats included, should widen their perspective and look at this more clearly.

“New York’s Primary may have been unconstitutional.” Even Trump's kids couldn't vote for him.

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. Today’s 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 Moody’s beginning statements in his lawsuit,

“‘No member of this state shall be disenfranchised’ is the very first line of the Constitution of the State of New York. Together with approximately three million other New Yorkers, I was disenfranchised on Tuesday April 19, 2016, as were presidential candidate Donald J. Trump’s children Ivanka and Eric. That disenfranchisement occurred because New York voters were arbitrarily and nonsensically required to choose party affiliation on or before October 9, 2015 – six months and ten days in advance of the primary election; at a time when the vast majority of the media and punditocracy did not believe that Bernie Sanders or Mr. Trump had a chance of becoming their party’s nominee. That date (October 9, 2015) strikes hard at our State Constitutional guarantee.”

Mark Moody’s 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.

Moody’s 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 Tuesday’s 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 who’s on call… New York knows there are going to be a lot of voters with a lot of problems. If you didn’t miss any deadlines or you were able to vote in the last primary and you’re still being told that you can’t vote, you can seek to get a court order to allow you to vote in the primary. This isn’t 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 aren’t allowed to vote. You’ll 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. You’ll 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 York’s 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 Yorker’s, 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:
Go to Page: 1