On January 7, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Jonker of Michigan refused to issue an injunction, stopping the Democratic presidential primary that is set for January 15. The case is Hayes v Michigan Democratic Party, 1:07-cv-1237, western district. The plaintiff had pointed out that Barack Obama and John Edwards don’t appear on the ballot. She had also pointed out that Michigan Democrats have been deprived of their delegates, regardless of whom they vote for. She blamed the state, because all these flaws result from the fact that the primary is too early to conform to national Democratic Party rules.
The Michigan Democratic Party opposed the plaintiff. Therefore, the Judge said the lawsuit is just an intra-party dispute and that he would not get involved. Thanks to Thomas Jones for this news. The Michigan presidential primary ballots do contain write-in space. There will probably be hundreds of thousands of write-in votes cast in the Democratic race. The ballot also contains a choice of “Uncommitted.”
There may be many write-in votes cast, but none will be counted–no candidates filed the necessary paperwork to have their write-in votes counted.
The MORON judge failed to note the STATE ACTION involved in the case — way beyond any internal party stuff.
The MORON lawyer failed to bring up 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — since the Prez primary is a step in voting for Prez electors in Michigan in Nov. 2008.
The EVIL in Michigan continues.
I agree. The process has overrun our fundamental right to vote not matter what we choose. I wholeheartedly believe that if it had been a question of the republican candidates’ names appearing properly on the ballot that the judge would have felt compelled to action. And I have to say I more than a bit disappointed that the Michigan Democratic Party would help contribute in any way to ANY democratic presidential hopeful NOT appearing on the ballot. Do they all believe we’ll just vote for Hillary out of convenience?
This is a good decision by the judge. There simply is no proof that having Iowa and New Hampshire go first in the caucus/primary process makes the Presidential election system run better. Nor does not having them go first show any discriminatory practices to any particular voter. Therefore, this is purely an internal dispute between the DNC and its State member, and there is no reason to have the Federal Government get involved. States have every right to try and have their primaries at a time when it means something, rather than have their citizens’ votes cast after the eventual nominee is already known, and it’s up to the State Committee and DNC to work this out, not the Federal Government. So the plaintiff can’t vote for whom she wanted to vote for. Well, if I lived in Michigan and was registered as an Independent, I couldn’t vote for a Democrat I favored in the primary either. I’d have to be a Democrat to even be let in the voting booth, and that is perfectly legal. This example is just to show that the dispute is between Democrats and needs to be resolved among themselves.
Jen Haskill is in error in that she presumes the judge ruled the way he did because it didn’t involve Republican candidates. But actually, it did. The Republican National Committee stripped Michigan of half of its delegates. Therefore, the Republican winner will be going to the Republican Convention with less delegates than he normally would, which could very well affect the outcome of a very tight Republican race.