HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » No Party Changes Allowed ...

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:20 PM

No Party Changes Allowed (NY 2008)

Gotham Gazette January 28, 2008 | by Andrea Senteno

The Question of Constitutionality

In the 1970s a group of New Yorkers prohibited from voting in party primaries because they missed the date for switching parties challenged the New York deadline, which was then the same as it is now. They argued that the timeframe was unconstitutional because it restricted their inherent rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to affiliate with the party of their choosing.

Two lower courts ruled in Rosario v. Rockefeller that the New York's enrollment deadline was unconstitutional. But in 1973, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four split, overturned the decision and upheld New York's primary procedures. The state's policies did not absolutely disenfranchise voters, said the Supreme Court, they merely put in place a time restriction in relation to party affiliation.

20 replies, 1895 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply No Party Changes Allowed (NY 2008) (Original post)
LiberalFighter Apr 2016 OP
merrily Apr 2016 #1
Zynx Apr 2016 #2
merrily Apr 2016 #4
Zynx Apr 2016 #6
merrily Apr 2016 #8
merrily Apr 2016 #9
Stallion Apr 2016 #5
merrily Apr 2016 #10
Stallion Apr 2016 #14
merrily Apr 2016 #18
Stallion Apr 2016 #19
merrily Apr 2016 #20
HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #11
chascarrillo Apr 2016 #3
merrily Apr 2016 #7
GreenPartyVoter Apr 2016 #12
JustinL Apr 2016 #16
merrily Apr 2016 #17
Lucinda Apr 2016 #13
slipslidingaway Apr 2016 #15

Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:22 PM

1. I haven't seen anyone here claim it's unconstitutional. It is, however, undemocratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:25 PM

2. So are caucuses.

The process has a lot of undemocratic elements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zynx (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:29 PM

4. That a lawyer even took the NY deadline case to court is very telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:32 PM

6. Not really. Lawyers take nonsense cases to court all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zynx (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:47 PM

8. Baloney. Lawyers can be personally liable for fines for filing frivolous lawsuits. Besides, this

went to the SCOTUS. They don't take frivolous cases. AND was a 5-4 decision. That doesn't happen in frivolous cases. The only judges who were in the majority were ALL appointed by Republicans Eisenhow, Nixon and Reagan. See Reply 7 below.

Proud?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511778413

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zynx (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:49 PM

9. Poster, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:32 PM

5. Verified Pleading Filed Today Claimed it Was Unconstitutional

arguably an alternative request for relief but it was in there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:51 PM

10. Please see Reply 7.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 06:41 PM

14. Oh I Understand-but When a Case Stands 44 Years Then the District Court is Likely to Rule In Favor

of the Closed Primary based on binding SCOTUS precedent unless there has been subsequent statutory changes. I'm sure the SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of closed primaries several times with regard to the closed primaries in several states-otherwise, they wouldn't exist. They may have included the unconstitutionality argument to preserve for appellate review but that's not likely in a trial court-they'll likely have to take it up on appeal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:42 AM

18. The issue in my post is not closed primaries, but deadlines and democracy,

not what courts rule because of balance of power concerns.

My reply 1 said I had not seen anyone claim unconstitutionality at DU. I said nothing about the court claim.

Do you really think that a closed primary with a deadline that requires switching 6 to 11 months in advance is democratic?

I'm sure the SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of closed primaries several times with regard to the closed primaries in several states-otherwise, they wouldn't exist.


Huh? The existence of a statute doesn't depend on whether the SCOTUS has ever ruled on it or not. Besides, this has nothing to do with my points.

They may have included the unconstitutionality argument to preserve for appellate review but that's not likely in a trial court-
'

Huh? Appellate review is, by definition, not only unlikely in a trial court but completely impossible.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but please don't elaborate. I don't need this kind of primer on the judicial system. Thanks anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:04 AM

19. You Might Want to Re-Read that SCOTUS Case Which Clearly Upheld the New York Deadlines

You don't understand jack about what you are talking about-you realize that don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:08 AM

20. Awww, but I do understand what I am talking about. You apparently did not understand my post or you

would not have referred me to the court opinion, which my prior post specified was not my issue.

Not to worry. I found your prior post to me quite muddled in both syntax and attempt at legal analysis and your most recent post to me rude. So, we're sort of even, I guess.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:51 PM

11. Things only get settled until the next lawsuit... if the argument is made on different issues

the decision of the courts may be different.

I think a deadline to change affiliation is technically OK, but then actions based on that deadline must be followed in a reasonable period of time. Having things change months afterwards really pulls the rug out from under people who actually checked their registrations and thought they were fine.

It seems that in both Arizona and New York, people checked their affiliations at the start of the primary season and therefore took no action to appeal the Party's automated change in affiliation.

I can't understand how the Democratic party would ever think it was a good thing to drop people affiliated with the party. You want people to vote as often as possible as democrats so that they get deep into the habit of doing so.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:27 PM

3. Thurgood Marshall dissented, agreeing that this disenfranchises voters. -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chascarrillo (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:41 PM

7. 5-4 SCOTUS decision. Four of five justices in the majority were nominated by Republicans.

Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:43 AM - Edit history (1)

For the majority

Blackmun, appointed by Nixon
Burger, appointed by Nixon
Rehnquist, appointed by Reagan
Stewart, appointed by Eisenhower
White, appointed by Kennedy ("He was seen as a disappointment by some Kennedy supporters who wished he would have joined the more liberal wing of the court in its opinions on Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White)

In the minority were all three liberal Justices and Powell, appointed by Nixon.

It's a balance of power issue. The legislature set the deadline. A court needed some impermissible action, like discrimination, to overturn it.

to JustinL, Reply 16 for correcting me. (I had posted that Powell was in the majority and omitted White from the majority.)





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 06:15 PM

12. Interesting point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:22 AM

16. Not quite. The majority included White, a Kennedy appointee.

Powell wrote the dissenting opinion. It is true, however, that all 3 of the liberals (Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall) joined the dissent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustinL (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:27 AM

17. THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING! I am not sure how I misread the info.

I will edit my prior post, referring to your correcting post, just so I don't confuse anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 06:20 PM

13. Everything old is new again

Thanks much for the link!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Original post)

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 06:47 PM

15. Interesting and in 2008 NY held their primary on February 5th, not two months later. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread