I don't see this impacting today's primary.

Those voters who do not have a Democratic registration, according to the records, will not have their ballots counted.

It just gives the voter the chance to "cast" -- i.e., fill out and turn in -- a ballot. This option is available to ANY voter in any election who disputes his registration.

After the election, the elections office goes through provisional ballots and checks them against their records. The ones that turn out to be valid may be counted. The others will be tossed.

So this decision was a LOSS for the lawsuit filers. The judge just told them to use the system that was already in existence.

http://www.866ourvote.org/issues/provisional-balloting

A voter has the right to cast a provisional ballot if he or she believes they are eligible and registered to vote but is unable to cast a regular ballot, due to reasons such as the voter’s name not appearing on the registration list at the polling place, the voter does not have a required form of voter identification, or an election official challenges the voter’s eligibility. After a voter has cast a provisional ballot, election officials determine whether or not to count the provisional ballot by verifying the voter’s eligibility . Sometimes states require voters to take additional steps to verify their eligibility in order for the provisional ballot to count such as submitting an acceptable form of identification at a board of elections office within a specified time period after Election Day.
It is important to know that many poll workers are improperly trained to handle provisional ballots, and may fail to inform voters’ of their right to cast a provisional ballot. Poll workers may also mistakenly misinform an eligible voter entitled to cast a regular ballot that the voter must instead cast provisional ballot. Voters should therefore insist on their right to cast a normal ballot when their eligibility has not been challenged or called into question, and their right to cast a provisional ballot the voter believes he or she is eligible to vote but eligibility cannot be immediately determined. Voters facing any issues on Election Day should not hesitate to contact 866-OUR-VOTE for assistance.
Voters should be aware that areas with high percentages of racial and ethnic minority voters have the highest rates of provisional ballots, and a large proportion of these ballots are typically rejected. Therefore, voters should take steps in advance of Election Day to ensure they will be able to cast a regular ballot, such as verifying they are registered to vote and ensuring they have the proper form of identification required by state law. Visit www.866ourvote.org to assist you with these steps.
There are no clear and uniform standards for counting provisional ballots. For example, many states do not count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, while others do. Provisional ballots are typically rejected for one of four reasons: (1) the voter is not registered to vote; (2) the voter cast the provisional ballot in the wrong precinct or jurisdiction; (3) the voter did not complete or sign the provisional ballot; or (4) the voter did not provide sufficient identification. Though it may be difficult on Election Day for a voter to know whether his or her provisional ballot will be counted, under the Help America Vote Act ALL states are required to provide provisional voters an opportunity to find out afterwards whether their provisional ballot was counted or rejected and, if rejected, the reasons for the rejection.

I am actually involved in the upper level of the caucus here. It is the same as AZ. They counted several hundreds of them, but they tossed all independent ones as of current, but there are still lawsuits involved. The truth is unless you watch you vote they can just toss it. That is one good thing about the caucus, you are there and unless you are timid you can make sure all the votes are correct. But the provisional are counted provisionally.


pro·vi·sion·al
prəˈviZHənl/Submit
adjective
1.
arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later.

ballots that have always been available to them. But they are provisional ballots. They won't be counted into the totals until the elections officials check their books and verify that the voters are properly registered Democrats.

But just filling out a provisional ballot doesn't mean your vote will be COUNTED. It means your registration will be re-checked after the election; and if it is deemed proper, then your vote will be counted.

http://gothamist.com/2016/04/18/primary_voting_guide_2016.php

The other option, if you get to the polls and your name is not on the list of registered voters for the area, is to vote using a provisional ballot. To do this, you need to ask poll workers for a provisional or affidavit ballot. From there, you will fill out the ballot and explain your case in writing. The envelope with your provisional ballot is then supposed to be set aside and, as election commissioners tally the votes, they are supposed to also look at your ballot and consider whether you are indeed eligible to vote at the polling site that you did in the primary that you did, and if so, count your vote. If you are deemed not eligible, you are supposed to receive a mailed notice saying so, with a registration application attached to get you signed up for next time.

that has always been available to them -- the provisional ballots.

Then each ballot will be decided individually based on a check of the registration records -- again, part of the normal system of handling provisional ballots.

So it is just spin to call this a win. The plaintiffs were directed to use the system that was already there.

I posted it twice for what I was reading about independents being allowed to vote...

Then each ballot will be decided individually based on a check of the registration records -- again, part of the normal system of handling provisional ballots.

