Do you consider the right to vote in a primary "sacred?"

[theboss]

The Clintons have executed a clever - if stunningly cynical - move in turning the 2008 primary into some kind of flashback to Florida in 2000.

And this begs the question, does the right to vote in a Democratic Primary equate to the right to vote in a General Election?

Even more specifically, does the right to vote in a competitive Democratic Primary equate to the right to vote in a General Election. Because even if Hillary dropped out last month, there would still be a Democratic Primary in Kentucky.

So if you are proud to be an American where at least you know your free....and if you won't forget the men who died who gave that right to you....and if you will stand up next to, uh, me and defend her still today......do you think that Democratic Primaries equal national elections?

And if so...where does that leave caucuses?

[hisownpetard]

1. No.

[MercutioATC]

2. No. A primary is nothing more than a poll.

The party could flip a coin or have a chili cook-off if it chose.

A primary is not a real election, nor does not having one's vote counted constitute "disenfranchisement" in anything but a ver loose sense.

[rucky]

26. I like the chili cook-off idea.

On primary day, the candidates present their recipes and the superdelegates taste and vote. People at home can play along, too. Not eating beans could become a valid reason not to support somebody.

[Occam Bandage]

3. The "competitive" aspect is what kills me. Does she think that it was anti-Democratic

when Kerry had it all sewn up after the first few states?

[Mz Pip]

4. Sacred?

It's a right by law. So are caucuses. That's the way it's set up. If she doesn't like they system then she should work to change it. But change the rules so they will be in effect for the next game. Not at the end of this one.

[MattBaggins]

31. It is not by law

It should be but it is not.

Look at West Virginia; the Republicans just hold a convention and the party leaders pick a nominee. They don't give the people any say at all. Come to think of it; what does that say about Hillary's win if the Repubs don't seem to think it is a good idea to let the people of WV vote?

[NightWatcher]

5. No, it's only how the DNC/GOP decide how to pick a nominee

they could do "one potato, two potato....." or flip a coin. We DO have a Right to vote in the General Election. We have no right to provide imput to each of the parties.

I laugh when I hear people rant about their Florida and Michigan primary votes not counting.....How often does South Dakota's primary vote matter? What about the repuggy states primaries that are impotent because McCain has reached his magic number needed for the nom???

[theboss]

6. Whose voters, I may add, are exercising their "sacred" right by screwing with our primaries

Once you choose to have a primary, you have to follow election laws. That I agree with. But I am with everyone else who states that the DNC could choose its nominee via a Twister competition if it so choose.

[graycem]

7. No...

how many years have we gone to the polls in the later states to vote for people who weren't in the race anymore? It's not a right, only the GE vote is, each party can choose their nominee by coin toss if they so choose. :shrug:

[suston96]

8. The right to vote in a primary has the same protection as any other vote.....

Check the Twenty Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

[theboss]

9. That is not the question.

Once the party decides to hold a Primary, they obviously have to follow election rules.

The issue is, is it a "sacred" vote.

Do you think the Republicans are violating the Constitution by having meaningless primary after meaningless primary?

Did we do the same in 2004 and 2000 and 1996?

[cali]

13. Do you realize that there is nothing compelling the parties

to choose their nominees through primaries?

[suston96]

15. All votes are sacred especially votes for US and State Constitutional offices....

Once political parties decide to involve the people in their nominating processes by popular elections then they are compelled to observe the equal treatment laws of the United States as well as all federal and state election laws.

Read the Fourteenth and Twenty Fourth Amendments again - a few times if you have to. Their meaning will eventually sink in.

[cali]

18. If you're trying to argue for MI, forget it, dear.

The legal precedents side with the party. In any case, fret not, hillfan. MI and FL will be counted. Tough shit for hilly she's done. And I'm quite familiar with the Constitution, thanks.

[Clovis Sangrail]

16. 0.o Fl and Mi didn't count because they didn't pay a poll tax? /nt

[suston96]

23. The Twenty Fourth Amendment indicates that the poll tax prohibition refers to ALL elections.....

"..any primary or other election...."

That means that primary and other elections are equally under the security and protection of the US Constitution.

[Clovis Sangrail]

29. no... it means what exactly what it says

you can't abrige somebody's right to vote with a poll or any other tax.
The 24th is pretty short and direct.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

[theboss]

34. Did someone impose a poll tax this year? I missed that story.

Link please.

[suston96]

39. Sorry, the language first establishes the right of citizens to vote.......

"....in any primary or other election...." and then goes on to set the prohibition regarding non-payment of poll tax.

