On January 17, the 6th circuit heard arguments in Kurita v The State Primary Board of the Tennessee Democratic Party, the case over whether a political party can set aside the primary election results, and declare someone the nominee even though that person did not place first in the primary. In 2008, the party had refused to recognize the primary election victory of Rosalind Kurita, who won the primary for State Senate by 19 votes. The party charged that many voters who were loyal to the Republican Party had voted in the Democratic primary, and therefore the primary lacked validity. Also, the party was already hostile to Senator Kurita, because even though she had been elected as a Democrat, and continued to hold herself out as a Democrat, she had voted to organize the State Senate under Republican leadership.
The state took the position that the narrowness of the primary is irrelevant, and that it is also not relevant that some voters who were really not loyal to the Democratic Party participated in the primary. One judge asked if the party could have acted as it did if the margin had been 1,900 votes instead of 19 votes, and the response from the state was that this would have made no difference. The state also took the position that the 6th circuit does not have authority to order a new primary election, because the Tennessee Constitution forbids special legislative elections if less than a year remains in the term.
If Tennessee is requiring the use of primaries and is actually conducting them in conjunction with non-partisan elections, then election contests should be conducted in the same manner as for other elections.
There is no reason that a court could not determine if non-Democrats had voted in the primary, and determined whether that had an impact on the result. In Texas, if a voter votes illegally, they can be required to reveal how they voted.
So in this case, the challenger Tim Barnes could have presented evidence that specific non-Democrats had voted in the primary and compel them to reveal who they had voted for. He could also prove that election officials had directed Barnes supporters to vote in the wrong primary. This is a bit odd since there wasn’t a Republican primary. If you were a bona fide Democrat wouldn’t you ask to vote in the Democratic primary?
And even if the contest determines that the election was not properly conducted, the proper course of action would be to hold a new election.
The EVIL madness continues.
Nominations of PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC office by PUBLIC electors-voters according to PUBLIC laws.
Nominations by ALL Electors (as in top 2 areas) or SOME Electors (as in the party hack primary areas).
Each party hack gang is NOT ANY part of the government — otherwise how about a zillion party hack gangs claiming to be a part of the government ???
If anything arrest the party hack gang leaders trying to subvert the government by overthrowing the election results involved.
Perhaps even declare the TN regime is in an insurrection against the U.S.A Const — by NOT having a Republican Form of Government — i.e. by having the party hack gang leaders claiming to have a veto over election results.
Richard Winger,
Please post the briefs in this case, It has an impact of the 2012 primary in California because of a recent
CCROV on of Secretary of State Bowen department.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California