Judge Rejects Challenge to New York's 'Closed Primary' System

[synergie]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rejects-challenge-new-york-closed-primary-system-article-1.2622021?cid=bitly

New York State's Presidential Primary results can be certified by the city and state Boards of Elections without any interference from the courts, a Manhattan judge ruled Monday.

State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron rejected a plea by a Manhattan attorney to rule that the state's “closed primary” system violates the state constitution because independents can't vote at all and those who do participate must be enrolled in their respective political parties six months before the election.

TRUMP'S KIDS ARE RIGHT — VOTING IN NEW YORK IS HARD

Mark Warren Moody asked the judge to issue a temporary restraining order to block the certification of the April 19 primary results, but Engoron refused, saying it's not likely that Moody would win on the merits of his argument.

The judge noted that U.S. Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals have both upheld the state's closed primaries in several prior decisions.

Moody had argued that the state's voting system was unfair because to vote on April 19, he would have had to enroll in the Democratic or Republican primary last October. Unaffiliated with any party, Moody said in court papers that he didn't know he couldn't vote in the primary until he got to the polls.

“The court is concerned that a ruling in (Moody's) favor will denigrate the associational rights of the political parties and their members and may lead to 'party raiding' whereby voters not aligned with a particular party or its philosophy or goals will vote for the weaker or weakest candidate ... to prevail in the general election,” the judge wrote.

For all those hoping that these lawsuits will somehow give Bernie votes that he didn't earn, you're out of luck.

[Trust Buster]

1. It's out of a court's jurisdiction to decide what kind of primary a political party can have.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Per SCOTUS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_Party_v._Jones

[synergie]

8. Facts are very establishment, thus certain factions must reject them.

[brer cat]

19. lol nt

[COLGATE4]

2. One more "last hope for Bernie", down in flames. nt

[JaneyVee]

4. As it should be.

[hrmjustin]

5. Good!

[leftofcool]

6. Next time indies, get off your asses and register!

[grossproffit]

9. But then they'd have nothing to bitch about.

[CrowCityDem]

7. Maybe Bernie should support a bill granting political party immunity.

[NastyRiffraff]

10. The judge gets it exactly right

A very concise explanation of the reason for closed primaries:

“The court is concerned that a ruling in (Moody's) favor will denigrate the associational rights of the political parties and their members and may lead to 'party raiding' whereby voters not aligned with a particular party or its philosophy or goals will vote for the weaker or weakest candidate ... to prevail in the general election,” the judge wrote.

Too bad the "independents" can't be bothered to learn their state's election rules. Too bad the Sanders campaign didn't train staff and volunteers to educate their supporters. But of course, it's fraud!

[brooklynite]

11. WELL! Didn't see THAT coming...

[IamMab]

12. The merits on this ruling are perfect. This is settled law, political parties can determine their

own rules. Outsiders don't just get to rush a party and take it over, at least not in states where the party has established a reasonable defense, such as a closed primary and other regulations.

It is contingent upon the voter to know the laws of their state. It is NOT contingent on the state to twist and torture election law to sooth the hurt feelings of people who can't be bothered to learn the facts of an election before trying to participate in it.

[Spazito]

13. The lawsuit was frivolous to say the least, imo...

"The judge noted that U.S. Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals have both upheld the state's closed primaries in several prior decisions."

Waste of time and money.

[wysi]

14. So the plaintiff pretty much stated his ignorance from the outset?

This brings "frivolous lawsuit" to a whole new level.

[murielm99]

15. Good.

We need to work toward more closed primaries in our party. Democrats should have the right to elect Democrats, not libertarians, greens and pie-in-the-sky nitwits riding unicorns.

And independents can go ahead and run as independents. No one is stopping them.

[Walk away]

22. And no more stupid Caucuses!!!!

[Gothmog]

16. This is the correct ruling

[DesertRat]

17. Good ruling!

[MoonRiver]

18. Too bad, so sad...

good for that reasonable judge!

[brer cat]

20. Good ruling.

Thanks for posting, synergie!

[Walk away]

21. So many desperate law suits and pathetic accusations!

Sad to lose so badly while acting so poorly. Birds of a feather!

[UtahLib]

23. K&R. nt

[Jamaal510]

24. K&R

[Cha]

25. Mahalo, synergie!

[synergie]

27. Hey cha!

[jfern]

26. At the very least, they need to drop the deadline over 6 months before to switch parties

It's the harshest of any state. In only 2 other states (DE and KY) are you shit out of luck if you're a registered independent 31 days before the primary.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

28. Surprise surprise

The Bernster knew the rules going in.

[northernsouthern]

29. I hope the Supreme court takes it up...

“The court is concerned that a ruling in (Moody's) favor will denigrate the associational rights of the political parties and their members and may lead to 'party raiding' whereby voters not aligned with a particular party or its philosophy or goals will vote for the weaker or weakest candidate ... to prevail in the general election,” the judge wrote.

...Because that argument is as fakes as the come. Many states allow open or switching. The amount of "party raiding" it would take would be on a grand scale, and all of those would take away from the candidate on the other side...plus states like Mississippi have laws where a person can actually get in trouble for doing it. It basically is another poll tax that the Dems are ok with in this case.