Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Federal Court Judge Revives Canceled New York Democratic Primary

Federal Court Judge Revives Canceled New York Democratic Primary

A spokesman for the board of elections said “lawyers are reviewing the decision and considering options.”

https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/1249763726863085577

Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang challenged New York’s decision to cancel its Democratic primary, scheduled for June 23. The state chose to do so because it’s obvious former Vice President Joe Biden will win the nomination and the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, which has ravaged the state.

Judge Analise Torres ruled that New York must have its Democratic primary, finding the cancellation unconstitutional, and it must include “all qualified candidates.”

New York removed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) because he suspended his campaign in April. He wanted to stay on the remaining ballots to gain delegates as a way to pressure the Democratic Party to bend its platform to his radical ideas.

Sanders’ suspension left Biden as the only candidate, which left the former VP as the likely candidate to face off against President Donald Trump in November.

Yang’s lawsuit claimed the New York State Board of Elections “fundamentally denie[d] [voters] the right to choose our next candidate for the office of President of the United States.”

From The New York Post:

“[T]he removal of presidential contenders from the primary ballot not only deprived those candidates of the chance to garner votes for the Democratic Party’s nomination,” Torres wrote in her opinion.

“…but also deprived their pledged delegates of the opportunity to run for a position where they could influence the party platform, vote on party governance issues, pressure the eventual nominee on matters of personnel or policy, and react to unexpected developments at the Convention.”

Torres admitted that the decision to suspend the primary due to the coronavirus “was ‘an important state interest.'” However, “’the Court is not convinced that canceling the presidential primary would meaningfully advance that interest — at least not to the degree as would justify the burdensome impingement’ on the plaintiffs’ rights.”

The decision to cancel the primary did not affect all the counties. Some of the counties had local elections on the ballots. Some of those candidates worried the cancellation would cause voters to “presume the entire primary had been called off.”

The board of elections did not comment on the decision. Chairman Jay Jacobs said he “obviously” disagrees with the decision, but still needs to review it.

The counsel for the plaintiffs hopes the board does “not appeal the decision,” but a spokesman for the board said “its lawyers are reviewing the decision and considering options.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

casualobserver | May 6, 2020 at 9:19 am

As fast as Biden’s appears to be escalating, this primary in a month and half might be a great opportunity for Bernie. Or whoever might really be the final nominee once the party apparatus figures out how to move Biden to the side.

A vote for Biden is a vote for sexual assault.

rabid wombat | May 6, 2020 at 9:42 am

Bring the popcorn…

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 6, 2020 at 9:46 am

DEMS, reaping the whirlwind hurricane…….

This ruling certainly puts a kink in the DNC’s plan to completely rig the convention.

As Mr. and/or Ms. R.Wombat noted above, “bring the popcorn”.

Torres is a Democrat judge appointed by Obama in 2013. I mention this because Democrat judges have a sordid history of doing what they want regardless of what the Constitution says.

This decision makes me wonder if Torres is a Berniebro trying to give Bernie! (or some other Democrat) the chance to overtake Biden and build the case to replace him.

The state chose to do so because it’s obvious former Vice President Joe Biden will win the nomination and the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, which has ravaged the state.

Biden gets everything.

Frank Hammond | May 6, 2020 at 10:04 am

Does this mean we will see Clueless Joe on the campaign trail in NY?

“Wuhan coronavirus pandemic, which has ravaged the state.” Correction: It has ravaged the eastern and southern-most parts of the state. WEST of Albany and hundreds of miles from NYC, things are relatively low-key by comparison and our experience with COVID has been very different. Let’s not make the mistake of broad-brushing the experience of a few democrat-infested counties in the Tri-state area onto the largely-sane rest of the state.

That said, I don’t think I could care less about whether or not the democrats have a primary here now, or ever.

It keeps alive all the scandal talk.

This is a very strange ruling. What possible basis could it have? Since when does the constitution require a state to hold a primary?

It’s up to state law whether there is a primary or not, and NY law says that a party’s delegates on the Board of Elections can remove candidates who are not actively campaigning, so that is what they did. And if there’s only one candidate left there is no primary. That is what the Board’s Republican members did two months ago; they canceled the primary because there was only one qualified candidate. Now the Democrat members did the same. So how does a judge, let alone a federal judge, get the right to interfere?

    GWB in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 12:24 pm

    As the song says, “It’s my party and I’ll cry primary if I want to.”

    CorkyAgain in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2020 at 2:39 pm

    I agree with you on this one, Milhouse. I don’t see anything in the Constitution about the way parties should go about selecting their candidates for any office.

    I’ve often wondered how the parties managed to get the taxpayers to fund the process and have it overseen by elected officials. Although I’ve never taken the time to research the question I wouldn’t be surprised if it involved the usual rhetoric about “democracy” and the horror of “disenfranchisement”.

    McGehee in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2020 at 1:01 pm

    Well, I’m not seeing anything about the Constitution in the reportage, so the next question is whether some element of the Voting Rights Act or some similar federal statute or pursuant regulation was the basis for the decision (the constitutional basis for the law or regulation has presumably already been adjudicated long ago, probably wrongly but that’s just my default assumption).

    The petitioners in this case chose their venue and it appears they knew what they were doing to get — however temporarily — the desired result.

      Milhouse in reply to McGehee. | May 7, 2020 at 4:52 pm

      Well, I’m not seeing anything about the Constitution in the reportage

      Judge Analise Torres ruled that New York must have its Democratic primary, finding the cancellation unconstitutional, and it must include “all qualified candidates.”

By the way, one consequence of this decision, if it stands, is that the polls will be open not just on June 23 but for more than a week beforehand. NY just implemented early voting, but not for congressional primaries. So when the presidential primary was canceled all those early voting days were wiped off the calendar. Now, if the ruling stands, they’ll have to be put back.

As always, the Dems do what they accuse others of doing. Trump is going to cancel the elections!! Everybody panic!! (And while you’re doing that, we’ll just go ahead and cancel elections.)

    Milhouse in reply to windbag. | May 6, 2020 at 12:02 pm

    A primary is not an election. And Trump (or rather the NY Republican Party) canceled the R primary two months ago.

      thetaqjr in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2020 at 8:59 am

      Is the down voter claiming that a primary is indeed an election, or is he claiming that the Republican primary is scheduled to take place?

      Downvoter, speak up, please.

      McGehee in reply to Milhouse. | May 7, 2020 at 1:02 pm

      If the state sanctions, funds, and operates it, it is an election. It is subject to the same VRA and related requirements as a general election.

        Milhouse in reply to McGehee. | May 7, 2020 at 4:54 pm

        The constitution does not require the state to hold it. And state law authorizes the Board of Election members representing the party concerned to cancel it.

        Milhouse in reply to McGehee. | May 7, 2020 at 4:56 pm

        PS: The point is that it is not analogous to the general election, and its cancellation is not analogous to a hypothetical cancellation of the general election.

2nd Ammendment Mother | May 6, 2020 at 11:57 am

I admit, I’m ready to watch the contortionist show….. Dems are going to have to buy Bernie a bigger mansion to keep his mouth closed!

If the judge did this on the basis of having no primary being “unconstitutional”, I for one would be interested in knowing what shadow of a penumbra he’s using as a basis – given that the constitution is silent on political parties – since originally we had none.

I’m actually in favor of having the primary, as a (R) enjoying seeing NY (D)s embarrass themselves, but political parties are private groups and I thought had the same rights to set their own rules and by-laws as the elks, rotary club, or knights of Columbus. But I’m tired of judges who legislate from the bench, even when I like the results.

henrybowman | May 6, 2020 at 6:54 pm

I just looked at the sample primary ballot the Democrats sent me some time ago. Who’s this “Maduro” guy?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend