Governor Cuomo Proposes Election Law Reforms in State of the State “Opportunity” Speech
Last week, Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed a series of election law changes as part of his 2015 Opportunity Agenda . These proposals include: public financing of campaigns, restricting use of campaign contributions, lowering limits on campaign contributions and closing loopholes, improving New York’s voting system, changing the ballot design to make it simpler, expanding the voter registration period to increase electoral participation, modernizing affidavit ballot processes to be more convenient to voters and allowing candidates and voters to change parties easier.

https://nyelectionsnews.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/governor-cuomo-proposes-election-law-reforms-in-state-of-the-state-opportunity-speech/

The ignorance of smug Hillary supporters never ceases to amaze.

If you ever criticize Voter ID laws, maybe a Republican will mock you as showing "poutrage."

and none other. The voting system in NY hasn't changed in decades, and is the same system that every other Democratic candidate for President has run in during the modern era. But it's all supposed to be flipped upside down because Bernie's voters couldn't be bothered to learn the rules?

No sale.

I hadn't heard of NY state's 6 month freeze on party-switching until shortly before the NY primary.

Any affected voter who "learned the rules" less than 6 month's before the primary was disenfranchised.

None of the other 49 states have 6 month freezes on party-switching.

that disenfranchisement involves losing the right to vote at all. Not being allowed to vote in a closed party primary is NOT disenfranchisement. The Democratic Party of NY wants its own registered members to help pick the party's nominee for the general election, and that's entirely right and legal.

Bernie's independents were perfectly free to vote for any candidate in any open primary that was available in New York. The Working Families Party also exists in NY, maybe Sanders' supporters should have voted in that primary?

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has consistently ruled that political parties are semi-private organizations covered under "freedom of association" to determine their own processes and rules, as they see fit. California Democratic Party v Jones, surely as a "voting rights advocate since 2000" you've heard of this case, yes? California tried to mandate that all political primaries be open, and the state Democratic Party sued, and won. SCOTUS ruled that forcing open primaries on a party could leave them vulnerable to "outside interference" which might end up moving the party in a direction that runs counter to the direction desired by its actual members.

You clearly don't like that voters had to know the rules and take action months ago, even though that's on them and no one else. That is, however, insufficient grounds to be tossing around the word "disenfranchisement," especially as out-of-context as you are using it.

Otherwise, there could be poll taxes for primaries.

the activities of a political party. And cost-free party registration is NOT a poll tax. That's a desperate argument.

...just that the ban on poll taxes shows that primaries can't be conducted in a way which violate rights.

Since we've already established that not getting to vote in a closed primary because you didn't register properly isn't disenfranchisement, then where is it?

...who learned about a candidate they liked within 6 month of a primary and wanted to join that candidate's party to vote for him or her from doing so. Those people are disenfranchised.

You're not offering any evidence of disenfranchisement. All you're doing is repeating the word as if that will make it true.

If the rules of the Democratic Party don't suit you, then found a party and run it however you want. Member of the Working Families Party in NY are registered to that party, and could also not vote in the Democratic primary. Those are voters who actively chose to not be Democrats. Is it your assertion that members of a different political party should be allowed to influence the nominating contest of another party? That's outrageous!

Regardless, it is likely that, in fact, if no one complained it was due to the fact that NY primary has never really been critical to the primary race.

It draws attention to a lot of problems with our primary system as a whole and in NY in particular.

When the primary essentially choose the new Mayor. New York was a critical presidential primary in both 1992 and 2008. Yet no one complained in any of those years.

Which are even more undemocratic.

All states should have primaries.

There is a reason that Chuck Schumer penned this OP-Ed in 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/opinion/charles-schumer-adopt-the-open-primary.html?_r=0

However, he is only a Senator from NY and can't do anything about internal NY politics, other than express his opinion, which he did.

But it is untrue to say it has NEVER been an issue before. It has been an issue for years.

which didn't even discuss NY election law, when has this been an issue?

Schumer doesn't mention NY.

He mentions Virginia, California, Louisiana, Washington, Colorado, Oregon and Mississippi; but never New York.

He never mentions New York.

So either you need to re-read this or you're just lying to cover up that you were wrong.

you know full well he never mentions New York. So I guess you are lying to cover up that you were wrong.

Try the ending.

doesn't make it true.

Read the article.

Read the article several times, even posted an excerpt from it, and at no time does Schumer mention NYS election law. And the fact that you have failed to post any part of the article where he does so is an admission that he doesn't.

So there are only two conclusions, you are either a bold faced liar who refuses to admit that you are wrong or you are totally deluded and only imaging that he did in your imagination. Which is it?

will not make it true.

I just know what the article says.

Schumer never mentions NYS election law specifically. If you really think that he does, you need seek mental health treatment because you are obviously delusional.

Try again. You can do it.

and then post the passage where Schumer specifically mentions NYS election law.

If you don't then you are admitting that you're a liar or that you are mentally unstable.

You can do it.

You can do it.

But you can't do that because no quote exists.

You can do it.

But you can't. So will you admit that you're a liar.

You can do it.

Too bad none exists.

where Schumer specifically cites NYS election law.

You can do it. Link is above.

You could of course, post the relevant except... or simply continue your allegation. The one, in which we allow footnotes and support our premise is called a 'discussion', the latter being a mere bumper-sticker (at best).

discussion. You'll just keep hearing the same stuck record. Over and over and over...

probably appropriate. It's great that millenials are willing to fight to fix a broken system.

How is it suppression?

Angry about voter suppression. The same people acting like it is not big deal now will be colicky when Republicans do it in November.

You might just have some issues yourself.

who voted for another candidate.

I'm happy to aid in having others see you for what you are.

And the only thing I am is a NYC voters who doesn't remember anyone complaining about the election laws, until now.

"Give us a break."

The Sandersitas don't like super delegates until.... they get their support.

What hypocrisy.

And crying about it now is bitter tears.

Fist off, screw Trump, he can cry all he wants, I love his bitter tears.

As for Sanders, this is the game he signed up for. He threw his hat in to this ring, in this party, with these rules. He didn't say boo about the Supers until it became clear he wasn't attracting their attention. By running as a Democrat he's accepting the Democrats rules, stupid as they may be. We can't change the rules in the middle of the game because someone's losing. Which is what Rudy Giuliani wants (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027767853), but we are better than that ghoul.

Bernie, his people and his supporters, should have been petitioning the party to change the rules long before now. They look like petulant children not getting their way. That's no way to conduct themselves.

So in effect you proved that my premise is not false. Thanks.

there would be dozens of articles dating back decades instead of two obscure examples.

why bother with you then?

And if you don't want to bother with someone that disagrees with you, why did you reply?

nm

Repeteadly.

Do you have links?

Covering a hearing from a phone covering a hearing. But it has. A poster above showed you two.

Most of this, not limited to NY incidentally, is pretty much arcana for most folks. What I will say though is sure to anger you. The US does not even start to meet the requirements of open and fair elections we impose around the world

And the poster above showed two links that were not court cases. So they don't prove that it has been argued in court repeatedly.

But here is one of the most recent cases for California... Oh I forgot non case

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-401

And here Smith v Allwright

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright

A Texas case by the way

I hope you remember this one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Then there is this

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/03/nation/la-na-congress-fundraising-leaders-20140404

And a nice law school summary for you

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~norrande/pol231/judicial-06-bw.pdf

The fact that you do not know this is not my fault.

Suffice it to say, this is not a cold subject in the law. I expect more lawsuits. This if far from settled.

Of course we have one of the least transparent electoral systems in the world, but that is another discussion. And I will be in court today by the way, Sorry if I cannot please your requests from a phone. I got more important things to do, but here is a hint... if you are actually interested, which I doubt, you can use the google next time m'kay. Willful ignorance is yours.

not Texas or California. And being in court yesterday doesn't disprove my point that this was never an issue in NY until this year. Actually it proves my point, so thank you.

Took me two seconds

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/supreme-court-showdown/48962/

If you were actually interested, you could use the google.

You think that a CA case that goes to the Supreme Court has no influence in NY State? Let's talk Citizens United, shall we... it started just up the road, in Orange County. It was started by my good friends at the Lincoln Club You want to anything about one of the most conservative organizations in CA and their outsize influence in the rest of the country?



Ignorance is willful.

And with that, have a good day. I really need to get going, Judges do not like it when one is late.

that doesn't even discuss election laws regarding closed primaries. So you've again failed to disprove my initial post that the elections laws in NY regarding the closed primary was never a major issue before.

But you are right Ignorance is willful.

Just that it was never a major issue in NY until this year.

If there is a case, this is not a criminal case?

I mean for anything from small claims all the way to civil rights lawsuits?

The fact that it has not been a problem (in your mind) minor cases happen all the time and some minor become landmark is becuase at least a few folks, or unscrupulous lawyers, feel there is a problem that needs to be sued over.

Why I also gave you cases from other places, Sometimes, a case in CA will affect the rest of the nation in clear and nasty ways (citizens united)

We usually cover some criminal law with civil rights implications, Why I have been spending a lot of quality time at court in the recent past. I am not a lawyer, but understand that most US Law, even election law is not settled in any way, shape or form. It is also arcane as hell. And most citizens, like you, are not aware of what is roiling in the legal system.

From statements from Mayor DeBlassio and others I predict this will end in the courts. If this ends going all the way to the USSC, given how slow the system moves, it will have zero effect (unless the legislature acts) before three more Presidential cycles, yup that be 12 years.

And remember we are talking about NY here, not California or any other state.

As I originally said, the elections laws in NY have been in place for decades and they were never a major issue in the past.

Unless you can show that a record of court cases going back decades with major news coverage, then you are just blowing smoke and spinning like a FAUX News anchor.

But, hey, it wasn't an issue in 1832 ... Or in 1903 ...

Yeah ... I see what you mean ... Just because it didn't happened in those other years is PROOF POSITIVE that there is no real problem and it would NEVER EVER happen ...



And who would steal elections, anyways? ...

I know you have no logical or factual argument to make. Thanks.

Sometimes the shoe fits ...

Wear it ...

as well as smelling of desperation.

Up until now there were more... shall we say, more unobtrusive ways to stop the relatively unknown, annoying upstarts. Usually people could be made to be satisfied to be voting for the lesser of the evils they were being offered.
Well, this time around, the people have someone honest they can get behind. Someone who is not evil. That is what is giving the Establishment (read, our owners) fits.