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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LiberalFighter

(50,050 posts)
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:20 PM Apr 2016

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No Party Changes Allowed (NY 2008) (Original Post) 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

merrily

(45,251 posts)
8. Baloney. Lawyers can be personally liable for fines for filing frivolous lawsuits. Besides, this
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:47 PM
Apr 2016

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

Stallion

(6,464 posts)
5. Verified Pleading Filed Today Claimed it Was Unconstitutional
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:32 PM
Apr 2016

arguably an alternative request for relief but it was in there

Stallion

(6,464 posts)
14. Oh I Understand-but When a Case Stands 44 Years Then the District Court is Likely to Rule In Favor
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 05:41 PM
Apr 2016

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

merrily

(45,251 posts)
18. The issue in my post is not closed primaries, but deadlines and democracy,
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:42 AM
Apr 2016

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.

Stallion

(6,464 posts)
19. You Might Want to Re-Read that SCOTUS Case Which Clearly Upheld the New York Deadlines
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:04 AM
Apr 2016

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

merrily

(45,251 posts)
20. Awww, but I do understand what I am talking about. You apparently did not understand my post or you
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:08 AM
Apr 2016

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.




HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
11. Things only get settled until the next lawsuit... if the argument is made on different issues
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:51 PM
Apr 2016

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.


merrily

(45,251 posts)
7. 5-4 SCOTUS decision. Four of five justices in the majority were nominated by Republicans.
Tue Apr 19, 2016, 04:41 PM
Apr 2016

Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 04:43 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.)





JustinL

(722 posts)
16. Not quite. The majority included White, a Kennedy appointee.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:22 AM
Apr 2016

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

merrily

(45,251 posts)
17. THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING! I am not sure how I misread the info.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:27 AM
Apr 2016

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

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»No Party Changes Allowed ...