Oh well, words, not action.

You know that's not Bernie.

Besides, unfortunately Verizon is the only name in town for reliable LTE service in some areas.

I am glad this is happening.

K&R

Tomorrow will be interesting...

they are not eligible. Shit is crazy- he is just trying to delay the result.

the disenfranchised voter claim (of registered Democrats) COULD be looked at closer but I'd think its likely to be dismissed based on laches. Also, it sounds farfetched to believe that the Clinton would have anything to do with this. First of all how would they know which voters to disenfranchise? I'll wait for more factual development because disenfranchisement is a serious issue but the eve of an election leaves the Court with little remedy it would seem. Perhaps a provisional ballot (which is later checked to see if voter disenfranchised themselves)

lach·es
/ˈlaCHiz/

noun
Law

noun: laches

unreasonable delay in making an assertion or claim, such as asserting a right, claiming a privilege, or making an application for redress, which may result in refusal.

He gets another week out of it, tops. Not seeing the point, unless there really were massive screw ups. Have seen no evidence that this is true though. At any rate, I think encouraging every Indy who forgot to register to show up too is pretty screwed up. Sour grapes.

Don't you think that independent voters will be crucial to the general election? Your post is what seems like sour grapes - don't you think?

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

primary be effected by a rule change. If there were to be an open primary- the GOP would HAVE to agree to it as well. Anything else is wrong.

It is also dishonest to blame Dems-when it has been NY State senate - largely GOP keeping the primaries closed for ages. The GOP is pushing for more closed primaries across the country- am looking forward to watching you all lobby congress to stop it.

in primaries, you must declare your party. Been that way for a very long time.

If you live in NY, it's your responsibility as a voter to understand the registration rules. If you're not registered as a member of a political party, it's not reasonable to expect to participate in an internal party election until such time as NY switches to open primaries (which are not guarantee of equitable outcomes, if you ask me - we have them here in CA and I think they make it much harder for smaller parties to get anywhere).

Also, it's rather odd that you'd describe the post as 'sour grapes.' That phrase traditionally refers to someone who can't have something pretending that they didn't want it anyway; it's from a fable that dates back to Roman times. It doesn't make sense as you've used it here and it's not clear what you're attempting to say.

If this case was in federal court, the Purcell principles would apply. I imagine that state court justices will be reluctant to change the rules on election day absent better proof that I have seen so far.

People who voted by affidavit ballot after hurricane sandy (because they were stranded away from home) had their party affiliation stripped. (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511772737 )

I'm wondering what your thoughts on this are. It seems to me that including a waiver of party affiliation as a condition of voting away from home in 2012 is extremely problematic. It's reasonable -- even expected -- that many people would fail to understand that they were effectively re-registering without party affiliation when they voted.

Do you think that people who lost their voter affiliation in that way would have any grounds to petition the court to have their provisional ballots counted? Or are they just shit out of luck because they didn't read the fine print?

If they are shit out of luck, its tragic. These were conscientious people who went out of their way to vote under very difficult circumstances.

I have a hunch that the voter's characterization is not exactly correct. The Affidavit would be the controlling evidence. In any event, I would think she had 4 years including at least the 2014 primary election to fix it. Provisional ballot would be the likely remedy if Plaintiffs win and then they could go back and check to see if she complied with New York law or had de-franchised herself from qualifying as a Democrat

That would be horribly wrong. And that is what they are pushing for- getting anyone who demands it, a provisional ballot.

there are voters who registered on time as Democrats and received confirmation of their registration. When they contacted the elections office to verify their status, they were told they were registered as either independent or no party affiliation. So, as long as this is verified, they have every right to fight it,.

I've been around long enough to remember when the Democratic Party welcomed independent and disenfranchised voters.

I never thought I would see the day when it became GOP redo. But here we are.

It's a crying shame:

that we can actually open the primary without the GOP agreeing is totally nuts.
You think it would be right to allow only Republicans to pick their own nominee, but let anyone - including republicans who "claim they switched parties" to vote in the Dem primary? Nope.

If you did not know 3-6 months ago which primary you wanted to vote in, then you don't know your own mind enough to select our candidate.

Democratic Party primaries makes me wonder what the hell are you talking about.

I'm becoming increasingly ashamed to be associated with the Democratic Party.

then you have given the issue pretty much zero thought.

That is how a democracy works. Sad to see a so called "Democrat" wanting exclusion. My how far your party has moved to the right. I'm a liberal indy myself and I support many Dems and sorry, your voice isn't worth more than anybody else's and the very second you think that, you become an elitist.

desperately, when it matters to them.... well that is interesting. And that they immediately blame Dems and forget it takes two parties to open them- is priceless. I have to laugh at you all.

No one seems to give a shit how few voters were able to participate in caucuses, do they?

Hi, Texas called, it would like their supporter of strict voting laws back.
Yup, that is precisely what you sound like. Just that.
I don't really see voting as a laughing matter but what I do see as a laughing matter is your fear that your candidate would lose due to open primaries.

Palpable.

I have done thousands of voter registrations, and weeks of GOTV over the year and educating people as what they need to do is key to that. Mistakes need to be rectified, of course, but open to anybody and everybody at the last minute- no.

I look forward to watching all you guys advocate for open elections and to get rid of caucuses. It's not as important to me as other issues, but have at it. Change does not happen in a blink of an eye though. Get used to the idea of a long committed slog. That's what it tok for us to extend hours in my town.

You're afraid that Republicans are going to show up and vote in a Dem primary by massive droves, huh?
And this is rooted in where exactly?

So much fear mongering, are you sure you're not a Bush supporter?

over a loss and want to extend the campaign another week or two. Telling everyone to go to the polls today is just trying to put a monkey wrench in the system merely because you don't like the results. I see no one is complaining about the caucuses because their low turnout favored SBS. It's blatant desperation.

I've been saying for years that the primaries should be opened up and the electoral college and superdelegates should be dumped. The system is rigged when one person can represent 100s of votes.

Anybody should be allowed to vote in a primary whether they are for Hillary, Bernie or Elvis. That's freedom.

themselves. Totally not on unless the GOP would let us vote in their primary today too. They will check the claims of voters who say they registered Dem and had issues and rectify that- as it should be.

Those trying to get all Indies to the polls even if they didn't re-register as Dems were asking them to file false legal papers and pull dirty tricks. They suck.

This isn't a general election. If the Democratic race wasn't competitive this cycle, would it be OK for Democrats to just vote on the GOP primaries to pass the time, or vice versa? You seem to imagine that the registration rules are imposed by the party rather than being a matter of state law. New York has a sad history of electoral shenanigans so there is a law in place that requires you to be a member of a party for a short time before you can vote in that party's internal elections.

There is something wrong with Bernie supporters that are unable to distinguish between Democratic party rules and State law. I don't mean in terms of morality or character, I mean some basic failure of reading comprehension. I mean, it's explained very clearly on the state's Board of Elections website that if you wanted to vote in today's primary election you had to register as a member of the relevant political party by March 25, which was only a month ago: http://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingDeadlines.html

It is state law, not party rules. Why exactly do you think you're entitled to a vote in a party of which you are not a member?

Why should people who donated to Hillary's or Bernie's campaign now be disenfranchised because they aren't a registered Dem?

then it's easier to control the outcome of elections

The other brand, the GOP, operates on the same premise. They would actually prefer it if nobody votes in the primary so they can push thru their preferred candidates.

They mean people who switched to "Democrat" only to find their voting information switched back to "Independent" sometime between October and now.

and I hope the judge sees that, because it is bullshit.

Thats not going to happen. Sorry but this is going to be quickly thrown out. Sorry but independents will not be allowed to vote in our primary.

Hillary won one of those right here in Texas.

OMG, you don't suppose that Independents and Republicans asked for a Democratic ballot just so they could assure the weakest Democratic candidate in the GE.

How very clever of them. It might even work.

Only in the case someone registered dem and then it was mysteriously changed to independent. There is simply no aggrieved party at this point. It's foolish to say the least.

This may WELL lead us ALL (I'm in PA) to have OPEN primaries, AS IT SHOULD BE!

I'm tired of this shit.

What is likely is this being thrown out.

Justice

It's about time we had some fucking kind here.

plus a New York trial court wouldn't have jurisdiction over Pennsylvania election laws

I believe what happens in NY will lead to ALL 50 states having a path to open primaries. Case law is like that, regardless of what state it starts.

and they have no jurisdiction to interpret Pennsylvania election laws. Also, I believe that closed primaries in a private political party have been ruled constitutional many times. Heck a state is not even required to conduct an election or even a caucus in a private political party. See Republican Colorado delegate determination where Cruz swept state with neither

Trial and appellate attorney with 30 years experience

When the Democratic Party (let's use my state) decides to change requirements for the number of petition signatures a delegate must have for each district and the Republican controlled General Assembly carves those districts up so badly that my ward has 3 congressional districts, it made it pretty difficult for a Sanders supporter who ran for delegate to get on the ballot. We essentially went from requiring 10 signatures to requiring 250, which disenfranchised the persons supporting Sanders, since the Democratic party was not about to help anyone but HRC.

When NY decided to have an October 2015 deadline for changing party affiliation when few people even considered that they may have wanted to support Bernie Sanders in the next Spring's Primary, that was a change that led to voter disenfranchisement. This all leads to what we've seen happen in other states, now NY.

They may not be binding from one state to another, but state activism mimics other states. When closed primaries enable the kinds of turf protection of major two party systems, it changes.

This will change things because it's not business as usual with this election. THIS election is all about what has failed to serve voters. That fact is supported by the number of potential voters going to the polls or having a choice.

We are here to tell you and any other body that is willing to accept accepted practice that incremental decisions have effected us for too long with too little choices left.

When NY decided to have an October 2015 deadline for changing party affiliation when few people even considered that they may have wanted to support Bernie Sanders in the next Spring's Primary, that was a change that led to voter disenfranchisement. This all leads to what we've seen happen in other states, now NY.

Let's say I'm an Independent (like my brother is in NY) who began learning about Bernie in the fall (as he did). According to you - who cares?

When he finally realized and wanted to change, it was too late. According to you, that's okay.

When did you figure out that you didn't care about fair elections? Never mind... there's a rule in place for not giving a shit, and that's just fine with you.

Welcome to the kind of democracy where people don't give a shit. No thanks... we need to change that.

This past fall. All he had to do is register as a Democrat or Republican. He didn't have to know about Bernie to keep him from hedging with a GOP choice. If he doesn't want to pay attention to politics in his own back yard until November general elections, then Bernie's brain fart combined with your brother's is not potpourri.

I seriously doubt it has to do with not having a normal or better than normal IQ, either... You're smarter than that.

Stretching for a moment.. think of what it means to be an American citizen with the right to vote, belong to a party, including one that does by design not have a party platform for an Independent, even though Bernie Sanders served for years as one. So, as you look across this nation and voter roles, realize that many voters choose "Independent" because they feel they have been burned one way or another. This, by the way, is supported by the way people in my own voting district changed over the last 6 years...

Those people, even IF they knew about state rules that changed over the years to make NY one of the most difficult states to allow an interval for voters TO change their status, STILL didn't know enough to make that change BECAUSE no one was carrying ANY information in the print and news media to help them.

They have no way to make the decision by that unrealistic deadline... the same deadline that you think is great.

So, now that you've insulted my brother by determining he had a brain fart, I'll save acknowledging your big, "Fuck You" to him.

to a larger audience. How long ago did he set up a New York base of operations. The rules are the same for everyone. I make at least one brain fart a day. Probably a major one at least once a year. That's life, not an insult.

... You can harvest that bullshit with someone else. You owe a lot of people an apology. If you can't provide one, then go insult some other people who count on your fantasy knowledge. It doesn't play here anymore.

The Democratic Party. I hope he decides to remain a member.

I doubt he will. It's 2016. He's gotta pick a side.

What I don't get is Independents.

I'm curious how this will play out in the courts tomorrow.

so I'm sure I know as much about the law as you do.

Ha Just kidding.
My wife is an attorney and one of her favorite sayings is
"Your Google doesn't equal my law degree"

Have a good day.

Are we really supposed to open the Dem primaries only to Indies who opted to stay Indy? Nope.

for 3 hours. Will those votes count? I don't know of any precedents short of natural or man-made disasters for suspending elections once they're underway.

They keep going to a judge trying to get things changes in their favor.

Someone has been watching too much of The Good Wife.

Independents have no business deciding our nominee.

because everyone voting in them was an independent.

How about it?

if they fill out an affidavit ballot.

Law says Democrats only--and you need to swear upon penalty of perjury that you're a registered Democrat.

What a screwy primary this has been.

BS announced in April he was preparing to run, he made a formal announcement on May 28, 2015. I've seen various notices posted advising people about voting in primaries in the media, newspapers, on this site and many others about the Oct. 9, 2015 deadline. In fact is your a voter in NY state that voted within the last 8 yrs in any election, you get a card from your county Board of Election reminding you of your polling location. Its a mandate and was added to the NY Constitution. I guess 4 months wasn't enough time to make up your mind you intended to vote. Next thing you know they will want a voting app....

Limiting Political Freedom is not a liberal idea, it's RW Authoritian.

and will be voting for the nominee that the party nominates, it makes sense that they should have a say in who that nominee that they are voting for is. A closed primary is limiting political freedom, period!

Their sense of vanity prevents them from registering as Democrats? Boo hoo.

If people want to choose party leadership, join the party. Everyone welcome.

Caucuses are much, much worse.

Republicans and independents choosing the Democratic nominee makes about as much sense as letting the Patriots choose the Colts' defensive line.

If you want to participate in a party event, join the party, period.

certain they disagree with you. You would think that you would be more welcoming to include new voters, instead of pissing them off.

then he shouldn't be running to be the de facto head of the Democratic Party to begin with.

please don't blame Hillary.

a registration mess up.

Good grief. What on earth or in hell has DU devolved into?

When the rules will make them lose, then they try to break the rules. Talk about corruption.

violence and/or disruption, rules do not apply to them

Doesn't mean the rules need to change.

If they don't work as intended, we change them.

There is no way I can ever catch my opponent, so let's change the rules that will let me win.

That is what you are asking for here.

PLAY BY THE DAMN RULES or go home!

You agree to the rules when you jump in the ring.

This is nothing more than creative form of cheating.

which many of us believe the difference in perception about climate change really impacts, you do WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN.

Now, we know that Hillary and the monied class she represents feels that THEIR survival as "people in power who want to stay that way" is threatened, and as much as possible they have already rigged the game to the point where they don't even pretend it's fair. The antics of the DNC (whose credibility as a neutral organization has been permanently destroyed) and issues with voter registration computer "glitches" all over the country are definitely in the Shenanigans ballpark.

For some people this is a game. For the millions of people in this world who are deemed "expendable" by the aristocracy represented by the Bush/Clinton cabal, this is bigger than that.

Hillary made a choice: if you can't beat them, join them. And she has the bank account to prove it.

So our perspectives are different. If Democrats wish to stay a minority party, they can elect someone who won't bring "more votes" to the table in November.

In the meantime, I believe Bernie just has to stay in long enough for the FBI to finish their work. If I am right, she can bleat about the imaginary "giant right wing conspiracy" to her hearts content, but public corruption charges will take down this little international mafia family, so problem solved.

If I am wrong and the FBI exonerates her, I will believe them. I still won't support anyone with the level of horrific judgment she has consistently displayed for a position requiring the trust of a local dog catcher (metaphorically speaking, of course) but at the end of the day, I am one vote and one voice.

Good luck in your new position. Texas is tough. i think you will have an easier time turning Texas blue under Bernie's leadership - he's stubborn and contrary and doesn't back down even if his position is unpopular. I think Texans can really relate to that!

at the helm. He's proven time and again to have no in-depth knowledge or strategies about any of the issues he brings up.

And after seeing the incompetent campaign he's run one can only speculate in horror what his Administration would be like.

Exactly!

Pollatix iz hard!

This is not to open the primaries and is just for those who registered dem yet think they were switched to independent. In other words, no one.

In Florida this would be extremely easy to prove. I'm sure it is in NY as well. Show your voter ID card that your originally received that states you registered as a Dem, then show your new card that shows NA or whatever the state of NY uses. If no action was taken on your part to make the change then look into why.

and to see some on here sound like Scott Walker isn't only shameful, it's downright sad.
What happened to the Democratic party where everybody was welcomed and hugged? What happened to the Democratic party that fought for people voting?

People died in this country defending freedoms so we can vote.
This whole thread is made of regression, exclusivity and bullshit.

You all should be ashamed.

In a primary which is about a party/club/organization choosing who gets to run as the head of that organization, no. Really, learn the difference. Invoking the dead over the right to vote in a primary is delusional and sad. Do those dead soldiers earn me the right to vote for the head of the Boy Scouts, Hell's Angels, or whoever? No. This is no different.

People deserve to have a choice and this is nothing but disenfranchisement.
You literally are propping up suppression. This isn't Sam's Club, it's about people picking a presidential candidate and as an indy, your vote is no more important than mine.

Comparing POTUS to the Hell's Angels? Bwahahahahaha! Now THAT is a riot.

Your fear is duly noted.

Again you show your willfull ignorance to the situation. This isn't about the POTUS. It's about nominating the head of the DNC and RNC organizations who put forth their candidate to run for POTUS. You clearly just don't get what primaries are. Sad.

ROFLCOPTER!

I don't have enough facepalm for that. Nor enough desk to headesk on.

it's a process by which a party picks its candidates. The right to vote we have in this country does not extend to primaries, because they aren't elections. There is absolutely nothing, aside from the awful PR, stopping a party from doing away with this whole process and going back to picking them behind closed doors at the convention if they wanted.

who best represents them.
Everyone's voice matters. Maybe it's time you and your ilk stop disenfranchising others. There's a reason why both party's are bleeding and why Indy's are now the #1 voting block. Look at DU and how many have left.
People should be able to choose who they want and what they think best represents them. Whether it's Hillary, Bernie or Elvis.

We are one of two major political parties in the United States.
I am a life-long Democrat. I have never taken any "loyalty oaths" or pledged allegiance to the Democratic Party. No one has ever asked me to nor would I comply if asked. There are no membership dues or tests required. Nor should there be.
This elitist crap of "join us or don't vote" is stupid and is why there are now more Independents than Democrats or republicans.
Same day registration for Party membership is perfectly fine. We are Democrats, not the Bones Society. Get over yourself.

Now you pay for it. Since this is a private club ok

as long as it helps Clinton.what's good for her is all that matters.She can go to far right and they are like all that matters is that she
wins.

and many of us will be laughing in the general should she be the nominee.

effect on the NY primary. It's a publicity stunt, and nothing more. It won't work.

Why wait until the day before the primary to do this? Because it will get media attention. Those who filed it already know it will not change the election. They're just looking for publicity. No judge will rule that the elections laws aren't in effect on this short notice. If a judge does that, it will trigger a lengthy round of suits and counter suits and the General election will be over before there is any definitive decision made,

Zero impact on the NY election.