21 votes

Us Supreme Court Already Struck Down Binding Of Delegates In Open Primaries- Here Is The Law, Sorry Mass Gop

In Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981), the United States Supreme Court struck down a State statute that compelled the Democratic party, contrary to national party rules, to seat delegates at its national convention who were bound by the statute to vote on the first ballot in accordance with the results of an open primary. An open primary is one in which any registered voter can participate regardless of party affiliation and without publicly declaring it. The plaintiffs argue that Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin, supra, stands only for the proposition that a State may not interfere with the internal affairs of a national political party, such as the naming of the party's delegates to its national convention. We think that the principle enunciated in that case is not so narrow. The Court phrased the question before it as "whether, once Wisconsin has opened its Democratic Presidential preference primary to voters who do not publicly declare their party affiliation, it may then bind the National Party to honor the binding primary results, even though those results were reached in a manner contrary to National Party rules." Id. at 120. Reasoning that "the inclusion of persons unaffiliated with a political party may seriously distort its collective decisions -- thus imparing the party's essential functions -- and that political parties may accordingly protect themselves 'from intrusion by those with adverse political principles,' Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 221-222 [1952]," id. at 122, the Court held that "if Wisconsin . . . open[s] its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the




Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:

E-mail address:  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

hopefully

someone can tweet this and Facebook it, I do not have either account and this should be put out to those social media formats.

Just a thought

Why isn't Judge Nap all over this?

This is tantamount to Obamacare, or Dr. Paul's Audit the Fed-

Too soon. I'd think a man of Judge Nap's reputation would want to exercise a little legal due diligence, research case law, judge the veracity of the delegates' evidence presented by L4RP...if Judge Nap popped off on TV or Blogged, based only on what he reads on the DailyPaul, would he have the gravitas he now enjoys?

I'm just saying, notwithstanding Scotus decisions as far back as 1981, rarely if ever has there been the EVIDENCE to bring to Federal Court (as opposed to state) or the willingness, to charge the DNC or RNC with violations, indeed, racketeering.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

email him

thehimself decision

to me

and I will admit am not a legal scholar we are being robbed of our right to cast our vote on so many levels.

That's why

It doesn't stop for us after the Nov election, we have to take over local and state parties.

Dumb Dumb here

So what exactly does this mean?

Is this a civil, or criminal law suit? It had better be something?

it means it's settled law

Part of what the lawsuit asks for will be given.

However, for example, in Mass. The delegates can't be bound, it's an open primary and kicking out of Ron Paul delegates is illegal.

UPDATE

Also it creates Stare Decisis which helps in other rulings similar but not exactly the same, perhaps like delegate selection that happened in North Dakota.

P.S., "joe"

I'd definitely bump this up to something like "Law" or better, "Forum" since there are several threads now on the Mass. delegate scandal. IMO.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

done

thanks

A decision by the US S.C. in 1981,

trampled on ever since...until now? That's egregious. All I can say is, thank you L4RP...you mentioned favorable US S.C. decisions in your research...I bet this is one of them.

And thank you, joeinmo, for posting.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

we just

need to apply thevSCOTUS decision

Yeah, in an ideal world,

such as the US, a land of laws, which no man is suppose to be above, all the Mass. delegates presented with the Swearing document, would have laughed in the GOP Est. faces...if they knew the law.

Since 1981....Who knew? I did not.

But I think, hope, Gilbert does (L4RP) and the delegates are swearing out affidavits to him now, joining his lawsuit.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

exactly

Exactly John, I mean it makes total sense if you open your parties decision process to everyone, then you have no right to say that those participating in your primary cannot help choose the delegates they might think are not what the party big shots want. Otherwise close the damn party if you want to control it, why have a primary at all, or select delegates? Just name the damn nominee!

THAT says it all!

"...Otherwise close the damn party if you want to control it, why have a primary at all, or select delegates? Just name the damn nominee!"

Why in the hell can't they just be honest about it!?

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

ha

:)

Mass. is an open primary

last time I checked