Federal Lawsuit Filed Against 2021 New York Law That Won’t Let Primary Voters Cast a Write-in for a Member of Another Party

On August 18, a new lawsuit was filed against the 2021 New York law that won’t let primary voters cast a write-in vote for someone who is not a member of that party. Frentzel v Mohr, w.d., 1:23cv-854.

A somewhat similar lawsuit had been filed earlier in state court, Kowal v Mohr. Although the trial state court struck down the law, the appellate state court reversed and upheld the law. Thanks to Joe Burns for this news. Here is the federal Complaint, which is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra.


Comments

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against 2021 New York Law That Won’t Let Primary Voters Cast a Write-in for a Member of Another Party — 32 Comments

  1. 14-2 AMDT VIOLATION ???

    PRIMARY = PART OF ELECTION PROCESS — SINCE 1930S SCOTUS CASES
    —-
    NOOO PRIMARIES

    P-A-T

  2. State laws shouldn’t be addressed in federal court. Also, party nominations should be handled, paid for, and according to whatever rules those parties choose. State governments should not interfere with or subsidize such process in any way.

  3. That’s tinyurldotcomslash that string.

    Another one at tinyurl: ycfeb8n7

    Shhhh….don’t tell AZZ.

  4. One more in case anyone still does not get it. Unfortunately, this site does not allow a direct link. Look up at tinyurl

    4hnaw5xe

    #AzzPwnedYetAgain

  5. MINI-GERRYMANDER. EXAMPLE

    ELECT 5 USA REPS- 5 D ELECTED

    2022 ELECTION USA REPS CT — E-WIN,L-LOSE PA = PCT AVERAGE

    VOTES PA — — — DTVOTES PA
    127,838 50.7 E HAYES D* 253,672 100.4
    137,924 54.7 E DELAURO D* 242,651 96.0
    140,262 55.6 E HIMES D* 236,084 93.4
    406,024 32.2 — 3 LOW D* WIN

    149,556 59.3 E LARSON D 243,913 96.5
    165,946 65.8 E COURTNEY D 285,031 112.8
    315,502 25.0 — 2 HIGH D WIN —
    721,526 57.2 — 5 D WIN —

    1,967 0.8 L PAFLINO O-GRN
    2,140 0.8 L HALL O-LP
    2,439 1.0 L BLACKER O-GRN
    2,851 1.1 L SANDERS O-GRN
    4,056 1.6 L CHAI O-IND
    13,453 1.1 — 5 OTH LOSE —

    91,506 36.3 L LAZOR R
    95,822 38.0 L STEVENSON R
    98,704 39.1 L DEARDIS R
    114,506 45.4 L FRANCE R
    125,834 49.9 L LOGAN R
    526,372 41.7 — 5 R LOSE —

    1,261,351 100.0 — TOTAL — 1,261,351
    252,270 — — TOTAL/5 — 252,270 = AVERAGE

    STUDENTS CAN DO THE EXTREME MATH – WINNERS / LOSERS / DIST TOTALS

    PRIMARY MATH MUCH WORSE.

    DATA — USA H REPS CLERK STATS FEB 2023
    P-A-T
    WITH PR- 3 D, 2 R ELECTED

  6. I’d bury the receipts of myself getting so embarrassingly pwned with several phone screen’s worth of indecipherable gibberish if I was AZZ too.

    #AzzPwnedYetAgain

  7. Aye, the derp is strong in that one. Turns out Florida nAZis support Biden and Ukraine, just like AZ. Some even fought for Ukraine. Don’t tell AZZ.

  8. Don’t tell AZ.

    To the tune of Scotty Doesn’t Know.

    Look it up on utube, I’m tired of tinyurl

  9. MINI-GERRYMANDER. EXAMPLE — DISTS ADDED
    ELECT 5 USA REPS- 5 D ELECTED
    2022 ELECTION USA REPS CT — E-WIN,L-LOSE PA = PCT AVERAGE

    — 2022 ELECTION USA REPS CT — E-WIN,L-LOSE
    DT VOTES PA — — — DTVOTES PA
    5 127,838 50.7 E HAYES D* 253,672 100.4
    3 137,924 54.7 E DELAURO D* 242,651 96.0
    4 140,262 55.6 E HIMES D* 236,084 93.4
    TOT 406,024 32.2** — 3 LOW D* WIN

    1 149,556 59.3 E LARSON D 243,913 96.5
    2 165,946 65.8 E COURTNEY D 285,031 112.8
    TOT 315,502 25.0 — 2 HIGH D WIN —
    TOT 721,526 57.2 — 5 D WIN —

    3 1,967 0.8 L PAFLINO O-GRN
    2 2,140 0.8 L HALL O-LP
    2 2,439 1.0 L BLACKER O-GRN
    1 2,851 1.1 L SANDERS O-GRN
    3 4,056 1.6 L CHAI O-IND
    TOT 13,453 1.1 — 5 OTH LOSE —

    1 91,506 36.3 L LAZOR R
    4 95,822 38.0 L STEVENSON R
    3 98,704 39.1 L DEARDIS R
    2 114,506 45.4 L FRANCE R
    5 125,834 49.9 L LOGAN R
    TOT 526,372 41.7 — 5 R LOSE —

    TOT 1,261,351 100.0 — TOTAL — 1,261,351
    AVE 252,270 — — TOTAL/5 — 252,270

    STUDENTS CAN DO THE EXTREME MATH – WINNERS / LOSERS / DIST TOTALS
    PRIMARY MATH MUCH WORSE.
    DATA — USA H REPS CLERK STATS FEB 2023
    P-A-T
    WITH PR- 3 D, 2 R SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED

  10. I can understand passing that law. However, I do agree primary elections are political parties responsibility and not the state. States shouldn’t be paying for them, but they do. That’s why candidates seeking the ballot should pay a filing fee and pay for the cost of running the election instead of petition signature gathering.

  11. PRIMARIES –

    SUBPARTS OF PUBLIC ELECTORS/VOTERS DOING NOMINATIONS OF PUBLIC CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICES ACCORDING TO PUBLIC LAWS

    — SINCE 1930S SCOTUS OPS AND EARLIER 1888-1890 PRIMARIES

    – TO END THE EARLIER GANGSTER BOSS MEETINGS / PURGES

    – SEE OLDE BOSS TWEED GANG

  12. @Pat
    When someone challenges a state law on the grounds that it violates a federal law like the US Constitution, it can be heard in federal court. A state court cannot be the final say. About party nominations, yeah I agree, they have a right to do it in a way that invites or scares away voters. This also means that when people register to vote with the state, there’s no party registration. Registration would be private.

    That raises the question, can a party deny membership like a golf club denies membership to Jews (which is legal, I know of one)?

  13. Yeah, those laws are wrong, and those gangster boss meetings were better than gangster boss government owning everything, including party nominations.

    Plus it’s like everyone is saying…I’d bury the receipts of myself getting pwned right in the AZZ with several phone screen’s worth of indecipherable gibberish if I was AZ too. Turns out Florida nAZis were Biden and Ukraine supporters just like AZ. Some even went over to Ukraine to fight for the Ukrainian nAZis. Don’t tell AZ.

    I did like people said and went to YouTube to look up the song and video Scotty Doesn’t Know. I played it while thinking don’t tell AZ , AZ doesn’t know when it comes to Florida nAZis support for Beijing Biden and Ukrainian nAZis.

  14. Adam Cerini

    I understand the theory. I also believe the 14th amendment was not properly adopted, has been overbroadly interpreted, and damages the proper relationship between States and federal government.

    I’m glad we agree that parties should own their nominations. I don’t think states should register voters by party. Of course parties should be able to deny membership to anyone they wish. If nAZis want to deny membership to Jews and non Whites, commies want to deny membership to capitalists, black supremacists want to deny membership to Whites, or libertarians want to deny membership to nAZis and commies, they should absolutely have that right, regardless of whether they are a political party, bar, target shooting club, church, or whatever they are. If a golf club party wants to require golf club ownership, golf club membership, or even a certain golf score, it should be par for the course, and government shysters should keep their noses out of it.

  15. I don’t need to see it. If it was decided as you say, it was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned. You seem capable of grasping that concept when it comes to other judicial decisions, troll moron AZ.

  16. I skimmed it, and it seems to say the opposite of what AZ claims. The software here censors the link.

  17. Well, now, interesting that it lets AZ post the link but not me. It still says the opposite of what he claims, and now readers can see for themselves. AZ is a troll moron.

  18. Pat: “Of course parties should be able to deny membership to anyone they wish. If nAZis want to deny membership to Jews and non Whites, commies want to deny membership to capitalists, black supremacists want to deny membership to Whites, or libertarians want to deny membership to nAZis and commies, they should absolutely have that right, regardless of whether they are a political party, bar, target shooting club, church, or whatever they are. If a golf club party wants to require golf club ownership, golf club membership, or even a certain golf score, it should be par for the course, and government shysters should keep their noses out of it.”

    Agreed. It’s called freedom of association. It’s a big reason I’m not a fan of open primaries (in addition to ballot access reforms, electoral reforms such as Proportional Representation should accomplish the same goals without infringing upon this freedom).

  19. Jim Riley, as I read the summary it seems to strongly affirm party free association / dissociation rights. If you disagree that’s what it says, why do you disagree?

  20. @Windy,

    Yes. That is what AZ means by “Clubby Stuff”

    The SCOTUS has made a distinction with regard to nominations conducted by primary in accordance with state law. It has determined that primaries are part of the overall election scheme and subject to constitutional protection. See ‘Smith v Allwright’ where SCOTUS ruled that Texas could not permit the Texas Democratic Party to deny participation in their primary to blacks.

    In his first message in this thread, AZ speculates whether Section 2 of the 14th Amendment applies in New York. That is, not counting votes for certain write-in candidates is a violation of the right to vote, and should result in a diminishment of the number of representatives for New York.

  21. I’m on the side of the whales here, Jim. Not the wind farms. Which btw kill a lot more than just only whales, as if that wasn’t enough. To me the decision says parties should have association and dissociation rights. That means if they don’t want to allow votes in their primary for members of other parties they should have the right to say no. Are you on the side of big wind farms???

  22. @Windy,

    It is disruption of the wind flow that would be causing the sound harmful to whales. If one noted that dams prevent salmon from spawning, would that mean that they were on the side of the dammers.

    Search ‘San Francisco Democratic Party vs. Eu’ for the words ‘Smith v. Allwright’.

    In New York it is not the political party that is disallowing the votes, it is the state government. As the brief points out, party bosses are permitted to allow a non-party member to cross-file.

    New York does not hold a primary if there is zero or one candidate. But there is an “Opportunity To Ballot” (OTB) where registered voters may petition to have a primary. In this case, ‘ballot’ is a verb, so OTB means ‘opportunity to vote’. In New York, a write-in space is always printed on the ballot. So in effect, OTB permits voters to choose a nominee other than an unopposed filer, or to have a nominee in case nobody filed.

    A couple of elections ago, the Reform Party permitted unenrolled (independent) voters to vote in their primary, and to utilize the ability to cast a write-in vote to select the Reform Party nominee who would likely be nominated by another party. The Democratic Party bosses did not like this, and passed a law barring counting of write-in votes for an otherwise qualified person (e.g. you can’t vote for someone who does not live in your town, is a non-citizen, a felon, or to young). This was part of the effort to get rid of minor parties in New York. Are you on the side of Andrew Cuomo (and by inferrence Chris Cuomo and CNN)?

    In the case being litigated, fully 81% of the primary voters cast a write-in vote, rather than the single candidate of the ballot. Why should members of the Working Family Party be denied their right to nominate a candidate who happens to be a Republican because of the machinations of the Democratic Party?

  23. Much worse than dams. See stopthesethings dotcom, the whales are just the tip of the iceberg!

  24. I think the demon rats and nonworking family should be allowed to associate with each other as little or much as they want and the state should stay far away from the whole mess. I’d also be A Ok with the Max vote by party plan, in which case cross endorsements wouldn’t be possible. But as long as parties still nominate candidates I think the states should interfere with or subsidize or administer it for them. They can go jump from a roof and see who makes the most perfect landings. I don’t care. Not my monkeys, not my circus.

    Cuomos? I’m on the side of locking them up. Or whatever medieval punishments Max advocates if they were legal. Given our sad state of affairs nowadays, seeing them publicly disgraced and removed from public positions of leadership, hopefully permanently, is satisfaction in itself. For icarus types like the Cuomos, that’s a worse hell in their mansions than the crappiest hoosegow in the land is for the average “working” criminal family guy. Still, it would be deeply satisfying to see a day when their kind would be whipped through the streets, forced to live out their days as nursing home janitors or gravediggers, hung from a noose during seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, deported to Italy, or something worse than a gilded retirement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.