But here is another one on the Texas White Primary case:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt15.html

The White Primary.--Indecision was displayed by the Court,
however, when it was called upon to deal with the exclusion of African
Americans from participation in primary elections.\9\ Prior to its
becoming convinced that primary contests were in fact elections to which
federal constitutional guarantees applied,\10\ the Court had relied upon
the equal protection clause to strike down the Texas White Primary
Law\11\ and a subsequent Texas statute which contributed to a like
exclusion by limiting voting in primary elections to members of state
political parties as determined by the central committees thereof.\12\
When exclusion of African Americans was thereafter perpetuated by
political parties not acting in obedience to any statutory command, this
discrimination was for a time

<[Page 1942>]
viewed as not constituting state action and therefore as not prohibited
by either the Fourteenth or the Fifteenth Amendments.\13\ This holding
was reversed nine years later when the Court declared that where the
selection of candidates for public office is entrusted by statute to
political parties, a political party in making its selection at a
primary election is a state agency, and hence it may not under the
Fifteenth Amendment exclude African Americans from such elections.\14\
An effort by South Carolina to escape the effects of this ruling by
repealing all statutory provisions regulating primary elections and
political organizations conducting them was nullified by a lower federal
court with no doctrinal difficulty,\15\ .....

Better do some research.....Primary elections have the same constitutional guarantees as other elections.

[theboss]

41. The parties must follow federal election law. Of course, that's not the point of the thread.

I know, because I started it.

The parties are not required to hold primaries.

And they are certainly not required to hold competitive primaries.

Or do you think the Consitution insists that Hillary campaign in Kentucky?

[suston96]

59. This is what you said in your original post:

"Even more specifically, does the right to vote in a competitive Democratic Primary equate to the right to vote in a General Election."

The answer to that is yes. I have cited and posted the Texas White Primary case which shows where the Court explicitly ruled that primaries had the same protection as the general election. States could not bar blacks from voting in primaries because the Fifteenth Amendment said so.

Once political primaries DECIDE to hold primaries, then they become state functions and must follow all federal and state election mandates and procedures.

[theboss]

62. I wasn't asking for a legal opinion; I know the law

I am asking this: If Hillary dropped out, would the rights of Kentucky voters be violated?

[suston96]

64. This is what you asked:

"Even more specifically, does the right to vote in a competitive Democratic Primary equate to the right to vote in a General Election."

That's what I replied to. And that is a legal question to which I posted a cite and a case from a Court case - the Texas White Primary Case.

As well as at least one amendment to the US Constitution, which mentions the primary election along with any other election.

I covered your question - "specifically".

[BzaDem]

48. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

There is no right to vote in a primary, and no right to vote in a general election. State legislatures decide how electors are selected, and they could simply vote that all electors will be Democrats or Republicans from this point out.

To me, that doesn't make the right to vote any less sacred. If the party took away voting in the selection of the nominee, or a state legislature took away voting in the selection of our president, I would be outraged.

[suston96]

58. No "right to vote"? Then what do all those "right to vote" phrases in the Constitution mean? nt

[Clovis Sangrail]

53. I didn't say they didn't have constitutional protections

Just that the 24th doesn't provide what you're asserting.
It does not establish the right of citizens to vote in primary elections or 'any elections'.
It recognizes the right to vote for the listed offices without a poll tax in any primary or other election.

It's not primary as in party primary and other election as in the GE.
It's primary as in the main election and other as in a special election.

There is no comma after the word 'primary' and party primaries are not votes to determine any of the enumerated offices.
Had they intended it to mean party primaries they would have said as much.

Which is actually besides the point entirely because regardless of if the intent was to include party primaries (which grammatically, it doesn't) it still recognizes a right rather than establishing one AND says nothing about primary elections always having the same guarantees as other elections.

[Occam Bandage]

56. This is why people who know nothing should not attempt to interpret the law for themselves.

[Zodiak]

21. That is not the same protection

The part you cite only refers to a poll tax. The 24th Amendment does not promise anything more.

[suston96]

67. Read it again. The part I cited? I quoted the entire amendment.....

The first part is a premise upon which the conclusion follows.....

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Here is the premise:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State....."

That is the premise that states that citizens have that right to vote in any primary or other election. It also equates the primary vote with "other election".

[Zodiak]

68. ...by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

The amendment was made for a specific reason, not to be broadly interpreted for any reason whatsoever.

Your argument is that since they are mentioned in the same sentence, then they are equivalent. They are not....but they are when it comes to poll taxes.

[cali]

10. nope. not for a minute.