Where does it say that bold part?

follow normal procedures?


http://www.866ourvote.org/issues/provisional-balloting

A voter has the right to cast a provisional ballot if he or she believes they are eligible and registered to vote but is unable to cast a regular ballot, due to reasons such as the voter’s name not appearing on the registration list at the polling place, the voter does not have a required form of voter identification, or an election official challenges the voter’s eligibility. After a voter has cast a provisional ballot, election officials determine whether or not to count the provisional ballot by verifying the voter’s eligibility . Sometimes states require voters to take additional steps to verify their eligibility in order for the provisional ballot to count such as submitting an acceptable form of identification at a board of elections office within a specified time period after Election Day.
It is important to know that many poll workers are improperly trained to handle provisional ballots, and may fail to inform voters’ of their right to cast a provisional ballot. Poll workers may also mistakenly misinform an eligible voter entitled to cast a regular ballot that the voter must instead cast provisional ballot. Voters should therefore insist on their right to cast a normal ballot when their eligibility has not been challenged or called into question, and their right to cast a provisional ballot the voter believes he or she is eligible to vote but eligibility cannot be immediately determined. Voters facing any issues on Election Day should not hesitate to contact 866-OUR-VOTE for assistance.
Voters should be aware that areas with high percentages of racial and ethnic minority voters have the highest rates of provisional ballots, and a large proportion of these ballots are typically rejected. Therefore, voters should take steps in advance of Election Day to ensure they will be able to cast a regular ballot, such as verifying they are registered to vote and ensuring they have the proper form of identification required by state law. Visit www.866ourvote.org to assist you with these steps.
There are no clear and uniform standards for counting provisional ballots. For example, many states do not count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, while others do. Provisional ballots are typically rejected for one of four reasons: (1) the voter is not registered to vote; (2) the voter cast the provisional ballot in the wrong precinct or jurisdiction; (3) the voter did not complete or sign the provisional ballot; or (4) the voter did not provide sufficient identification. Though it may be difficult on Election Day for a voter to know whether his or her provisional ballot will be counted, under the Help America Vote Act ALL states are required to provide provisional voters an opportunity to find out afterwards whether their provisional ballot was counted or rejected and, if rejected, the reasons for the rejection.

I am getting conflicting new reports on what was ruled, they mostly say the judge did not deny the independent to to be counted, just delayed if they could be. If the judge ruled that, then the rule you are counting would be changed. But if the judge only was ruling on the voter issues that is another matter.

Is strong with this one

The affidavit ballot rule was already in place. Assuming those voters were verified to have been correctly registered in the first place those votes would always have been counted. The final vote totals commonly come long after election night in many jurisdictions, it's just that the number of provisional/affidavit ballots is rarely so high as to influence the outcome significantly.

It seems to me that you're spinning this as a great victory when in fact things are unfolding exactly as they would have anyway.

This places the preponderance of evidence on the districts to prove legitimacy of a change. Under normal circumstances, it would be incumbent upon the voter to provide proof... the ruling changes who holds the burden of proof to the districts. That's the difference, and why it's a huge win.

That's a good thing insofar as it puts the responsibility with those who can handle it most efficiently, ie the BoE. That's much better than multiple plaintiffs having to prove their registration was defective without access to the voter rolls. But I'm not seeing how it's a huge win, since a) the matter might well have been cleared up without any actual litigation anyway and b) the numbers involved are pretty small.

Again, I'm fully supportive of this outcome but I don't see it making a major difference to the election even though it would make a major difference to some individual voters.

Regardless... pushing for allowing legitimate voters to have their votes count is definitely the way for any Real Democrat to go!

Or what Bernie's done for this country. Win or losw

and make their decisions for each ballot based on what they find. The same way they always do with provisional ballots.

If you think this changes the burden of proof, please provide a link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1420978

to them or to anyone disputing their registration. The purpose of the lawsuit had been to avoid having to do that and to get a more sweeping change -- like getting the judge to declare the primary to be open.

This was a FAIL that they're spinning as a win.

The Young Turks, and others spewing this as a victory do not understand basics

It is neither a victory or a loss, but know caked the ball down the court to determine if any of those affected had their registration altered from what it was

It will depend on the number affected, but I think we will know the winner tonight either way

'The Young Turks, and others spewing this as a victory do not understand basics'

Oh I think they do, TYT anyway as they have been around a while and are well-resourced. I think many people understand quite well that this was a bullshit lawsuit that had no effect on anything, but it got some media coverage - and media coverage has considerable economic value because it's basically free advertising. Good for the lawyers, good for TYT. Most people don't know head nor tail about law and don't care to learn, so we get threads like this one where it's spun as a great victory even though little or nothing actually happened in legal terms, other than the court affirming that the State should follow its own existing rules and should document the fact that it has done so.

Via mail order

The attorney that filed suit is on record to this effect, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017358882

They will be cast -- turned in -- just as they can be in any election. Then, as in any election, the provisional votes will be checked against voter registration records. And only properly registered Democrats will have their provisional votes counted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1420978

"all legitimate ballots --provisional or otherwise -- will be counted"

The key word being "legitimate" i.e. those checked against voter registration records
and found to be properly registered.

Another important outcome of this ruling is that it insures a heightened sense of
public awareness and scrutiny by the courts.

The voters always had this option -- the lawsuit changed nothing about provisional ballots.

The judge also ruled that all county election offices must appear before the court within 60
days to defend their enrollment process. <-- Not business as usual. If the court
decided to "change nothing" as your claim, they would have simply dismissed the case.

And because the case was not dismissed, this ruling is important in that it insures a heightened sense
of public awareness and much closer scrutiny by the courts.

That is a WIN in my book, as it will increase the likelihood of more --not less-- fairness in the
New York primary.

They failed in their main goal of getting it turned into an open primary. And nothing that happens in the subsequent hearings will change that.

I have already said what I have to say on this, and am not going to repeat myself.

This is where we "agree to disagree".

I've been reading this thread and she seems happy about what she thinks the ruling says, which is less votes counted, and she seems happy as hell about it.

But for some reason this year they are no longer recorded as a Democrat, to vote, and then hope that they can actually prove they have been a member of the Democratic party in previous elections. Those who are independents, or republicans that want to vote for one of the two Democrats, still can not do so.

...what the heck, nothing like another conspiracy theory for those who were not pleased with the vote.

And the info is wrong, as far as I can tell..

You are smart to stay away

It's easy to get sucked in... for me at least.

poster who won't remove. La Vie.

But at the time, "affadavit ballot" was New-York speak for what the rest of the country called "provisional ballots."

Federal law required that states have provisional ballots, but NYS had precisely those for years before the federal law was written.

This flies in the face of their measured "WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM" chants.

When we work together WE CAN MOVE MOUNTAINS!

WOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

"work within the system" = gilded shackles

...and count their ballots

If they keep copies of the original registration forms and voting records, then there should be proof that the people did not themselves submit registration changes.

But they can file an affidavit which is akin to testifying under oath. So I think that can work.

Guess we need to start making copies of every piece of correspondence we have with the Board of Elections.

You can't just say you're a Dem if you're not a card-carrying member.

card from either state.

Even if a state issues cards, who is to say you didn't change your registration after you got the card?

it's not rocket science

you register, you get a card

you change your registration, you get a new card

in fact, I don't know of any state that doesn't issue them

so I'm calling "cool story bro" on your post

It took only how many replies from me before you got the concept of no card?

There was also another part to my post 70, which you don't seem to have grokked either.

It's a bit more complex than "no card" and I'm out of patience.

And if the district cannot prove the person in question changed their party, they have to be treated as though always a Dem. Simple enough.

And I always check with the party to make sure I'm listed before the deadline to register for an election cycle. If you read your election laws, it's all there.

When I moved here, The first thing I did was to register to vote in this state. It's not a difficult thing to do. The CA DMV is one place you can register to vote.

Do you guys who find this confusing never get mailings from the party? That should be your first hint that something's wrong with your party standing.

Add to that, very few in new York received any mailers... and up to 126 thousand have been dropped off the list, for mysterious reasons. It's all very concerning, and stinks of foul play.

I've lived and voted in 6 states now, and the process is always the same where the party is concerned. And those mailers start coming several months before deadlines to register and cover everything from ballot issues to candidates and party endorsements. And there's always info on how to contact the party for assistance.

I've also worked on campaigns for over two decades (both state legislature and gubernatorial (MI) and national presidential in DC). The party isn't at fault if you don't understand how provisional ballots work, have always worked, and always will work.

The party platform concerns nationwide voting rights for everyone of voting age. Using that to address the issue at hand in a closed party primary is specious. And how do you know how many mailers NY Dems have or have not received?

... to each precinct's enrollment process.

Affidavits are fine but will certainly not account for all the voters who showed up today and were denied.

There should be no excuse for this to happen, not just New York but in other states.
We should be able to feel confident in the voting process. It is now a sham.

an affidavit ballot. I don't see there being any advanced notification on this one. Word of mouth is the best we have, so be sure to spread it!!!!

is completely beyond me.

And who can prove they have been in the past, will have their votes counted. Those who have never been registered, and want to vote will not be counted. Sure will piss off a lot of those crossover republicans who want to screw things up.

if you want to vote in the Democratic primary, find out what you have to do and do it

option. They didn't need any authorization to use one -- anyone who disputes their registration can always do this.

Afterwards, the elections offices will check their records and either verify the ballot against their records -- or toss it.

considering what a farce today's election has been

polling places moved with no notice

polling places opened hours late

polling places with no working machines

the voters have to have their shit together 6 months before hand to participate (maybe if boe didn't change their registration falsely)

but the boe who are getting paid to run things...they can be totally clueless and they still have the power

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511777881

from before October (from Sept or August) and then have the database admin or data analysts (under observation) run various inquiries to compare the versions of the data -- specifically the affiliation field from August against the affiliation field now.

Then create a small sample group to investigate further.
Next inquiry: find their record, the affiliation field in August, their affiliation field from today, and search the history log.

Did the voter change it via a form or in person at the DMV (or where ever they register in New York) and there is an entry where a clerk (and clerk ID) changed the affiliation field -- or change from the Sec of State's website, or change from from a mobile app?

Those that were changed online from a mobile app or from the Sec of State website - are there any, or many instances where the affiliation field was changed at the same date and time (as though a script were run)? Are all of the changes within a short time frame?

This is an easy type of data audit (with impartial observers present)

They could also create a new list of any voters who at ANY point in the last year (or whatever date range) showed a voter record affiliation field = the value for Democrat, and provide that to the clerk's office to assist with validating provisional ballots.

None of this would be difficult and a small audit could be done in a couple of hours.

"This order does not, however, give people who choose not to join a particular political party the opportunity to participate, leaving it only a partial answer to the issue. "

Legitimizing erroneously changed voters was the focus... and in this case, this is a big win!

I have read the pleading. It was filed by a 2014 graduate from one of the worst law schools in the country. Evidently Above the Law loves laughing at this particular law school There was no chance that the judge was going to rule that the New York primary would be an open primary. As for changed registrations, the provisional ballot process allows voters to provide evidence that their provisional ballot must be counted. If a voter can prove that there was a change in registration without their consent, then the existing procedures would be sufficient. There will have to be proof of some wrong doing to get these provisional ballots counted and the burden will remain on the voter. The lack of ruling described above does not change that

I am very amused that anyone considers this a win.

except for the judge telling election offices to defend their enrollment processes. But that won't affect the count of a single ballot in this election.

If there are cases of uncommanded registration changes, i.e. a change originating from the BoE WITHOUT documentation of the voter filing such a change, the BoE must defend the change or the provisional vote will be counted.

That was always the issue here, not independents trying to sneak into a closed primary, but rather BoE using the cover of a closed primary to disenfranchise those who always should have been able to register therein.

This decision, though it seems small, brings that morass into the open, where the BoE can be held accountable for its "errors." Absent this case it would be much easier for the BoE to say "oopsie, registration invalid," now it will have to answer to a court for that.

IIRC counting the provisional ballots in Arizona shifted the result by about 4%.

Your post brings up a very good point; that the burden of proof is shifted away from the voter.

But it is not a win for independents wanting to vote in the Democratic Party primary.

I could understand 30 days out... maybe even two or three months... but there's no good reason for a full year.

I thought it was 6 months but am not a New Yorker so you are probably correct. And I agree either is too long. 30 days seems fair. But not the day of the primary by a judge. I just do not like the self pity and supposed righteous anger about a law that has been in effect for years.

I am not a big Hillary fan but she had nothing to do with the law. Or the super delegates for that matter.

The irony that the Bernie fans just cannot see is that had they all been active in the party, or even members, the party would be ideologicaly more to their liking. But the same could be said of Bernie.

I am a fan of the Democratic Party Nominee.

where the Voter ID laws & etc. will probably mean defeat for most, if not all Democrats.

K&R, thanks for posting.

as well as the private ownership of those machines, all of which our 'representatives' have completely ignored despite concerns and protests.

This was all just a publicity stunt.

Not what you are arguing against.

Satire. But could be true at this point. Such absurdity.

Thousands of New Yorkers Registered as Automatic Hillary Voters

The legitimate Democrats get to cast a provisional ballot and be counted.

Those who want open primaries have learned what they need to do: quit whining a day before the elections and lobby your state representative to change the law.

A win-win for everyone, and a valuable civics lesson.

I would say disillusioning if their behavior hadn't so thoroughly disillusioned me already.

This was expected.

If there are enough provisional ballots to affect the apportionment of even one delegate, they should be counted. In additon, there are actual delegates running for election and are other races that these ballots may affect.

Also, there is a court case regarding some of those ballots. If the judge's final ruling is that the ballots of supressed voters be accepted, then they will be counted. I can't imagine that any provisional ballots will be thrown away simply due to the lawsuit and the possibility of a ruling being appealed.

Those who vote by provisional ballot are informed if their ballot was accepted.

Thanks for the thread, Bubzer.