« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
There Is No "Right" To Vote In Primaries!
HRC has hijacked this notion of the rights of voters to be heard. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is absolute horseshit!
There is no mention of political parties in the constitution!
The political parties are NOT part of the US government!
They have primaries to try to make sure that they have a candidate that will be supported in the general election, but if they wanted to change their own rules to just simply have the nominee selected by committee they could.
It wouldn't be popular, but it wouldn't be illegal either.
The penalties imposed on FL and MI are matters of the democratic party, not great social issues in American history!
Advertisement
Comments (41)
Calling it disenfranchizing is hyperbole, but if I were a legislator in either state I'd be watching my back come reelection time.
May 22, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a voter in MI I am upset at 4 very specific people:
Sen. Carl Levin
Debbie Dingell
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick
Mark Brewer
These are the people primarly responsible for causing this issue in MI.
And you are correct, Sen. Levin will not be getting my vote in his next election bid. I don't have an opportunity to vote against any of the others.
May 22, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wolf,
Middle of the Mitten person here (I know you get it but, for those outside Michigan... I'm a Michiganian... Michigander?... never could figure which to use).
I totally agree. I think this state got spanked hard because this was the second presidential primary in a row that the state party leaders try to jump us up the ladder. (Terry Mcauliffe gave Levin the smack-down as DNC chair the last time; will ironies never cease?)
May 22, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to hear from a fellow Michigander (that's the one I've always used:).
You bring up a good point, Michigan has done this before and been punished for it and yet, they did it again.
If anyone in this country could remember what happened last week (let alone what happened last election) it would astound me.
I would love to see this brought up by one of the talking heads on cable "news", but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for that.
May 22, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both 'gander and 'ganian are appropriate.
I grew up in Kalamazoo; I live in Los Angeles now, but still go back every Christmas.
Even so, I've been right there with you, pissed off about the fine mess that we Wolverines have been put in.
But given the state economy, I can't blame the powers-that-be for resorting to desperate measures to get some federal attention.
I'm sort of ashamed that my state is now being spoken in the same sentence with Florida with regard to a messed up election.
How I wish both states had left the primary calendar alone...
May 22, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton lives in a reality bubble. It's the size of her head, and she projects images on the walls that square with the world she's currently pretending to live in. This week's reality bubble includes the right of all Americans to vote in the primary elections.
May 22, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bubble may not be of her own making. I suspect Mark Penn (who apparently is still on her payroll) and Bill may have helped produce it.
May 22, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry McAuliffe is the one! When HE was DNC Chair, he threatened to strip Michigan himself. Now he is railing against this very thing because it is politically expedient for his candidate.
Is it me or does Hillary surround herself with hypocrites? I mean, first Bill, who should realize that HE was Obama in 1992, then Terry, and now Pilar Lujan (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/superdelegate-endorsements-for-thursday_22.html). Liars and hypocrites, all of them!
May 23, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this post. I've been saying this in comments for weeks.
Primaries are NOT governmental election issues. Political parties are private entities and have no standing in election law. That the states run the elections is actually no more than a courtesy. There is no governmental "right" to the nomination process of a political party.
It's all horseshit. As she rides the news cycle and the SUSA polls showing a realignment of electoral maps in favor of Obama all over this great United States, is not covered at all.
Yeah, Lanny Davis. Real unfair to your lying client, the MSM. They give press to her rules-breaking ploy to steal the nomination, and don't show how well Obama is doing against McCain.
May 22, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
55andMale here...
John Adams was appalled at the divisiveness injected into the system when the first parties came into being (Federalists and Democratic Republicans were the first, if my tired old memory from history classes isn't acting up again).
Still, I think of that special election in California that gave them the governator. What was it? It seemed like there were 30 candidates on the ballot.
That's what I see—maybe multiplied by a few million—if we had not come up with some sort of weeding process as the country grew.
What to do? With a population somewhere around 300 million people, if we had not winnowing process as parties offer, how could we deal with, say, 500, 1,000, 10,000 people who pop up and say, "Ooh! Ooh! I want that job!"
Imagine how happy we would be if a president was elected with the support of 22% of the population because we had five well-matched and viable candidates... .
We are mostly a bi-polar society (and this campaign year seems to be proving the clinical aspect most strongly).
May 22, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine how happy we would be if a president was elected with the support of 22% of the population because we had five well-matched and viable candidates...
Perhaps, but perhaps if we had a much broader field of candidates, people would more broadly understand that in the GE, they aren't voting for a candidate, they're voting for a set of representatives who they're entrusting to vote in a manner consistent with their interests.
In fact, if we had no parties, we might've seen the Electoral College serving to produce 'coalition-style' government similar to the way every other 'democratic' Republic does it.
May 22, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why are the taxpayers paying for elections?
May 22, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to go on the assumption that you meant to ask why are taxpayers paying for primaries.
The answer to that is to look no farther than the people who passed the laws that pay for the primaries.
The question could also be extended to other parts of election law. Like why the republicans and democrats have a permanent place on all 50 state ballots, but third party candidates have to collect tens or hundreds of thousands of signatures to get their name on each states ballot.
The playing field is not level.
Color me surprised.
May 22, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think of the DNC as the country club, it's not a state organization and it's controlled by money and racism.
May 22, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
and a Private one at that. Like Augusta? Trying to be too sneaky with the rules makes the Dems look too like the GOP.
May 22, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No disenfranchisement is taking place here. The Democratic party is allowed to make whatever rules they want for selecting their candidate for President. If they wanted to have a single primary in the city of Huntington, Indiana (population ~6000) and use that single result as the mechanism for choosing their candidate, then guess what? They can do that!
So if they say to Michigan and Florida "You broke the rules so you don't count"....they can do that, too! That's not disenfranchisement. That's just politics, baby!
May 22, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want more say, you got to play. Stop sitting on the sidelines and join your local Democratic Party.
How many people making a stink about the state primaries are even involved in the political process?
May 22, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have made the comment to many friends that I'm a Bush democrat, because George W. Bush made me realize that I'm absolutely, unequivocally NOT a republican.
I had voted for some democrats and some republicans in the past and truly considered myself an independent voter. I looked at the candidates positions and voted for the one I most aligned with.
I was always pro-choice, but it's not my top issue. I am avidly for fiscal responsibility and I firmly believe that the government should keep it's nose out of my business. I think marijuana should be just as legal as alchohol and that gun sales should be regulated.
So, here I am, a (somewhat) liberal progressive in a blue state that was all set to join the democratic party when the MI democrats pulled this BS with moving up the primary. Since our dem governor and the head of the MI dem party both supported moving the primary date, I'll be damned before I'll add to their ranks under their watch. When the state party leadership changes, I'll consider joining.
May 22, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree — and I don't. Those decisions are made pretty high up the organizational food chain.
Being a door-knocker, yard-sign planter or un-robo-caller is satisfying as far as participating in local-level support for the system, but you have to pay serious political dues before the gavel pounders start even hearing you when you speak.
Heck, Teddy Roosevelt got sick of it in the early part of the last century while he was president. He felt both parties, Republican (which he "led") and Democratic, were horribly incestuous hotbeds of big money and special corporate interests.
He couldn't get the system to budge, which is why he jumped ship completely and formed the Progressive Party (also called the Bull-Moose Party) when he tried for a third term.
Strangely enough, it was his third party campaign that killed his Republican buddy's attempt at a second term (WH Taft), allowing Dem. Woodrow Wilson to win (shades of Nader).
Sorry going all Teddy-historic. I pretty much like the guy who first introduced the ideas of universal health care/national health insurance, conservation, and busting large corporate "trusts."
Yeah (tears hitting keyboard): That was universal health care — somewhere between 1901 and 1909... . Only 100+ years later and we're still fighting for that one.
May 22, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't like Hillary's argument on this.
Don't like yours either.
May 22, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, but at least mine is based in reality.
May 22, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's inaccurate to say that people can be denied the right to vote in primaries, or that political parties can set whatever rules they want when choosing delegates.
There was a long string of court cases in the early-to-mid 20th century in which the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, held that political parties could not set rules that only allowed whites to vote in their primaries. The courts held such primaries violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment.
Of course, the 14th amendment only applies to "state actors". The courts held that state political parties were state actors because, in effect, for purposes of the primary elections, they were acting on behalf of the state (or, to put it another way, they were so entangled with the state, they couldn't be disentangled).
Bonus Fact: Thurgood Marshall was the lead attorney on many of these cases, particularly the ones argued before the state court.
That being said, I don't think these line of cases apply to the current situation. To my knowledge, no court has ever held that a national political party, such as the DNC, is a state actor for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.
May 22, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also not the case that FL and MI are being picked on due to race, religion, etc., but because they violated the rules.
May 22, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You miss the point of the post.
THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HOLD A SINGLE PRIMARY!
If they decided that they were going to take an internet poll and choose their nominee, then that person would be their nominee.
If they decided that they were goint to draw straws and the short straw got to be the nominee, then that person would be the nominee.
As long as they get their committees to change the rules, then those are the new rules by which they select a nominee.
I'm certain that you are correct that IF they hold primaries (or caucuses) then they must abide by the laws of the United States regarding discrimination and the like, but that's no different than owning a bar that's open to the public.
May 23, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You miss the point.
If you really think what you say is accurate, try staring-up your own political party, and hold a primary in which only whites are allowed to vote. Aside from the outcry it would cause, any court would immediately bar such a primary.
Once a political party decides to hold primaries (and caucuses), they can't then turn around and say we're immune from judicial oversight because we could have chosen another procedure for selecting a candidate. A political party that decides to hold a primary isn't allowed to make-up any rules they want on how to conduct the primary or count the results of the primary.
The point is that the Supreme Court has held that if a State Political Party holds a primary, that State Party is a state actor for purposes of the 14th amendment. Therefore, the conduct of the primary is subject to equal protection clause, the due process clause, etc.
The point is that, so far as I know, although the Supreme Court has held STate Political parties to be state actors for purposes of the 14th amendement, the Supreme Court has never held a National Poltical Party to be a state actor.
That's the point that you miss.
May 23, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read what he said, or are you being obtuse? Here is another analogy that might help you:
You own a bar that is open to the public. You have the right to have it only open on Saturday night from 6pm to 7pm if you want to; you can serve beer and no wine, or Margarita's and no Whiskey Sours. You can set the tables in any pattern you want to. Those are your rules, and you can make them and no one can make you change them. HOWEVER -- You CANNOT put up a sign that says "Blacks Only," "Whites Only," "Women Only," or "Men Only." Why? Because that is against the law.
You can make and enforce your own rules, just like the DNC did -- however stupid they have turned out to be -- but you can't get away with making a rule that is against the law.
Get it now?
May 23, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think much, or just read about it?
Let me try to explain it to you, though I doubt it will sink in given your prediliction for alcohol oriented analogies.
A bar is a not a state actor for purposes of the 14th Amendment, so no matter what rules, including rules of service, the bar owner makes, they won't violate the 14th Amendment. They may violate other laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, but that's a different legal issue.
A state political party is a state actor for purposes of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, a state political party's conduct of a primary is subject to to judicial review under the 14th amendment.
If you don't believe me, I suggest you hold a seance to discuss this with Justice Thurgood Marshall. He'll set you straight.
So it's inaccurate to claim, argue, bloviate that political parties are never subject to judicial oversight.
The question then, is the Democratic National Committee a state actor for purposes of the 14th amendment. To my knowledge, no court has ever held that a National Party, as opposed to the state branch of it, is a state actor. Therefore, the DNC can arbitrarily decide to punish some states (MI, FL) for violating the DNC's rules, but other states (NH, NV & SC) and not run afoul of the 14th amendment.
However, if a court, in particular, if the Supreme Court, should ever decide that a national political party is a state actor for purposes of the 14th amendment, then the DNC has a major Due Process Clause problem on their hands.
May 23, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Constantinople:
Your argument breaks down here:
Even state actors are allowed to place non-discriminatory restrictions on participation in a primary - especially when those rules are well documented and publicized... for example, stating that any state wishing to participate in the nominating process cannot hold their primary before a given date, or after another given date is non-discriminatory - most especially when the dates - when selected to and published - encompassed ALL primary districts.
You keep beating the 'Whites Only' drum, but not only was no attempt was made to exclude Florida or Michigan from the process. They excluded themselves by actively moving their primaries outside the window established by their duly elected governing body.
The rules applied equally to all people and institutions, regardless of race, creed, color, size, shape, volume, proportion, orientation, eye color, disability, political affiliation, heritage, genetic predisposition,number of toes, ear lobe type, union affiliation , mood, hair color, general likability, age, number of body piercings or clothing and musical preference.
In order for a policy to discriminate, it must single out some group or subset of a group for unfair attention or exclusion. If I want to vote two weeks late in my primary, I can't. That is not discrimination, that's reality.
It's absurd to believe that any court or rational person would accept the notion that a calendar rule is discriminatory. The only POSSIBLE exception would be if - when that rule was adopted - the window excluded some state. That is not remotely the case here. FL and MI changed their dates well after the fact, and with full foreknowledge of the consequences.
No, the simple truth is FL and MI chose to chose to ignore a legal, and duly certified bylaw, and as such were correctly excluded from the convention floor. Felons serving time, and folks who choose not to register to vote are not dis-enfranchised - no one 'took away' their right to vote. Both made a choice or choices they knew would prevent them from voting, and so cannot.
FL and MI exactly the same, and none of the three can reasonably be called discriminatory.
Eeyore
May 23, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your response.
I agree that "Even state actors are allowed to place non-discriminatory restrictions on participation in a primary"
The purpose of my posts was to point out that, contrary to what many posters here seem to think, political parties aren't allowed to do whatever they want.
"It's absurd to believe that any court or rational person would accept the notion that a calendar rule is discriminatory."
Getting back to my original point, a court wouldn't even decide whether or not a calendar rule is discriminatory or not, unless the court first decided that a National Political Party is a state actor for purposes of the 14th amendment.
May 24, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make a very passionate argument, but I'm not sure why.
I've read and re-read what I wrote several times and I just don't see where I ever suggested that political parties were not subject to judicial review.
May 23, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for going over the top. As you can see, I take voting seriously.
Going a little bit off topic, I think both Obama and Clinton are engaging in political gamemanship on the MI/FL issue. But I'd rather have political gamesmanship that leads to more voting than less.
May 24, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point, Wolf. Too bad that all the talking heads on tv have apparently not yet gotten the memo. Ironically, it appears that the ones most concerned about Democratic voter "disenfranchisement" are Clinton and the tv pundits on the right: Scarborough, Buchannan, Dobbs. That ought to tell us something.
May 22, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrible argument. True, but terrible. It gives a strawman to argue against.
Instead, just explain how the two states are breaking the rules that they themselves voted for and still insist on having the other states obey those same rules.
May 23, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for putting this out there (again). There are a number of people who have missed their basic civic classes.
The Dem Party can do whatever it wants to best find a candidate it wants to put in the White House. If it keeps failing, some other party would grow out of the morass. It last happened in the 1850's over (primarily) the issue of free vs slave states.
There is nothing sacred about the two prime political parties.
May 23, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's absolutely true that parties can determine their candidates any way they want.
On the other hand, it is confusing to voters that their primary ballots look more or less exactly the same as general election ballots. We can forgive them for thinking that they should have the same right to vote on those elections too.
In the end, the best solution is to make the primary system a matter fully regulated by the federal party. After all, it is for a federal election. The state-by-state decision-making process is obviously a major problem.
May 23, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution also doesn't contain an affirmative fundamental right to vote for all citizens. That's a Court construct that's arisen over time.
Look, I'm not saying that the people in FL or MI should or should not have their voices heard here, I'm just saying don't pretend like the Constitution originally intended for complete and utter universal suffrage as an affirmative right of all beings anyway.
May 23, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who lives in Florida, I'm scratching my head over this. I didn't see hordes of people upset about the primary before the primary. Most years, people in most states don't get to select the nominee. The nominee is usually decided fairly early in the process.
Most of us -- other than those in Iowa and New Hampshire -- accept that there is little likelihood our votes will affect the nomination process.
I supported Dean in 2004 but Kerry won the nomination and I went door-to-door in Palm Beach county, asking people to vote for Kerry. That's what you do when you want to make a difference -- you pick the best of the two nominees, Dem or GOP, and you work to get that person elected in the hope that your country will be improved as a result.
This business with Hillary is bizarre and destructive. I don't recall Dean or Edwards or any other losing presidential hopeful throwing hissy fits, calling caucuses undemocratic, or rallying Democratic voters to question Kerry's credentials and tout Bush's.
That people can be so easily manipulated by the Clintons into believing that this is about voters' rights or disenfranchisement shows the naivete of our fellow Americans. Obama is the de facto nominee and Clinton is not. Let's get on with the business of turning our country around.
May 23, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
xaxaxaxa look what i found
http://ooyes.net/art-design-by-ricardo-salamanca-salamagica
May 23, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, its not like the individual vote counts anyways so what difference does it make? I dont even know why people bother.
JJ
http://www.Privacy-Center.net
May 23, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahaahah look this obama vs hillary cartoons http://ooyes.net/obama-vs-hillary-cartoons
May 24, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama followers are so completely tone-deaf on this one, it's ridiculous, and more than a little frightening. I can understand blocking the delegations while Obama's win was not sewn up. It's called Chicago street politics. Blocking them now is just insanity. No, it's not a violation of the 14th amendment, dummies. It's just the stupid politics that a zealous fraction of the Democratic Party that seems to want to cut off its nose to spite its face while McCain takes Florida. You seem to be so wrapped up in your sissified "progressivism" and hatred of Hillary that you'll drown in your own arrogance. Lord spare us the zealots.
May 26, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment