Judge rejects Bernie Sanders’ supporter’s voting lawsuit
Source: Washington Times
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit by a Bernie Sanders supporter who argued elections officials in California were robbing unaffiliated voters of the chance to vote in the states June 7 Democratic presidential primary.
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in San Francisco said Wednesday the Voting Rights Defense Project waited too long to request an injunction for radio and TV ads informing unaffiliated voters that they can vote in the presidential primary of the Democratic, American Independent and Libertarian parties.
The group had argued that county elections officials were failing to inform unaffiliated voters of that right, threatening to disenfranchise thousands of voters. Its lawsuit named California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and two county elections officials.
Padilla said the lawsuit was frivolous.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/1/judge-rejects-bernie-sanders-supporters-voting-law/
This lawsuit was frivolous
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)?
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Which I doubt...he's most likely trying to blackmail Hillary to pick up his debt...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Bernie sanders had never helped any one but Bernie sanders...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)beachbumbob (683 posts)
4. If sanders campaign had any money
Which I doubt...he's most likely trying to blackmail Hillary to pick up his debt...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1472548
riversedge
(70,302 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but then again all things tend to sound the same in an echo chamber
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Sanders ain't gonna help Hillary...it's pretty clear.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)He doesn't have to endorse anyone.
With him saying that he has money to campaign after California, he seems to be saying that he is hanging on to his ridiculous "super delegates don't count" meme.
Taken to extreme, his comment could be seen as an indication that he is considered reneging on his promise not to run as a third party...
ananda
(28,876 posts).. actually speaks for and represents people other than himself
and the corporate rich.
I cannot say the same thing about either Clinton.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)That would be directly contrary to pretty much everything about Sanders.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)But I think you know that.
riversedge
(70,302 posts)that said that. But you might be right (vaguely recall something to that effect if so ruled by the Court).
Its lawsuit named California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and two county elections officials.
Padilla said the lawsuit was frivolous.
Brother Buzz
(36,463 posts)I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I believe seeking relief of court costs is a separate matter that may, or may not be addressed down the road.
Mark 750
(79 posts)The judge?
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Know the damn rules...shows what rank amateurs the sanders campaign has been run by...$200 million wasted on a campaign not smart enough to know or learn the primary rules AND inform their supporters...but whine when the rules aren't bent to them....we have saved America from sanders...
How difficult is it to actually Google each states primary rules?....obviously too difficult for sanders campaign and supporters
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)If you can't even google state primary rules how the hell can you lead and govern the country....Hillary has the chance to save America twice...from sanders and from trump
Arkansas Granny
(31,529 posts)at those big rallies he's had. An opportunity lost.
2banon
(7,321 posts)as recent as a couple of days ago.. shame on you for promoting lies about a Democratic Party Candidate.
Arkansas Granny
(31,529 posts)I did not spread lies.
2banon
(7,321 posts)you said:
at those big rallies he's had. An opportunity lost.
This is promoting a falsehood, disinformation. It's untrue.
in other words, it's a lie.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Pretty much confirms what the judge said when calling the lawsuit frivolous. Two days ago was too late.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)If not, then his speaking about it a few days ago does no good.
This is something I've spoken about before in regards to the Sanders' campaign. They had to know going into this that they would have to appeal to Indie voters. So why wasn't the campaign prepared to educate those Indies on how to register for the primaries ahead of time? It shows a lack of coordination, a lack of organization and a lack of understanding of the primary rules that haven't changed since 1984 (I believe).
One of the jobs of Presidential candidates is to get people registered to vote (and to get down-ballot Democrats elected) and if you see that Indies are going to be an issue for closed primaries, you reach out to them and you explain how they can change their status so they can participate. I mean, when you don't do your homework, homework you knew about ahead of time, you don't get to complain that the rules aren't fair--because these particular rules have been in place since 1984 and it's not like they changed them in the middle of the primaries. When you rile up your supporters with claims of fraud, when in fact, you just weren't aware of the rules or don't want to follow them, it's hard to have respect for that type of campaign.
2banon
(7,321 posts)for me, my first ever experience doing this. LOL. I should probably attempt this later when I use two eyes to read all the text. Just gonna respond to the initial question.
California has a "semi open" primary. So if anyone had registered as NPP or (non partisan preference) voting in the primary must request the party ballot of their choice or they won't be able to vote on any presidential candidate.
If the NPP registered voter votes by mail in ballot, they have to either have requested in advance, their party preference or they can surrender their ballot in person at their precinct poll on June 7th and request their party preference ballot and vote then. This is in the event they missed the May 23rd deadline to change party registration. .
Just skimming through with one eye at a glance, it looks like you might be confused with who is responsible for helping Congress Critters get elected. That responsbility is on the party elites of the House and Senate. they each have their own organizations supposedly for the purpose of funding, promoting campaigning for downticket to each of those houses. Presidential candidates are not any obligation to work for down tickets especially, as far as Bernie goes, he's already working on behalf of the a PROGRESSIVE Dems, I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want him helping Blue or Yellow Dogs or other corporatists. we have far too many of those who may as well be republicans, imo. .
apologies in advance if I mistaken anything, didn't read accurately. When i get this patch taken off, I'll have another look- see!
2banon
(7,321 posts)got it?
LuvLoogie
(7,028 posts)The fix is in. This election is stolen from the people.
Add your lament here
riversedge
(70,302 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)by the Illuminatri who put the fix in. Alex Jones swears it is so.
TexasTowelie
(112,422 posts)in your first sentence. Kudos.
Got any more sore loser talking points you want to throw into that post? Or was that poorly done snark?
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)No surprise - but another example of lazy reporting.
Justia.com is a pretty neat little website. It allows you to look up court filings.
Here's the lawsuit docket:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2016cv02739/298952
Here is the case name and the plaintiffs and defendants:
Voting Rights Defense Project v. Padilla et al
Defendant: Alex Padilla, John Arntz and Tim Depuis
Plaintiff: American Independent Party, Voting Rights Defense Project, Clara Daims and Suzanne Bushnell
Now, I haven't looked up Clara Daims and Suzanne Bushnell - they may be Sanders supporters. But the American Independent Party sure as heck isn't, and the Voting Rights Defense Project represents all the citizens of California, not just Sanders supporters.
Point is that the WT is misrepresenting the nature of this case to make another slam against Sanders and his supporters - and a whole bunch of people on DU (based on this thread) have jumped on that wonky-wheeled bandwagon with alacrity, which just goes to show that foolish is as foolish does.
Goldfish
(71 posts)You are so right about this bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon and looking foolish.
Will be adding more names to my ignore list-- it sure is growing long!
You and your whopping 66 posts already have a long ignore list. Heaven forbid you have to converse with those who disagree with you.
Gothmog
(145,558 posts)This lawsuit was a sad joke http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Francisco-Bernie-Sanders-Voters-Sue-Claim-California-Primary-Voting-is-Too-Confusing-381514681.html
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup in San Francisco said the Voting Rights Defense Project waited too long to request an injunction for radio and TV ads informing "no-party preference," or unaffiliated, voters that they can vote in the presidential primary of the Democratic, American Independent and Libertarian parties.
The group had argued that Alameda and San Francisco county elections officials were failing to inform unaffiliated voters of that right, threatening to disenfranchise thousands of voters. Its lawsuit named California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and two county elections officials.
As the drama unfolded in court, Sanders, who has no official tie to the lawsuit, spoke at a community panel with Asian American leaders in Palo Alto.
Padilla said the lawsuit was frivolous, as did the other two registrar offices. "We don't think there is any merit to the allegations," San Francisco City Attorney spokesman Matt Dorsey said before the ruling. Both counties provided documentation that they have extensively promoted "crossover voting" online, by snail mail postcards and other means. Both registrars also testified they train their workers and cover "cross-over voting in detail."
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)I don't give a rat's arse what a newspaper or other media editor/writer uses as a headline. It doesn't change who filed the suit.
Believe what you like.
Gothmog
(145,558 posts)riversedge
(70,302 posts)TWEET
TODAY! U.S. Dist Ct Jud Alsup ruled from bench, CA Bernie supporters made absolutely no showing of violation of law
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)When Padilla was AG of Los Angeles he had a reputation as a kind of no-nonsense guy. A lot of people assumed he was Republican as the mayor at the time was GOP (Riordan) but he was basically a get-the-job done guy who rarely made it into the news.
Gothmog
(145,558 posts)The San Francisco City Office has some great comments on this silly lawsuit http://www.sfcityattorney.org/2016/06/01/federal-judge-calls-sanders-backers-arguments-hot-air-denies-bid-emergency-injunction/
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup described allegations by plaintiffs counsel as hot air shortly before ruling verbally from the bench, colorfully noting that theres not a single decision in the history of the universe equating plaintiffs alleged facts with a violation of the U.S. Constitutions Equal Protection Clause. Alsup added that plaintiffs made absolutely no showing of a violation of federal law.
Im gratified by the courts ruling, which strongly affirms what we said from the beginning: that literally every violation these plaintiffs alleged was inaccurate, said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. I think its unfortunate that plaintiffs proceeded with litigation, even after we took time to demonstrate that their case had no basis in reality. Well never know for sure if this lawsuit was just a political stunt, but I think Judge Alsup summed it up well in two words: hot air.
San Francisco, Alameda County, and state elections officials were sued on May 20 by an unincorporated association of Sanders backers called the Voting Rights Defense Project, who together with the American Independence Party and two San Francisco voters leveled an array of allegations that Herrera called wholly baseless. Specifics of the injunction order sought by Sanders supporters included: requiring poll workers in Californias 58 counties to individually inform no party preference voters of their right to request a partisan presidential primary ballot; compelling statewide television, radio, internet and email announcements to inform voters about state election laws; and, if possible, to extend Californias voter registration deadlinewhich already passed on May 23 for eligibility to vote in the June 7 primaryuntil election day itself. The original civil complaint filed on May 20 sought additional injunctive relief, which included a requirement for California elections officials segregate ballots already cast by unaffiliated voters, and to allow re-votes by those voters for presidential primary candidates.
Response to Gothmog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Eko
(7,351 posts)Gothmog
(145,558 posts)This is not surprising http://thevotingnews.com/sanders-fans-fight-over-voter-rules-tossed-courthouse-news-service/
With the California primaries long over, a federal judge tossed a suit brought by Bernie Sanders supporters accusing election officials of violating their voting rights in the run-up to the June election. U.S. District Judge William Alsup dismissed the case as moot on Thursday, telling plaintiffs counsel William Simpich that there is plenty of time to take an appeal. The lawsuit was filed less than three weeks before the June 7 primary by a group of Oakland-based Bernie Sanders supporters calling themselves the Voting Rights Defense Project. The American Independence Party and two San Francisco voters joined in the lawsuit. In their complaint against California Secretary of State Alex Padilla and San Francisco and Alameda County registrars John Arntz and Tom Depuis, the plaintiffs claimed that election officials failed to inform voters who registered without declaring a party preference of their right to request a crossover ballot that allows them to vote in the Democratic, American Independent and Libertarian primaries.
They also claimed that voters who express a party preference can change that preference, and that not allowing them to do so violates the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act.
The plaintiffs asked Alsup in the complaint to extend Californias voter registration deadline until Election Day, so voters could switch parties and to allow unaffiliated voters to recast their ballots.
Simpich further asked at an injunction hearing that a list of voter rights be disseminated online, emphasizing that nonpartisan voters who want to vote for Bernie Sanders can request a new ballot from a poll worker.