Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

LiberalFighter

(50,942 posts)
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:20 PM Apr 2016

No Party Changes Allowed (NY 2008) [View all]

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No Party Changes Allowed (NY 2008) [View all] LiberalFighter Apr 2016 OP
I haven't seen anyone here claim it's unconstitutional. It is, however, undemocratic. merrily Apr 2016 #1
So are caucuses. Zynx Apr 2016 #2
That a lawyer even took the NY deadline case to court is very telling. merrily Apr 2016 #4
Not really. Lawyers take nonsense cases to court all the time. Zynx Apr 2016 #6
Baloney. Lawyers can be personally liable for fines for filing frivolous lawsuits. Besides, this merrily Apr 2016 #8
Poster, please. merrily Apr 2016 #9
Verified Pleading Filed Today Claimed it Was Unconstitutional Stallion Apr 2016 #5
Please see Reply 7. merrily Apr 2016 #10
Oh I Understand-but When a Case Stands 44 Years Then the District Court is Likely to Rule In Favor Stallion Apr 2016 #14
The issue in my post is not closed primaries, but deadlines and democracy, merrily Apr 2016 #18
You Might Want to Re-Read that SCOTUS Case Which Clearly Upheld the New York Deadlines Stallion Apr 2016 #19
Awww, but I do understand what I am talking about. You apparently did not understand my post or you merrily Apr 2016 #20
Things only get settled until the next lawsuit... if the argument is made on different issues HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #11
Thurgood Marshall dissented, agreeing that this disenfranchises voters. -nt- chascarrillo Apr 2016 #3
5-4 SCOTUS decision. Four of five justices in the majority were nominated by Republicans. merrily Apr 2016 #7
Interesting point! GreenPartyVoter Apr 2016 #12
Not quite. The majority included White, a Kennedy appointee. JustinL Apr 2016 #16
THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING! I am not sure how I misread the info. merrily Apr 2016 #17
Everything old is new again Lucinda Apr 2016 #13
Interesting and in 2008 NY held their primary on February 5th, not two months later. nt slipslidingaway Apr 2016 #15
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»No Party Changes Allowed ...»Reply #0