Judge rejects challenge to New York's 'closed primary' system

[riversedge]

Source: nydailynews


BY Barbara Ross
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Updated: Monday, May 2, 2016, 8:12 PM


New York State's presidential primary results can be certified by the city and state Boards of Elections without any interference from the courts, a Manhattan judge ruled Monday.

State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron rejected a plea by a Manhattan attorney to rule that the state's “closed primary” system violates the state constitution because independents can't vote at all and those who do participate must be enrolled in their respective political parties six months before the election.

Mark Warren Moody asked the judge to issue a temporary restraining order to block the certification of the April 19 primary results, but Engoron refused, saying it's not likely that Moody would win on the merits of his argument.


The judge noted that the U.S. Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals have both upheld the state's closed primaries in several prior decisions.................

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rejects-challenge-new-york-closed-primary-system-article-1.2622021

[Kingofalldems]

1. The Democratic primary should be for Democrats only.

What about that is so difficult for people?

[Andy823]

3. i agree

Republicans crossing over to mess with the process, is plain wrong. Same with those claiming to be independents. Democrats should decide the nominee, then in the GE anyone can vote for that person.

[riversedge]

8. Yes, it should be Dems only.

[Lizzie Poppet]

43. Fine. Then the party should pay for it.

Want a closed election? Don't use public funds to hold a private affair.

[Kingofalldems]

44. It's not an election, it's a primary.

I don't want republicans voting in my party's primary. Very simple.
And I don't want people outside of the party involved in the nominating process.

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. Unless it's a caucus state, of course it's an election.

If a party in any given state wants only its members voting in their primary, fine. But don't use everyone's tax money to pay for it. A closed election is not a public event, it's a private one.

[Kingofalldems]

46. Another party can certainly join the process I am sure.

BTW, this is all about Bernie Sanders isn't it?

[annavictorious]

58. State law governs

how primaries and/or caucuses are conducted. The political parties have nothing to do with the decision. It's done according to state election law.

If you don't like your state's election laws, then vote for state legislators who will change them.

[Kingofalldems]

59. There you go.

[Duckhunter935]

52. And the party should pay the costs

Check and I bet those independents help pay those costs

[onehandle]

2. Good. Republicans and Independents are NOT DEMOCRATS. nt

[stopbush]

4. Excellent. All primaries should be closed.

Let the Indies field their own candidates, SPEND THEIR OWN $ and pay for their own primaries.

[msongs]

5. we have a primary for independents. its called THE GENERAL ELECTION where everyone who votes can

write in their fave

[Chicago1980]

6. What is a write in worth?

How often do protest votes go anywhere?

[Renew Deal]

7. The 2016 results are valid. The rules can be changed for the future

Though they probably shouldn't.

[Geronimoe]

9. 40% of voters are independents

making up more than either party. There wouldn't be a problem with closed primaries, however when the two parties rig the system than there shouldn't be closed ones. For instance, during a 2008 Presidential Debate between Obama & Romney, third party candidate Dr Jill Stein was detained in a black site and chained to a chair.

[Zynx]

22. They call themselves that, but how many consistently vote for one party over the other?

[Progressive dog]

10. All primaries should be closed nt

[Gothmog]

11. I was expecting this ruling

It is almost impossible to get the courts to set aside an election

[MisterP]

12. death to democracy!

[bluedye33139]

26. Honduran Supreme Court

When the Honduran president continued with plans to hold an illegal election in order to rewrite the constitution his way, the Supreme Court stepped in and forbade him, and he refused to comply with the terms of the court's decree. What solution do you think would have been better than the court directing the president to be deposed? Seriously, I've seen a lot of Sanders folks posting this link thinking that a president was deposed wrongly, but I wonder always what solution they would have implemented? I think the United States should have supported the Honduran government by doing exactly what we did, and I have yet to see an actual explanation of why the Sanders crowd thinks the Honduran constitution should have been torn to shreds by an autocratic executive.

[MisterP]

60. the Fourth Ballot was downgraded to a referendum and thus remained Constitutional

the Supreme Court did not order his deposal--nobody in fact can: the Embassy admitted that every single motive was false, but Clinton sat on that until it had to be WikiLeaks

the only ones pushing the "legal coup" are those blastfaxed by Lanny Davis (his other client just got reelected, woohoo!)

and Hernandez illegally and unconstitutionally replaced any Justices who refused him and changed the Constitution to allow reelection--where's the coup there?

the fact that the coup was backed by the country's main traffickers makes everyone quite suspicious of its democratic intent to boot

[bluedye33139]

62. So let the election go forward

So the solution was to -- let the election go on, since it had been downgraded? And the constitution would have been rewritten, and the constitutional crisis would have intensified? And this was your plan at the time?

[chwaliszewski]

13. I agree! All primaries should be closed.

If Indies don't have their own party, then they should just write in their favorite candidate. That's what I'm doing. Bernie or Bust!

[MrMickeysMom]

14. Short attention span theater...

Starring: ANYONE who thinks that the Democratic Party was ever defined by excluding members.

[branford]

19. Any one of the NY independents or current Republicans are free to join the Democratic Party

and vote in our primary to select our Party's candidate for president.

Why should nonmembers help select our candidate?

[MrMickeysMom]

21. This isn't a country club...

I don't know how old you are, but you need to reach back and SEE HOW the Democratic party continues to change. The changes from the mid to late 70's turned off a lot of people who then WENT ON to becoming Independents.

The way to win them back isn't to tell them they're free to join "us". You have to understand what "us" really means first.

Know your history.

[Gman]

15. No brained decision to a suit

That had zero merit.

[Equinox Moon]

16. My State is Open and has a high voter turn-out

People never have to "declare" a party in my State and they can just show up on primary day (or election day) and participate.

Democracy.

[Igel]

24. Choice is good.

That was a choice that your state party made.

Another choice was made elsewhere by a different state party.

Those who couldn't vote in NYS mostly chose not to be eligible to vote in the closed library. Perhaps they did that in ignorance, but I bear the consequences of a lots of things I do in ignorance.

[SunSeeker]

17. Good. No ratfucking. nt

[Festivito]

18. Let Independents vote independently! Bad judge! Disenfranchisement of nearly 40%: BAD.

It should be reason enough to remove a judge.

[branford]

20. No one is disenfranchised.

Every one of those people otherwise eligible to vote under federal and state standards will be able to cast their ballot in November.

The primary is to select the Democratic candidate for the presidential election. If any of these independents (or Republicans) want to vote in our primary, they are free to join the Democratic Party.

[Festivito]

27. Nobody? Nearly 40% of voters are NOBODIES! I don't think so.

Somebody said it's not who votes, it who counts the vote. Then someone said, it's not who counts the votes if you let me decide who gets to run.

That is what is wanted here.

So, it's okay to not let 40% of the population participate, not because they left the idealism of a party, rather because they are not part of a party with a capital letter followed by nine more letters.

Why should they get to participate in a run-off election. They have no expressed Constitutional right.

They should only be allowed to choose between the candidates picked for them. Right?

[branford]

28. Anyone can run for office, and as a resident of NYC,

I can assure you that political parties other than the Democrats and Republicans do in fact routinely appear on the ballot.

If independents would like the major parties to offer different candidates, they can join the party and change it from the inside or simply let it be known who they would be willing to vote for in November. Nothing entitles anyone by Democrats to vote in our primary to choose our candidate, and New Yorkers from across the political spectrum do not appear interested in changing anything.

You're also confusing issues. The OP solely concerns NY's closed primaries, not voting turnout in general elections. Poor voter turnout during actual elections have little to nothing to due with the issues being discussed here.

[Festivito]

31. Dismiss 40% to say anyone can run, then run on with ambiguous pronoun use, ... end with

end with something that doesn't resemble anything I said as something you contend I said as well as confused. Oh, my!

Regardless of what you intended with your wording, understand this: The idea of a primary is to narrow the field to those whom people intend to vote into office come the final election. Multiple parties is a divide and conquer tactic used against we the people.

That judge does not care about we the people, only we the certain people. And, that stinks.

[branford]

33. What are you talking about?

A primary is to determine who will represent a political party in an election? What legal right do people who are not members of a political party have in deciding who will represent a party which they voluntary choose not to associate with? A state or party may choose to allow an open system, but they are certainly not mandated to do so, and neither actual Democrats in New York nor our elected representatives apparently have any desire to change the system. Your belief that an open system is "good" or "better for the people" has no bearing on the legality.

Voter turnout is also irrelevant. Voting is an entirely voluntary decision, and while an open primary MAY foster increased turnout, this too has no bearing on whether a state or party is required to allow open primaries or anything similar.

[Festivito]

35. The first labeled establishment of this country is justice. That is its legality. eom

[branford]

38. Again, what the heck are you talking about?

Kindly cite what provisions in the federal or NY State constitutions or laws that set forth, "The first labeled establishment of this country is justice. That is its legality," or mandate that nonmembers of a private organization must be permitted to vote for the organizations representatives?

I hardly need my law degree to discuss these issues. High school social studies should be more than sufficient.

You may certainly hold any beliefs your wish concerning primary elections or anything else, but I have no idea where you're getting many of your ideas other than simple preference and opinion.

[Festivito]

41. It's called a Preamble to the Constitution: We the People ... establish justice.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,

... (it goes on and on)

Please note: that is the very very very first sentence.

[branford]

48. The operative parts to establish that justice are in the remainder of the Constitution.

Aspirational goals are not legally binding, and despite your opinion, "justice" has never been defined as mandating that nonmembers get to help select representatives of private organizations.

[Festivito]

54. Established aspiration. All wordings are aspirational in at least a small way. eom

[anigbrowl]

37. But what is stopping you joining a party to help select the primary candidate

It's like you don't want to join a party, but you still want to participate in party activities. Make up your mind already instead of demanding everything change so you can have it both ways.

[Zynx]

23. Party nominating processes are arguably private affairs.

They could decide to just go back to state conventions and even restrict it to members who pay their dues for membership if they want. That would be totally legal provided that those payments didn't start to veer into corrupting and collusory payments.

[Festivito]

25. They are also arguably public affairs. (And you okay poll taxes?)

Elections should be public affairs. Open. Verifiable. ... by the public.

And, if they do try a poll tax, it should be squashed like a bug by the judiciary. At least by an honest considerate judiciary.

[branford]

29. You do not understand the concept of a poll tax.

Our elections are totally public.

However, whether you like it or not, political parties are private organizations and are generally entitled to set the terms and conditions of who represents them on the ballot. Anyone can run for office, but no one is entitled to run under the banner of the Democratic Party.

The government has the ability to set certain limited conditions on primary elections and the parties can open up the process however they see fit. However, arguing that only permitting actual members of the Democratic Party to select their own representative on the ballot is akin to a poll tax is patently ludicrous and minimizes the horror of what poll taxes actually represented.

[Festivito]

32. So, I don't understand poll tax because private affairs are totally public, like it or not, parties

are private and no one is entitled to run as a Democrat if under a banner. Whereas,

Private political party primary process permit patently polled public pomposity.

[branford]

34. Huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)

[Festivito]

36. Huh? Indeed! "restrict (voting) to members who pay their dues"

Sounds like a poll tax to me.

The Twenty-fourth Amendment, ratified in 1964, prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax.

[hack89]

39. Poll taxes refer to the General Election.

everyone has a right to vote in the GE. There is no right to vote in a party primary.

[Festivito]

40. That word starting with PRI and ending with MARY, just looks a lot like primary to me. Not to you?

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV)

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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[hack89]

42. Ok. You are right. Primaries can still be closed. nt

[Festivito]

47. Should not be closed because there are two viable party elections at the same time.

At minimum, Independents should be invited to participate with Democrats in this primary season since a previous Independent is currently running as a Democrat.

That would be to be fair to the voters.

[hack89]

49. You can't make changes like that at the last minute

Bernie waited too long .

[Festivito]

50. Actually, it could be changed with just a few words. eom

[hack89]

51. Getting laws passed in NY is not that easy.

Republicans hold a lot of power

[Festivito]

53. In this case, judge's words. eom

[hack89]

55. Throw out the results and do it all over again?

That will never happen

[Festivito]

56. Throw out the judge and maybe there'll be some learn'n going on. eom

[hack89]

57. ok

[LanternWaste]

30. Odd that these things are scrutinized only during election cycles and for the most part, simply igno

Odd that these things are scrutinized only during election cycles and for the most part, simply ignored elsewhen.

[ananda]

61. I keep wondering what it will take ..

.. to get our voting rights back!

This has got to be the worst decade in history
for civil and human rights in this country.

[Action_Patrol]

63. That last sentence is completely ludicrous.

Are you serious?

[riversedge]

64. Ah Gee, no whining from the Sanders fans about Indiana. That only comes when he loses states.