Political parties could choose their nominees by any method they wanted. I don't much care if my primary vote counts again. It didn't before this year.

[TheWraith]

11. Of course you have the right to vote, but that doesn't mean it has to be relevant.

By the time NY state rolled around in 2004, the primary was decided, so my vote was completely irrelevant. Close to it in the general election, too, since NY was completely safe. Having the right to vote doesn't equate to having a guarantee that your vote has maximum effect or that you're somehow disenfranchised if the race is over before you get to play. That's just the realities of elections in a big country.

[suston96]

12. And here is another US Constitutional caveat......:Fourteenth Amendment....

Section 2

........ But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,4 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged...."

Get that? "...in ANY election" and "....in ANY WAY abridged....."!

[cali]

14. where does it say in the Constitution that political parties MUST

choose their nominees via primaries- or voting at all?

[theboss]

19. I agree. So, is Iowa violating the Constitution?

By holding a caucus?

[MattBaggins]

38. Why would it violate the constitution?

How would a caucus violate anything?

[Clovis Sangrail]

20. that doesn't say anything about the right to vote in party primaries...

any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature

[Zodiak]

25. That also does not mention primaries

Only the elections that are actually codified by the Constitution. Primaries do not qualify.

[MattBaggins]

36. Hey I agree with you that it should count for all elections

but it does not. That section doesn't have anything to do with Primaries.

[suston96]

42. Both the 24th and the 14th say: "...the right to vote at any election...."

The 24th says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election...."

Very clear language.

Google the topic. Many court cases support what I have been posting. See my post here on "White Texas Primaries".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6030471&mesg_id=6031082

[MattBaggins]

47. No they do not

The 14th amendment clearly elucidates which Elections it is referring to. It does not include primaries. For, in the clause "the right to vote at any election for..." is clearly defined.

The 24th abolishes poll taxes. Nothing to do with the issues to date.

[suston96]

54. And the Texas White Primary case I cited and quoted ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6030471&mesg_id=6031082

Stated clearly that:

".....Prior to its becoming convinced that primary contests were in fact elections to which
federal constitutional guarantees applied,\10\ .....

I spent many hours in law libraries researching this years ago. Believe it. When a political party decides to use the people in the nominating process via primaries, election laws apply and they must be so applied equally and fairly.

Read those amendments which both initially make declaratives about "....the right to vote in ANY election..." and one of them includes the "primary election."

[DefenseLawyer]

60. You don't know what you are talking about.

That has nothing to do with primaries. There are rules in each state that govern how primaries are conducted. Obviously when a primary is conducted certain rights are implicated. A party couldn't hold a "whites only" primary for example. But there is no Constitutional establishment of primary elections or a "right to vote" in a primary per se. Only the two major parties even have such elections. Are the Libertarians and the Greens violating the Constitution every time they choose a candidate?

[sybylla]

17. NO!

Primaries belong to the party, not the people.

[DefenseLawyer]

22. It is the same thing as talking up winning "the popular vote"

It's just bullshit. There is no "popular vote" that has anything to do with choosing convention delegates. Hell in some places the number of delegates awarded is weighted based upon turnout or results in prior elections, so some votes are actually worth more than others. It's just a stupid talking point aimed at people who aren't paying much attention. "Disenfranchised" from voting in the primary is just silly. The party could decide to choose a nominee based on a game of Twister and we would all be "disenfranchised".

[Avalux]

24. Hell no. My vote never means anything; always decided by the time my primary rolls around.

And Cinton's camp will tell you the caucuses don't count. Zip. Nada. Clinton's fuzzy math leaves them out completely.

I'd like her to tell me why popular votes count and not caucus votes.

Now she's talking about winning with electoral votes - as if they mean something in the primary. She doesn't explain what they are in her stump. I'm sure some people listening to her don't have a clue.

[theboss]

27. John Kerry won 504 electoral votes in 2004 Primary

So, it proves a lot.

[Avalux]

30. She was giving GE numbers vs McCain.

A theoretical 'lead' over Obama against McCain; without explaining she was actually talking about the GE.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. "the rules are the rules"- Terry McAuliffe, 2003.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/25/165935/668

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state."

[Stinky The Clown]

32. I'm gunna answer yes ...... but object to the word 'sacred'

Let's just leave the 'sacred' off the table for now ..............

I believe I have the right to vote in a primary. I believe it to be as fundamental a right as is (was) habeus corpus.

I also believe that any decision involving a group of people ought to be subject to a vote and the will of the majority.

I'd like to substitute 'inviolable' for 'sacred'.

The right of ALL people to vote for people running for pubic office are inviolable.

[theboss]

33. If you lived in Iowa, would your rights therefore be violated?

If you were a Kucinich or Dodd supporter in Iowa, you had no right to vote for them. Your votes did not turn up in any total, because you needed a 15 percent threshold.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. You have the right to vote

The mechanics are not so prescribed as the underlying right.

I personally think caucuses are bullshit, but they are an accepted form of electoral decision making.

You have no specific entitlement regarding *for whom* you vote. Only that you *can* vote.

Personally, I'd like to see the whole damned system changed so even dweebs can get a fair shot. In my view, either Kucinich or Dodd (to use your examples) would have been better *for the country* than either of our candidates running now.

[2rth2pwr]

35. Yes, a vote in any election is sacred.

[theboss]

37. Was my note in the 1996 WV Democratic Primary sacred?

Because I may have written in my neighbor's name as a gag.

[2rth2pwr]

43. You may have treated your right with disrespect, but the vote itself is protected.

[theboss]

45. Protected and "sacred" are not the same

And that is not the point of the Hillary campaign anyway.

[Occam Bandage]

44. Any election? Like, say, for treasurer of Peoria Local John Wayne Fan Club?

[2rth2pwr]

46. As soon as I posted, I knew I would get jumped on for using "any".

I fucked up, I guess what I am referring to are elections for political leaders, judgeships, sheriffs, and the like. Also propositions such as those that require a minimum number of signatures, referendums, township, county, city, state and district bond measures. I'm sure I may have left off some obvious other election type, but hopefully the picture is a little clearer.

The vote in a fan club and so forth should be treated with respect as the expectation in our society is that it should be.

[Occam Bandage]

55. Ah, just kidding, mostly. The one reason why I brought that up is that

primary 'votes' are in a bit of a nether-world between actual governmental elections and fan-club ballots. Political party leadership positions are far more important than sheriffs, but yet there is no direct public link for those. Presidential nominees are chosen in the same way. The parties have decided to make the delegates publicly chosen, and the vote for those are generally protected--but at the same time, not to the extent that actual elections are.

No judge in America would say that the Peoria Local John Wayne Fan Club couldn't exclude some members (say, who hadn't paid their dues) from voting. Similarly (though admittedly for slightly different reasons), the refusal to seat FL/MI delegates would be completely and totally legal, while any proposal to simply discount FL/MI votes in the general election would be obviously illegal.

Primary endorsement processes are important, yes. But they aren't the same as general elections by any means. Hell, for many nominations (such as for the House, the Senate, etc., in certain caucus states), there's absolutely no direct voter impact at all.

[sfam]

49. Sacred? Of course not. But those still waiting to vote will feel left out...

if they don't get a chance to vote meaningfully, especially after they see everyone else vote. And truly, who listens to Hillary's rationales any more? She has a new one every week. Its more of a keeping score kind of thing than actually paying attention to what she says.

Bottom line, the MSM would LOVE this contest to go on for the next 6 months. So anything that gives a nod in that direction WILL get covered.

[BzaDem]

50. You do realize that state legislatures could all decide to pick the next president without voting?

That doesn't make the right to vote in the GE any less sacred. Likewise, the fact that parties could technically get rid of voting in the process of selecting a nominee doesn't make the right to vote in a primary any less sacred.

[mmonk]

51. I consider it a right. However a flawed election shouldn't

stand without a proper solution that goes beyond just the Clintons.

[harun]

52. People have a right to vote for elected representatives, they do

not have a "right" to vote for a political parties nominee. Political parties can pick whoever they want as their nominee, at their own peril however.

[Iggo]

57. Nothing is sacred...(n/t)

[pdxmom]

61. Since the Constitution did not address the idea of political parties, and

since the Founding Fathers actually warned against political parties, I don't believe the primary votes are "sacred".

I have heard the party primaries explained as though this was a giant "club", and there are rules for choosing the "leader" of this "club". Choosing our candidate is, actually, no different than choosing the Grand Poobah of the Royal Order of Buffaloes in Bedrock. The rules are set up for how a representative will be chosen, if there will be voting involved, who can vote, when they may vote, how they may choose to vote, etc. The Constitution only codifies that if elections are used to make the choice, then they are subject to election laws.

Nowhere are these primaries a right that any of us have, and therefore, to me, are not "sacred".

[thoughtcrime1984]

66. Well stated. That's the way it is. nt

[Texas Hill Country]

63. yes

[La Lioness Priyanka]

65. not sacred but a privilege none the less.