Score one for the First Amendment: "Judge Dismisses NV Caucus Challenge"

[Unsane]

"State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_po/nevada_caucus_lawsuit

[AtomicKitten]

1. Viva Democracy!

Beware of anyone that tries to suppress the vote.

[LSparkle]

3. Yahoo! Suspiciously they only filed the suit at the last minute

after the culintary workers' union endorsed ... Obama. Get your thumbs off the scales, Billary!

[AtomicKitten]

4. a plan gone awry

Three of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Clinton advocates that AUTHORED the very plan that they then tried to get an injunction against because the endorsement they banked on didn't pan out.

Transparency is illuminating!

It is nothing short of sad that the Clinton camp is still trying to spin what is so very clear. See my sig line for a pattern emerging: A really ugly GOP-inspired pattern of voter suppression.

[LSparkle]

13. I don't trust the Clintons one bit ... they're too chummy with BushCo

Hillary's campaign has reminded me of Rove (right down to her playing the terra card), and now here comes the voter suppression stuff.

"Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss."

[dionysus]

2. k&r

[angie_love]

5. Great!

This is great news right!

[Unsane]

6. Yes

[suston96]

7. First Amendment? Sure. How about the Fourteenth Amendment......

....guaranteeing equal treatment under the law where voting power in a presidential primary should be the same for everyone.


How about people in Nevada and anywhere else not being able to physically attend the caucuses?

[Unsane]

9. It's on a Saturday--culinary employees have to work, teachers dont.

Lame argument.

If the teachers union was so concerned, why'd they only bring the suit in the last week, right after Obama receivied the CU endorsement. Shame on you.

[Lucinda]

10. Yes...some do have to work. At caucus locations they arent eliglible to vote at.

And the fact that some caucus sites are getting more delegates for the same number of people who are attending other sites is unfair. Shame on you for not being for ALL the voters in Nevada.

[Unsane]

12. Why bring it up NOW?

The week leading up to the caucus? The only logical explanation for it is that it's becuase the CU endorsed Obama.

[Lucinda]

14. Its still wrong regardless when it was brought up. And it's absolute

nonsense to think that Hillary wanted to supress casino workers votes. She and Edwards are polling extremely well.

zWhat this is all really about, is infighting between the unions, and with Nevada Dem party leadership. And the voters are getting screwed over. I have absolutely NO problem with the notion of at-large caucus sites under the circumstances...I do mind the unfair weighting though. The whole thing needs a big overhaul after the primary.

And welcome to DU! :)

[Unsane]

15. thanks

[suston96]

11. There is no provision for the handicapped or people who cannot physically...

...attend the caucus. That ain't democratic, where everyone has a right to participate in their own self-governance. That process of remote caucusing should include ALL those wishing to participate instead of just those friendly to one candidate at their work location.

Indeed, if there was more time that decision could and should be appealed.

[jkshaw]

8. Good

Expected it, though.