No Party Changes Allowed (NY 2008)

[LiberalFighter]

Gotham Gazette January 28, 2008 | by Andrea Senteno

The Question of Constitutionality

In the 1970s a group of New Yorkers prohibited from voting in party primaries because they missed the date for switching parties challenged the New York deadline, which was then the same as it is now. They argued that the timeframe was unconstitutional because it restricted their inherent rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments to affiliate with the party of their choosing.

Two lower courts ruled in Rosario v. Rockefeller that the New York's enrollment deadline was unconstitutional. But in 1973, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four split, overturned the decision and upheld New York's primary procedures. The state's policies did not absolutely disenfranchise voters, said the Supreme Court, they merely put in place a time restriction in relation to party affiliation.

[merrily]

1. I haven't seen anyone here claim it's unconstitutional. It is, however, undemocratic.

[Zynx]

2. So are caucuses.

The process has a lot of undemocratic elements.

[merrily]

4. That a lawyer even took the NY deadline case to court is very telling.

[Zynx]

6. Not really. Lawyers take nonsense cases to court all the time.

[merrily]

8. Baloney. Lawyers can be personally liable for fines for filing frivolous lawsuits. Besides, this

went to the SCOTUS. They don't take frivolous cases. AND was a 5-4 decision. That doesn't happen in frivolous cases. The only judges who were in the majority were ALL appointed by Republicans Eisenhow, Nixon and Reagan. See Reply 7 below.

Proud?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511778413

[merrily]

9. Poster, please.

[Stallion]

5. Verified Pleading Filed Today Claimed it Was Unconstitutional

arguably an alternative request for relief but it was in there

[merrily]

10. Please see Reply 7.

[Stallion]

14. Oh I Understand-but When a Case Stands 44 Years Then the District Court is Likely to Rule In Favor

of the Closed Primary based on binding SCOTUS precedent unless there has been subsequent statutory changes. I'm sure the SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of closed primaries several times with regard to the closed primaries in several states-otherwise, they wouldn't exist. They may have included the unconstitutionality argument to preserve for appellate review but that's not likely in a trial court-they'll likely have to take it up on appeal

[merrily]

18. The issue in my post is not closed primaries, but deadlines and democracy,

not what courts rule because of balance of power concerns.

My reply 1 said I had not seen anyone claim unconstitutionality at DU. I said nothing about the court claim.

Do you really think that a closed primary with a deadline that requires switching 6 to 11 months in advance is democratic?

I'm sure the SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of closed primaries several times with regard to the closed primaries in several states-otherwise, they wouldn't exist.

Huh? The existence of a statute doesn't depend on whether the SCOTUS has ever ruled on it or not. Besides, this has nothing to do with my points.

They may have included the unconstitutionality argument to preserve for appellate review but that's not likely in a trial court-

'

Huh? Appellate review is, by definition, not only unlikely in a trial court but completely impossible.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but please don't elaborate. I don't need this kind of primer on the judicial system. Thanks anyway.

[Stallion]

19. You Might Want to Re-Read that SCOTUS Case Which Clearly Upheld the New York Deadlines

You don't understand jack about what you are talking about-you realize that don't you?

[merrily]

20. Awww, but I do understand what I am talking about. You apparently did not understand my post or you

would not have referred me to the court opinion, which my prior post specified was not my issue.

Not to worry. I found your prior post to me quite muddled in both syntax and attempt at legal analysis and your most recent post to me rude. So, we're sort of even, I guess.

[HereSince1628]

11. Things only get settled until the next lawsuit... if the argument is made on different issues

the decision of the courts may be different.

I think a deadline to change affiliation is technically OK, but then actions based on that deadline must be followed in a reasonable period of time. Having things change months afterwards really pulls the rug out from under people who actually checked their registrations and thought they were fine.

It seems that in both Arizona and New York, people checked their affiliations at the start of the primary season and therefore took no action to appeal the Party's automated change in affiliation.

I can't understand how the Democratic party would ever think it was a good thing to drop people affiliated with the party. You want people to vote as often as possible as democrats so that they get deep into the habit of doing so.

[chascarrillo]

3. Thurgood Marshall dissented, agreeing that this disenfranchises voters. -nt-

[merrily]

7. 5-4 SCOTUS decision. Four of five justices in the majority were nominated by Republicans.

Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:43 AM - Edit history (1)

For the majority

Blackmun, appointed by Nixon
Burger, appointed by Nixon
Rehnquist, appointed by Reagan
Stewart, appointed by Eisenhower
White, appointed by Kennedy ("He was seen as a disappointment by some Kennedy supporters who wished he would have joined the more liberal wing of the court in its opinions on Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White)

In the minority were all three liberal Justices and Powell, appointed by Nixon.

It's a balance of power issue. The legislature set the deadline. A court needed some impermissible action, like discrimination, to overturn it.

to JustinL, Reply 16 for correcting me. (I had posted that Powell was in the majority and omitted White from the majority.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Interesting point!

[JustinL]

16. Not quite. The majority included White, a Kennedy appointee.

Powell wrote the dissenting opinion. It is true, however, that all 3 of the liberals (Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall) joined the dissent.

[merrily]

17. THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING! I am not sure how I misread the info.

I will edit my prior post, referring to your correcting post, just so I don't confuse anyone.

[Lucinda]

13. Everything old is new again

Thanks much for the link!

[slipslidingaway]

15. Interesting and in 2008 NY held their primary on February 5th, not two months later. nt