Federal Judge Declares MI Primary Unconstitutional

[kpete]

Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Federal judge: Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional
Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau
DETROIT -- A federal judge on Wednesday ruled Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional and blocked the state from giving voter lists from the Jan. 15 election to the state's major political parties.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds in Detroit ruled that the law's provision giving the list of voters' partisan preference only to the Democratic and Republican parties violated the rights of several small parties, who argued that the information should be distributed to all who wanted it or to no one.

The only immediate practical effect of the ruling was to bar the Secretary of State's office from sending the list to the parties on Wednesday, the deadline for turning it over under state law.

Edmunds, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyers who won the case and the state's top election manager all agreed that the ruling had no practical impact on the 2008 presidential campaign. "Nothing I'm going to say or do" affects the results of the Jan. 15 vote, Edmunds said. "That's the political reality."

But the ruling likely further damages the already small hope that the Democratic Party would honor the Jan. 15 results. It is unlikely that national Democratic officials would relent in their opposition to seating delegates based on a disputed vote that has now been declared flawed under the constitution.

more at:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443/1361

[GodlessBiker]

1. This makes sense. If the Dems and Reps get the names, all parties should.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. That's significant. Seating MI is against DNC rules but also constitutionally flawed.

Makes sense to me. How can there be an election with no campaign?

[stahbrett]

3. My prediction: Michigan's Dems to lose 50% delegate strength, delegates split 50/50 (nt)

[lisa58]

5. I think you're right

[mmonk]

4. I would concur that is the proper ruling.