"Some states are saying that he's not a party member and is not legally entitled to run in the Democratic Primary."

What state has said that?

And I've seen people reference other states including Kansas.

It is a main point in your op.





"Some states are saying that he's not a party member and is not legally entitled to run in the Democratic Primary."

To be honest I am a hypocrite on this. If Paul attempted to do so I would be writing states to not allow it. Sander, they had better make the right moves. I think this will be easier than people think. Still, not sure I am a voice of reason on this.

At the same time, this is a main point to your op and it is the absolute first I have heard of it.

"Some states are saying that he's not a party member and is not legally entitled to run in the Democratic Primary."

NY: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251412842
NH: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026901435

And there are others out there. But these are the two big ones that set off this story.

Neither link backs up your claim. Please show where a state is making the claim as you asserted in your op.

Wasn't much to them. Neither provide proof to the claim that a state is issuing these statements.

Right now, there are states with primary eligibility laws and bodies to enforce their laws.

This may not be so simple. If the SoS or Election Board or whomever is tapped to decide rules that Bernie is not a registered Democrat (which actually is true), and IF they like the law it may keep him off the ballot.

Note there are hypothetical situations where officials, even GOP officials may like their law even if it has nothing to do with Bernie. For example, if the GOP didn't want to face a Tea Party candidate in a primary, they may insist the candidate be a Republican - and eliminate some independent challenger.

I'd guess that as soon as Bernie puts in the paperwork, then the challenge will be heard.

I wouldn't argue against that. But a part of the ops main point is this. "Some states are saying that he's not a party member and is not legally entitled to run in the Democratic Primary." It is either extremely poor wording, deception, or flat out dishonesty. No state has made such a declaration. As you say, it currently wouldn't be "official." That is something I can agree with and it goes against the rhetoric of the op in that area.

Bernie cannot swear legally that he is a registered Democrat no matter what the state party wants.

He has not run as a Democrat, and cannot register as a Democrat in Vermont.

If the Secretary of State or election board interprets the sworn statement as legally necessary, he's out of luck in that state without some kind of legal challenge.

This is one of those times. Time will tell but I am confident he will be on all he wants to be with minimal shenanigans.

then such a law may be desirable for both the GOP and Democratic parties to keep people from switching parties and running in a primary. Just like Charlie Crist had to run for Senate as an independent - and cost the Democrats a seat because the vote was split!

By forcing allegiance to a party in advance of running, it protects the mainstream party from defections. Likely that is why the law was passed to start with, so some states may not want to change it.

But when republicans and democrats want something, it will get done.

I'm sure you remember K. Harris! I don't know how many states have these laws. Three have been mentioned. If a couple of Secretaries of State decide not to put Bernie on the ballot, he likely would have to sue. The SoS or Election Board may not go along with the political parties. Some legislatures are not in session.

The parties could not change existing law very quickly. Even if they did, who knows what a judge or court would do?

It's an interesting issue.

I do. The democratic establishment wants Hillary. That holds a lot of power in itself. Hillary would take a big hit if she was somehow associated with something like this, and she would be even if she had nothing to do with it. That covers what is considered the establishment. Others in the party is where a big part of his support is. So that is in his favor. We both know what republicans want. Sanders in the general. That covers every group.

The laws predated the current issue. I looked up NY, and here was their logic from the 1940's. The laws were passed by both Democrats and Republicans:

"Prior to the law's passage, candidates often ran in primary elections of multiple parties, creating a fusion ticket. Initially, it was thought that the law could end these fusion candidacies. However, in practice, it has allowed smaller parties in New York to remain relevant as candidates from the major parties often seek their endorsements to expand their appeal. This is largely because of the unusual New York practice of allowing a candidate to have his name on the ballot once for each party who nominates him and to have all the votes for him or her on whatever line added together."

No matter what the origin, either the law would have to change or else something. It is unusual, but depending on the ruling of various state election processes, Bernie may have a problem.

I can't see Hillary or any of the candidates wanting to claim victory for a "fake" election.

enforce that one.

At least as a primary challenge. Heck, you could change and run and change back I suppose?

I'm sure some historian can figure why states passed these laws, and that's just one logical reason.

elected.

the Democratic Party. I'm sure if he presented a note from the DNC saying "He's asked to join and we've welcomed him" that the argument would be moot.

Of course, he will have to ask to join, in that case....and be known as someone with the (D) after their name.

