Latest Breaking News

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)

34. Actually there was an order of relief, though it might not be entitled as such:

Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:31 PM

Apr 2016

This authorizes those who were denied access to the polls to cast their vote using a provisional ballot, due to the late stage of this decision. The judge also ruled that all county election offices must appear before the court within 60 days to defend their enrollment process.

This is definitely a win for Real Democrats who value EVERYONE having the opportunity to vote.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: New York Judge Rules For Voters In Last Minute Primary Case [View all] Bubzer Apr 2016 OP

I'm no lawyer but RandySF Apr 2016 #1

Not immediately, no. But it means the vote wont be final until affidavit ballots are counted. Bubzer Apr 2016 #3

When they are processed, they will be checked against the elections office records. pnwmom Apr 2016 #25

Did you ignore before reading? northernsouthern Apr 2016 #32

Do you not know what a provisional ballot is? Casting one doesn't mean it will be counted. pnwmom Apr 2016 #36

Yes I do. northernsouthern Apr 2016 #39

If you are involved, you must understand that the judge merely told them to use the provisional pnwmom Apr 2016 #41

The problem is you are making legal rulings in you post... northernsouthern Apr 2016 #47

No, I'm not. I'm saying the judge's ruling was that the voters should use the system pnwmom Apr 2016 #51

OK, then back it up with the link and the line you are reading. northernsouthern Apr 2016 #60

That's the normal way provisional ballots are handled. Where is your evidence that they won't pnwmom Apr 2016 #62

You are not reading my wording. northernsouthern Apr 2016 #69

The power of ignore greiner3 Apr 2016 #63

Really? So why were they saying to cast affidavit ballots before the suit was filed? anigbrowl Apr 2016 #42

The affivadit system works for those verifiably in the system. Not for those who've been changed. Bubzer Apr 2016 #44

We have different ideas of huge anigbrowl Apr 2016 #52

I wont bore you with numbers that they're representing now... but I will say it's not insignificant. Bubzer Apr 2016 #57

Huge as in Trump's hands greiner3 Apr 2016 #64

No, this changes nothing about the process. The BoE's will still go back, check their records, pnwmom Apr 2016 #79

how convenient. nt silvershadow Apr 2016 #5

lol saturnsring Apr 2016 #7

OMG saturnsring posted somthing... lol Bubzer Apr 2016 #46

This was a FAIL. The judge merely told them to use the Affidavit ballots that were always available pnwmom Apr 2016 #19

No judge would take it upon themselves to change current law still_one Apr 2016 #37

A slight disagreement with you... anigbrowl Apr 2016 #45

Cynical but true I am afraid still_one Apr 2016 #49

And you got your law degree greiner3 Apr 2016 #66

They filed this knowing full-well that they probably would NOT get an open primary 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #40

No, it does NOT ensure that the provisional votes will be counted. pnwmom Apr 2016 #59

That's not what i said. What I said is that 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #74

Then you acknowledge that the ruling changed nothing with regard to provisional ballots. pnwmom Apr 2016 #78

No. 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #87

They have to defend their general process. Not their separate decisions on each provisional ballot. pnwmom Apr 2016 #88

Of course they need to defend their process. I never said otherwise. n/t 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #90

I don't see what they've really gained, except in terms of it being a good publicity stunt. pnwmom Apr 2016 #96

You don't see any gain, I do see one. 99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #101

It's a fail for pnwmom because it allows people to vote AllyCat Apr 2016 #100

Right? Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2016 #104

It allows those who are democrats Andy823 Apr 2016 #22

Nither do I, but... 40RatRod Apr 2016 #107

Yea, team! Jack Rabbit Apr 2016 #2

POST IN GD-P TOO, PLEASE? It's Ugly there now.. appalachiablue Apr 2016 #4

Go for it! You have my permission to repost in full over in GD:P! Bubzer Apr 2016 #8

The OP over there is one of the ugliest I have ever seen. pangaia Apr 2016 #15

This time at least... other times I'm not smart enough to avoid charging into GD:P Bubzer Apr 2016 #24

Poster self-deleted GD-P misleading article OP at 1:57. Same OP appears in LBN, stubborn appalachiablue Apr 2016 #55

So I did, thanks! appalachiablue Apr 2016 #56

No problem! Bubzer Apr 2016 #58

will they count the provisional ballots before they call the state virtualobserver Apr 2016 #6

Had to make a correction; Affidavit ballots are being used... NOT provisional. Bubzer Apr 2016 #11

It's been over a decade since I was a poll worker in New York State ... Igel Apr 2016 #98

The NO YOU CAN'T people are going to be pissed off!!! dorkzilla Apr 2016 #9

Megamind. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #43

we know what that means TimeToEvolve Apr 2016 #48

Let the people vote me b zola Apr 2016 #10

K&RK&RK&RK&R pangaia Apr 2016 #12

I don't know how people will prove that their registration flipped. merrily Apr 2016 #13

It depends upon how NY maintains their records elljay Apr 2016 #21

Not sure they can prove it. zentrum Apr 2016 #38

If you're a registered Democrat, it's easy to prove. displacedtexan Apr 2016 #65

I have registered Democratic in two states (not at the same time, of course) and never got a merrily Apr 2016 #70

wouldn't they issue you a new card to show your new registration dlwickham Apr 2016 #81

Sorry. I don't understand your question. I can only refer you back to my post. merrily Apr 2016 #84

you'd get a new card every time you changed your registration dlwickham Apr 2016 #85

Did you read my Reply 70 at all? merrily Apr 2016 #89

I've been registered in four different states and always received a registration card dlwickham Apr 2016 #92

And I'm calling bs on your lame cool story bro. merrily Apr 2016 #95

This is the Democratic party, lest you forget. We champion not needing a special card to vote. Bubzer Apr 2016 #93

Dont have to be a card carying member in this case... just point out having been a dem at some point Bubzer Apr 2016 #72

I carry my card in my wallet. displacedtexan Apr 2016 #76

Good on ya... however it's been the party platform that everyone should be able to vote regardless. Bubzer Apr 2016 #80

I'm sorry, but your story just doesn't ring true to me. displacedtexan Apr 2016 #94

The ruling shifted the burden of proof from the voter ... Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2016 #105

How are the voters who were denied the chance to cast their vote be notified? Paper Roses Apr 2016 #14

In this case, if you know you're properly registered, and go to vote and are denied... you demand... Bubzer Apr 2016 #27

Count all ballots. Dont call me Shirley Apr 2016 #16

Great News! zentrum Apr 2016 #17

Why any Democrat would be opposed to counting ALL ballots mac56 Apr 2016 #18

All those who are registered Democrats Andy823 Apr 2016 #26

and probably some "independents" as well dlwickham Apr 2016 #86

This organization along with.......................... turbinetree Apr 2016 #20

This was a LOSS that they're trying to spin into a win. The provisional ballot has always been their pnwmom Apr 2016 #23

the board of election should not be trusted to dog walk questionseverything Apr 2016 #102

Pretty simple for the IT department to go back and pull the backup copies of the voter database Turn CO Blue Apr 2016 #28

Oops apcalc Apr 2016 #29

That's not an oops... that wasn't the focus of the suit. Bubzer Apr 2016 #31

No order, no relief, this was not a win Gothmog Apr 2016 #30

Actually there was an order of relief, though it might not be entitled as such: Bubzer Apr 2016 #34

They ALREADY could use the provisional ballot, so this gave them nothing in reality, pnwmom Apr 2016 #53

Actually, it can. strategery blunder Apr 2016 #73

Thank you for clarifying this for the obtuse among us. Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2016 #108

This is a win for members of the Democratic party GulfCoast66 Apr 2016 #75

True. I do find it absurd that in order to vote in a primary, you have to be registered a year out. Bubzer Apr 2016 #77

I do agree with you on that GulfCoast66 Apr 2016 #99

Too bad they don't have judges like this down in the southern states, red dog 1 Apr 2016 #33

Add to that hacking and all the vulnerabilities of e-voting Lodestar Apr 2016 #35

WRONG. The judge DENIED their motion for temporary restraining order (T.R.O.). SunSeeker Apr 2016 #50

Thank you! "T.R.O. application DENIED." pnwmom Apr 2016 #54

Yes. This OP should be locked. It is a blog site's (incorrect) analysis, not news. nt SunSeeker Apr 2016 #71

The burden of proof is what is at issue. Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2016 #109

Thousands of New Yorkers Registered as Automatic Hillary Voters LS_Editor Apr 2016 #61

This is good news all around. beastie boy Apr 2016 #67

K&R avaistheone1 Apr 2016 #68

What's sad to see is the Clintonites relying on voter suppression. basselope Apr 2016 #82

Very sad. Esperanza Apr 2016 #83

It is no surprise OwlinAZ Apr 2016 #106

k/r with pleasure. 840high Apr 2016 #91

A loss for Democrats™ but a win for democrats! corkhead Apr 2016 #97

This message was self-deleted by its author mrr303am Apr 2016 #103

That may be true in the GE, but in the primaries those votes count toward delegate apportionment. JimDandy Apr 2016 #110

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #111