2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI agree with Justices Powell, Marshall, Brennan, & Douglas. NY registration laws = disenfranchise.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/752/case.html#F2/7
And this Daily News article...
To call this disenfranchisement is not to equate New York's law with far more unjust state-imposed restrictions of the past. It is merely to use an accurate label. Thwarting the exercise of citizens' most fundamental right the right to vote constitutes disenfranchisement, plain and simple. And it feeds a generalized perception that government has erected ridiculous barriers to block citizen participation in public affairs.
If even the most politically-astute people in the state are encumbered in this way, what of the less educated, less engaged, more disaffected voter the very type that Sanders' campaign was premised on courting?
You'll have to forgive his supporters for concluding that the system, at least in New York, is rigged.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/michael-tracey-n-y-election-law-disenfranchises-thousands-article-1.2600065
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Note that they are not challenging the concept of a closed primary itself
Which is what's still coming up in PA, MD, DE, CT next week.
jfern
(5,204 posts)djg21
(1,803 posts)It prevents the system from being gamed. Maybe not during this election cycle, but if the Repubs, had an unchallenged candidate running, DU would be screaming bloody murder if Repub voters were allowed to change their registrations en masse on the eve of the primary election in order to vote for a perceived weaker Democratic candidate.
Voters still can register and vote in the general irrespective, and their party enrollments become effective after the general. I think the majority in Rosario got it right, and it's not too much to ask voters to consider party affiliation in advance of a primary election.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)I'm a New Yorker. I did the very little work required to learn how to vote in my state. I'm not bothered by this at all.
And before I get accused of this being a partisan opinion, I am not bothered by the caucuses either. The states chose how they do it. Some methods favor one candidate, some methods favor another candidate. If you don't like how your state does it, get the rules changed. Don't go into a ridiculous, childish panic on the eve of the primary and expect that the rules will be changed overnight for the convenience of your candidate. Work to get down ticket Democrats elected, and then get them to institute the system you want.
That's how it works.
JI7
(89,264 posts)How much it has to do with a specific candidate v actually being concerned over the rules itself is shown in what they do to try to change things after the current election is over.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Consistently the lowest turnout among Blue States and always in the bottom 5 among all 50. Every elected Democrat in NY should be ashamed of the low number of votes that gave them their offices, never a mandate but a sampling of their constituents. NY State 2014 turnout was 29%. In NYC it was just 20%
Stallion
(6,476 posts)nm
Stallion
(6,476 posts)Held: New York's delayed-enrollment scheme did not violate petitioners' constitutional rights. Pp. 410 U. S. 756-762.
(a) Section 186 did not absolutely prohibit petitioners from voting in the 1972 primary, but merely imposed a time deadline on their enrollment, which they chose to disregard. Pp. 410 U. S. 756-758.
(b) The statute does not deprive voters of their right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to associate with the party of their choice or subsequently to change to another party, provided that the statutory time limit for doing so is observed. Pp. 410 U. S. 758-759.
(c) The cut-off date for enrollment, which occurs about eight months before a presidential, and 11 months before a nonpresidential, primary, is not arbitrary when viewed in light of the legitimate state purpose of avoiding disruptive party raiding. Pp. 410 U. S. 760-761.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)chascarrillo
(3,897 posts)JustinL
(722 posts)Some more excerpts from the dissent:
Political parties in this country traditionally have been characterized by a fluidity and overlap of philosophy and membership. And citizens generally declare or alter party affiliation for reasons quite unconnected with any premeditated intention to disrupt or frustrate the plans of a party with which they are not in sympathy. Citizens customarily choose a party and vote in its primary simply because it presents candidates and issues more responsive to their immediate concerns and aspirations. Such candidates or issues often are not apparent eight to 11 months before a primary. That a citizen should be absolutely precluded so far in advance from voting in a party primary in response to a sympathetic candidate, a new or meaningful issue, or changing party philosophies in his State, runs contrary to the fundamental rights of personal choice and expression which voting in this country was designed to serve.
Whatever state interest exists for preventing cross-overs from one party to another is appreciably lessened where, as in the case of petitioners, there has been no previous affiliation with any political party. The danger of voters in sympathy with one party "raiding" another party is insubstantial where the voter has made no prior party commitment at all. Certainly, the danger falls short of the overriding state interest needed to justify denying petitioners, so far in advance, the right to declare an initial party affiliation and vote in the party primary of their choice.
...
Partisan political activities do not constantly engage the attention of large numbers of Americans, especially as party labels and loyalties tend to be less persuasive than issues and the qualities of individual candidates. The crossover in registration from one party to another is most often impelled by motives quite unrelated to a desire to raid or distort a party's primary. To the extent that deliberate raiding occurs, it is usually the result of organized effort which depends for its success upon some relatively immediate concern or interest of the voters. This type of effort is more likely to occur as a primary date draws near. If New York were to adopt a more reasonable enrollment deadline, say 30 to 60 days, the period most vulnerable to raiding activity would be protected. More importantly, a less drastic enrollment deadline than the eight or 11 months now imposed by New York would make the franchise and opportunities for legitimate party participation available to those who constitutionally have the right to exercise them.