How did Pat Leahy "become" a Democrat in VT, after all? He managed it, somehow.

He specifically refused and ran as an independent recently. Vermont has no mechanism to register as a Democrat as folks have posted.

If he ran in the next election in Vermont as a Democrat, I'm sure that would suffice.

I suspect some of these laws were put into place to keep candidates from changing parties, or giving a primary challenge to a main party candidate (like Tea Party). I don't know the history in all the states.

We'll know how serious he is when it gets close to the time to print the ballots. I should think the Democratic leadership, having extended a hand in welcome, would give him whatever documentation he needed to get his name on those ballots should he decide he wants to join our club.

really, it's a hidden problem that election reform is a big issue in the US - not just voter registration - the whole process is fouled up

By the way, "how serious he is" made me snort so loud, it started the kitties.

Everyone claims they know what is in this guy's heart when only he knows what he is doing--regardless of what other people say.

We'll know if he's serious if he actually does the work to get on the ballots. That's not a question--it's a statement. It is a process, and since we have way more primaries nowadays than we did in the days of McCarthy, McGovern, Kennedy et. al., it actually IS hard work.

If he has a letter from the DNC saying that they welcome him to the process, the convention, and the debates, he can go to the state party machines, and use that to get on the ballots in the states.

Not sure why you find that "snort-worthy" or "kitty start(l)ing...?" Seems sensible to me.

and has declared that they will do whatever they can do to list him as a Democratic candidate.

Thus the snort.

The DNC already issued that "letter" by listing him as a candidate. Thus the snort.

That's always been my position--welcome, welcome, the more the merrier. He will have to make adjustments to comply with state requirements, and I am sure, where he has trouble owing to specificities of rules, that the DNC can and will help him out.


Do you see how your snorting derision can turn people off? It ain't him that's the problem.

Vermont, he would not have been able to register as a Democrat.

Did Howard Dean lie and sign anyway? Or did they not ask him.

I suspect these laws have not been tested before, and maybe it won't matter.

Bernie specifically refused to run as a Democrat and ran as an Independent. I don't know, but if someone challenged his certificate of eligibility, the challenger would point that out.

NY has a different, but similar law. I really don't know how many states require this statement.

So what is it. Did those states ask Dean to sign those papers or did they give him a pass.

Dean, Bush, etc. had run and been elected in other states as Democrats, Repubs, etc. They could honestly declare they were party members.

Bernie specifically rejected being a Democrat in several recent elections, and he has never been elected as a Democrat. He may be challenged if he signs a sworn statement.

http://www.wmur.com/politics/question-is-bernie-sanders-eligible-to-run-in-the-nh-democratic-primary/32674614

Question: Is Bernie Sanders eligible to run in the NH Democratic primary?
Gardner: Law says he must be a registered Democrat when he files

"Devine said that early Thursday, Sanders filed his campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission, and he stated his intention to seek the Democratic presidential nomination.

Devine also pointed out that Vermont Gov. Howard Dean had no trouble getting on the 2004 New Hampshire primary ballot. And, he said, neither Texas nor Tennessee have party registration, yet George W. Bush and Al Gore also ran in the Granite State.

Sanders’ situation is slightly different, and Gardner says it’s unique.

Sanders rejected Democratic nominations, while Dean and Gore served as a governor and a U.S. senator, respectively, as Democrats, and Bush was a Republican governor."

A sworn oath. Did Dean sign that sworn oath that he was a registered Democrat? Was he presented with that sworn oath that he was a registered Democrat?

Apparently, the rules only apply to some candidates and not to others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=419583

registration. One being Texas the home of LBJ, GHWB and GWB. Another is Illinois the home of President Obama. All of these men ran in all the primaries.

Are you saying that it would be just fine for states like New Hampshire to have a law which would refuse to let a candidate from these states run in the primary even though the party he/she is running in has already agreed to his/her participation? Too me this is another nail in the head of democracy.

Especially when this is being pushed by another candidates followers?

not having Bernie on the Democratic Party's primary ballot are blatantly false!
In order for a person to be nominated as a Democratic Party candidate in NY, one does not have to be registered as a Democrat.
This is, in part, because NY allows people to run in GENERAL elections on as many party lines as they can get.
I wish I had a nickel for every time that I have seen an unopposed candidate run on every party line.
Just ask anyone who has ever voted in NY.
This is just a propaganda point brought to you by the DLC and others.

I don't want to see him denied access but their are laws.

What will be will be but no he should not be entitled to the perks of being a Democrat.

of the letters announcing that fact and asking me to donate in his name. What more do we need since Vermont does not register to vote by party.

Only ones to try to stop it would be the Republicans to try to fuck stuff up (potentially to blame it on the Clinton camp).

Since he shouldn't be entitled to the perks and all.

He needs to get petition signatures to declare delegates to go to the convention. There are signature counts per congressional district and the state.

Might as well hand the election to the other candidates now.

Because there's already a perception that one of the other candidates is not above dirty tricks in order to secure the nomination. If that candidate (or their supporters) is implicated in any way in efforts to keep Sen. Sanders off the ballot in any state, it could very easily result in a lot of Sanders supporters sitting out the general election.

You might very well win the battle but you could conceivably lose the war.

They didn't, so I guess I will.

I'll just be over here, rolling my eyes and laughing.

Then NY won't even be a problem.

Their real concern should be that blocking ballot access to Bernie will really turn a large # of Democrats against her.

And there is precedent for unconstitutional laws like this being shot down.

The Republicans may try to fuck shit up though, they love to mess with the electoral process.

He has caucused with the Democrats since he first arrived in Congress.
Democrats made him chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs when they controlled the Senate.

People are allowed to change parties in this country, right?

The state Democratic Party on Thursday night promised to help Sanders to get on the primary ballot.

"We welcome Senator Sanders to the New Hampshire presidential primary," said party chairman Raymond Buckley. "New Hampshire Democrats are excited to meet the candidates and hear about how we can build on the economic progress we’ve made over the past six years and continue to expand opportunities for New Hampshire’s middle class families.

in order to defeat a republican who was facing a Tea Party challenge, the Democratic candidate withdrew in order to throw support to one of the GOP candidates.

no one stays the hell out of the other's business.

Caucusing is not the same as a "D" on the door.

since he is now running as a Democrat.

I don't know if the SoS or Election Board in various states are GOP controlled, but they may want to deny Bernie access to the primary for whatever reasons they desire.

You can't say the GOP has to stay out of Democratic primaries, because both parties have messed with each other in the past and likely will continue to do so.

It's in their best interests to have Bernie on the ballot in the Generals....so I assume that they will not raise any concerns for inclusion of Bernie on any state Primary Ballot.

their strategy will fail miserably.

It only accepts Republicans too embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.

Is this the type of representative "democracy" that we work to tirelessly to spread throughout the world? If so, we're not doing any country any favors.

His congressional vote has always been with the Democrats, more so than even the DINOS in Comgress as we saw with the recent TPA vote.

But most importantly, the Democratic Party has allowed him to run as a Democrat in the primary, and that's what counts.

People on DU have been saying there are no parties in VT.

The pout over Bernie is about not being registered, something he can't do unless he moves to another state that has registration. Since he is a Senator from Vermont right now, I don't think he can do that until after he finishes his term.

Actually, I see it purely as nit picking politics, like the phrase in the ACA that the Morlocks were trying to turn into an issue to get rid of the ACA and that the Supreme Court, thank God, put to rest.

All he needs to do is write a letter to the DNC, saying "I want to be a Democrat." They can write back and say "Welcome to the club."

It's not really nit-picking, it is technical, though. We're a big tent and while we like to be inclusive to those who share our goals (and Sen. Sanders has caucused with us for years, now) we're not in the habit of accommodating people who crap on us, like Ralph Nader. There's a difference between Caucusing Bernie and Disruptive Ralph.

They'll sort it out, I'm sure. All he's got to do is tack "Democrat/Democratic" onto his designation and he's good to go (he's already kind of done that w/the Democratic Socialist label).

He has stated he is running for the Democratic endorsement and that he WON'T run against the candidate endorsed by the democratic party in the general election.

Anything more than this is the desperate attempts by the OP to spin some kind of bullshit out of nothing.

Could we please discuss policy and issues?

I am saying, repeatedly, that I don't think this is an issue, provided he does all the other things that are required to get on the ballots--the signatures, the filing fees, etc. In the odd state where they demand something called "registration," the DNC can help him out, if needs must.

So why are you giving me guff? Hell, he's not even my first choice, and I don't have a problem with him being on every damn ballot in all fifty states.

This thread is about the ballot, though, so it's not the place to find "policy and issues." I find that when a thread I am reading becomes insufferable that the "Hide Thread" button works a treat.

But that's a different story.

the embossed membership card that doubles as a credit card with a 0% APR (if used for purchases at The Secret Democratic Website), discount car insurance, the secret decoder ring, the secret password that allows you access to the nationwide network of secret DNC Clubs, the secret handshake...

Uh, you DO know the secret handshake, don't you?

If Vermont does not register voters according to party affiliation, or party preference, the only determining factor is the way candidates choose to list themselves on the ballot. The mainstream Democratic Party says Sanders cannot be a Democrat now because he was not a Democrat before. What does this mean? If taken literally, it's just a Catch 22 they came up with to keep Sanders from printing "Democratic" next to his name. Yes, the Democratic Party can deny Sanders much, almost everything, but they can't prevent him from being a Democrat on the ballot. Of course, they'll come up with something, drag it out in court, etc. They need to smarten up. Sanders and his candidacy are good for the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.

registering to vote. A lot of states do not ask you to declare a party when you register to vote.

...that Bernie couldn't identify as a Dem because he's from Vermont.....doesn't seem to be true? It seems to be the established talking point.

I believed them until I looked it up myself.

or get some public corrections noted until they do?

It's annoying how many run on and perpetuate the falsehood because it so conveniently runs parallel with their narrative. I wonder if they feel duped by their fellow Bernie supporters or if they will twist themselves into pretzels trying to defend and justify that falsehood?

are two completely different things.

This has been explained over and over, yet some are too willfully ignorant to understand this.

Funny the only ones twisting into pretzels are those who can not understand the difference between these two very simply processes.

But it's clearly unconstitutional and should not be a problem (an annoyance, yes, if the Republicans contest it, and assuming they even have standing since it's not their primary).

a Democrat. I don't know why he didn't just run as an Independent.

they are the ones perpetuating the message that Vermont doesn't permit a Senator to pick a party. The ballots above, do not seem to corroborate that message.

That Bernie couldn't possibly run as a Democrat because of Vermont's election law.

This has nothing to do with me.

The BS seems to be coming from the Bernie supporters that he was not permitted by Vermont law, to list a party affiliation. It's was explanation given why Bernie can't run as a Dem. I think that talking point is not true.

"Worrying phase". So Bernie keep up the good work.

First the Bernie Sanders does not have African American support
Then oh.. yeah there was the article Bernie wrote 42 years ago
And now we have Democrats are complaining about Bernie running on the Democratic ticket...Come on

Obviously this is someone in the Clinton Campaign working behind the scenes to dig up this Bull Shit (Bill?)

Now think about this, these are the kind of tactics usually reserved for Republican candidates.

So obviously internal polls perhaps shows that Bernie is closer than be reported..."Worry why do I let myself worry"..
I think I heard Hillary singing that on a open mic that she thought was off

making a fuss about it. Let's just take NY. Do you really think
that the Dems intend to lose 15 -20% of their voters?
I don't think so, but if they truly set on that path, the outcry
will shame them into solving the problem peacefully.

However the repugs may want to do it in order to split the
party or to reduce the democratic vote. Still, I think
they will not do it either.

Just what is it that you are so afraid of?

Bernie Supporters are the ones constantly ringing the bell that Bernie could not run as a Dem because his home state doesn't allow it? That doesn't appear to be true. So what is the real reason Bernie isn't running as a Dem?

I am fairly certain that he will be on the NH primary ballot as a (D).

Plenty of time. No worries.

This entire thread is a pile of dung built on a great vapid plain of ignorance. How can you argue with the Democratic Party about who is running as a Democrat? What is the basis upon which you do so? The man is running as a Democrat.
I think challenging the legitimacy of candidates the Party fully endorses is not a wise tactic.

The ballots in the OP clearly establish there are party affiliations. So what is the real reason for Bernie not running decalring himself as a Dem?

I suppose the backlash could come in the form of "How dare you ask why we perpetuated a falsehood"?

they could win the general election without our support, knock yourself out.

It appears you got really super defensive for being asked what the real reason is the Bernie doesn't run as a Dem. Or maybe even acknowledge that it was a falsehood for Bernie supporters to portray that Bernie literally couldn't register as a Dem even if he wanted because Vermont didn't allow such a thing. Or do you think that somehow that is still correct?

According to everybody. According to the DNC, Senator Sanders, his supporters, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley his rivals and anybody who can read.

no one needs to know what you are upto while reading these posts.