Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A Side Effect of Today's Ruling on the January Primary
As seen here, the Michigan January primary has been voided by a federal judge. There is an important possible effect of today's ruling declaring the Mich priamry unconstitutional that has gone unnoticed. If, against the odds, there is an do-over vote in Michigan, the Democrats will not be able to exclude anyone who voted in the GOP primary in January. They had planned to do so.
This is for 2 reasons. First, a person can't be excluded from something because of something that is Constitutionally void. Second, and more practically, if the party are running the primary, they won't even have the January voter lists, so they won't have the knowledge to know whom to exclude.
Advertisement
Comments (27)
I thought the same thing and wondered if Obama would now get on board. I think it would be good PR.
March 26, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So forget about seating the delegates as-is, but I think was already obvious to any reasonable person.
March 27, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Obama should consider getting on board and cut the legs out of her "disenfranchisement" meme.
While she's busy disenfranching caucus voters in Texas.
Ugh.
March 27, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You simply don't get it.
Something like 3 million Texans voted for 128 delegates in their primary.
110 thousand Texans voted for 67 delegates in their caucus.
So 2.9 million Texans didn't choose those 67 delegates. Maybe some voters were lazy, some didn't have 3 hours or more to caucus, some may have lived 50 miles from a caucus spot or not had a car, some may be overseas in the military or in the hospital or on travel or in an old folks home or not be able to take off work or leave kids/find a sitter, etc., etc., etc.
Caucuses suck even if they might have 1 or 2 redeeming values.
March 27, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And then there are superdelegates. yakety yak. It is what it is.
March 27, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Hans and company. Also remember that the conditions for voting in the GE are like those in a primary not in a caucus. So the primary outcome is far more likely to reflect November results than a caucus.
March 27, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
your numbers for the caucus are wrong by a factor of 10. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-conventions_06pol.ART0.State.Edition2.460528c.html
March 27, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll admit I appear to have been suckered by the stopped clock at "41% reporting" on the caucus such as the Wikipedia entry for the caucus with numbers much lower than what the Dallas paper reports. No time to look for the discrepancy right now, but will check it out within the next day.
March 27, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't think you were seeing vote counts. i suspect the numbers were of primary delegates or something like that.
March 27, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a phone-caller in the Texas primary. I called hundreds of individuals who had no idea their primary vote did not count 100%. They thought they had a choice of either voting in the primary or going to a caucus. And most of those I spoke with voted early because the day of the primary/caucuses they were unable to attend, either to vote on site or attend the caucus.
For 100,000 people to have 1/3 of the delegate power, and 3,000,000 to have only 2/3 the power is so unbelievably an out and out lie of the actual will of the people, that I am surprised there isn't a lawsuit pending against the system itself. But then, that's Texas for you. Their flag is equal to the US flag for good reason!
March 27, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, what do you think of Obama's original "election" to the State Senate, when he challenged all his competitors' voting petitions and got them all thrown out so he could run unopposed.
Is that "disenfranchising", "politics as usual" or "the politics of hope"?
March 27, 2008 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually that is called applying the law for ballot petitions.
March 27, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why you approve of applying the rules to let the Superdelegates vote their consciences?
March 27, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they just enforced the rules in Florida 2000 as well.
March 27, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's "making sure people don't cheat."
And I can't think of any better practice for running against the Clintons.
March 27, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not clear. After having circulated petitions in various states it is entirely possible to have a signature disqualified because they failed to put down their zip code. Highly techinical rules were probably being taken advantage of. If you think Obama's opponents cheated you might offer proof ... if you have any.
March 27, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the other candidates were thrown off the ballot. I don't know what their resources were to fight back against the challenge. But the reference I saw it didn't look like a concerted effort to cheat on the petitions, which is typically what candidates challenge.
March 27, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty telling that you and AJM use this opportunity to weigh in with your speculation on the nature of elections to which you were not parties and the facts of which you freely admit you are unaware. If someone made a ruling in Illinois, it is as safe a bet as any that they looked at the facts in making their ruling. But I suppose it is just convenient enough for you to bring up Texas or talk about 2000 or say that Michelle Obama made the final ruling so it speaks for itself. Hey, I know, maybe Jeremiah Wright made the decision!
March 27, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
not that the mi delegates matter on the republican side, but are they valid?
March 27, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. I don't think so. This makes Romney lose a big chunk of his delegates.
March 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would somebody please read the Judge's words? She said nothing in her ruling would effect the outcome of the January 15 primary.
The primary election WAS NOT declared unconstitutional.
The unconstitutionality lies in the section primary bill passed by the legislature that prohibits the Michigan Secretary of State from giving voter lists to anybody but the Republican and Democratic parties. It was not unconstitutional to hold a primary, the results were not unconstitutional, but the ban on sharing voter lists was unconstitutional.
Voters in Michigan do not register by party. In the primary a voter asked for either a GOP ballot or a Democratic ballot. His request was noted by the poll workers and reported to the Secretary of State. The law provided that only the Republican and Democratic Parties would receive the lists arranged by who asked for which party's ballots.
Mark Grebner runs a business wherein he obtains such voter lists in other elections from the Secretary of State and sells them to whoever will pay him. He was the first to challenge the law. His challenge was upheld by the District Court and the State Appeals Court. The State Supreme court overtuned. Now the Federal Court has agreed with the District and the State Appeals Courts.
Y'all got than now?
March 27, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jerry, you're missing the bigger picture.
A Michigan primary can only be run at this point by the party. Before, the plan was to exclude anyone who voted in the GOP primary from voting in the new one. To do this, the party would have to have the list of who voted.
Because the list cannot be released to the Democratic party, they cannot exclude those voters, since they do not know whom to exclude. The net effect is that in any revote, anyone will be able to participate.
March 27, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read the decision but Grubner sued to get access to the list -- he won so I assume he got access to the list and can sell it to whom he wants to.
March 27, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, what happened is that the provision allowing access to the parties was declared unconstitutional, so my understanding is that no one gets the list.
March 27, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if this is bad* because of the "Limbaugh Effect" or good because Repubs can legitimately vote for Obama.
*bad for Obama, who I unabashedly support.
March 27, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. I have no idea.
March 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This rules the Dem primary null and void but not the GOP one, right?
So they can still try to exlude some voters if they wish. HRC's people always try to exclude different people who won't vote for her anyway she can.
March 27, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment