Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Michigan primary statute has been declared unconstitutional

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 07:23 PM
Original message
Michigan primary statute has been declared unconstitutional
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Interesting. It's like an annulled marriage ... the offspring become bastards.
Edited on Wed Mar-26-08 08:55 PM by TahitiNut
It took me a while to wade through the 21-page decision. (IANAL!) I think it's reasonably well-decided ... but it does not and can not unring the FUBAR bell. The Secretary of State is enjoined from providing the lists of those who voted in WHICH primary, since to do so would violate the privacy of the voters. (Uh-huh.) The legislation creating the primary had a nonseverability clause so, due to that clause, the entirety of the legislation is declared unconstitutional and the election must be treated as though it didn't take place - at least legally. (Tell that to the voters who got jerked around. The Democratic Party will lose up to 5% of the vote in the General Election as a result of the FUBAR, imho.)

I find the furor over "party rules" very interesting as well. Strict compliance with Democratic Party Rules would invalidate "open primaries." It runs afoul of state laws and state constitutions, however, where party affiliation is held to fall under the "secret ballot" rationale of privacy concerns. I find it ESPECIALLY interesting that "all of the rules are equal but some are more equal than others" ... in terms of enforcement and disenfranchisement of voters who have the temerity to live in states not privileged under those same rules. Appalling.

It should be noted that a summary judgment is subject to appeal. I don't know whether anyone will bother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-27-08 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I read somewhere -- I think at MichLib
that Terry Lynn Land isn't going to appeal.

So, not only what does that now do to us Dems, but does it also mean that any delegates McCain got from Michigan have to be thrown out? This primary law was for both parties. Now the entire state has been disenfranchised by this little boondoggle. Maybe the voters should start a class action lawsuit against the legislature for enacting the law in the first place, as well as the MDP for going along with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-27-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Perhaps Hucklebee needs to campaign more. Obviously, McCain loses his Michigan delegates.
Actually, I don't know if the injunction on the Secretary of State would extend to a "private" party such as the Democratic or Republican parties. It seeems to me that they've claimed they can do whatever they want - even rules be damned. It'll be of some (academic?) interest to watch and see how the GOP handles the delegate assignments from Michigan. I'm betting they'll bend over backwards to keep the "goodwill" advantage they gained in this FUBAR.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-30-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. Totally Confused About This Whole Mess
Unless I completely misunderstand the point and implications of the ruling, (which is highly possible), isn't one implication that, as the illegal, wrongly moved up on the schedule primary, is now invalid and "erased," there is then no recorded vote, and no penalty anymore because it has now "not happened"? This then at least removes the problem of the "uncommiteds," the penalty, and all the rest, and makes a clean slate for a new vote that several groups of people have already volunteered to pay for? Would this then make it possible to just hold some kind of actual vote to get a real delegate count? Should/will the penalty--against seating delegates--stand, because Michigan did violate the rules? If the whole thing has been declared illegal, will it then be null, and this is then a way to "start over," and get some kind of resolution before the convention?

When this first happened, I was completely for the penalty, as the calendar is already ridiculously long and moved-up, adding to the total influence of large amounts of money and corporate lobbying, (because of the need to pay for media ads, consultants), etc. I also always support Howard Dean, James Roosevelt, and the rebuilt DNC, etc. As it has gone on, though, with the actual prospect of "no" delegates from Michigan (and Florida) at the National convention at all, and the fact that the Obama campaign is stalling on a solution to this, until it will be too late to re-vote, (as they seem to be Clinton wins regardless), then there is no principle at all anymore, but just dirty manipulating. If they want to punish people, why doesn't anyone mention that Dennis Kucinich, one of the best, was (the only one) actively campaigning in person here in Michigan? Is that a separate "punishment"? This is a very sticky issue, and I wish it had never come up; I wish Michigan and Florida had never pulled this stunt. The primary/caucus calendar needs to be thought about, changed, but this way was asinine.

By the way, I remember vaguely, (during the '70s?), when many people did not even bother to vote in it, because it was then a caucus, and the delegates did not even count toward electoral votes. I remember my parents being upset about this. Then it was changed to a primary at some point, and they then did count; it used to be closed, though, where you had to be a member of that Party to vote. Many people did not like that either, because you then had to declare a Party affiliation, which would then be known publicly. Maybe they should go back to that, though, so Republicans can't fuck up Democratic primaries and caucuses, by crossing over, anymore. Personally, I think caucuses should be done away with completely, except for the small, politically active States like Iowa, because they are so easily prone to corruption and abuse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan 21st 2018, 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC