The lawsuit filed last month by a Florida Democrat, alleging that the date of the presidential primary is unconstitutional (because it indirectly disenfranchises Florida Democrats from having national convention delegates) will be expedited. The case, Ausman v Browning, 4:07-cv519, is in U.S. District Court in Tallahassee before Judge Robert Hinkle.
A scheduling hearing is set for December 19. The case is novel and very interesting. The plaintiff depends on the fact that Judge Hinkle has already ruled that the national Democratic Party has a right to deprive Florida Democrats of any national convention delegates, because Florida Democrats are choosing delegates too early. Therefore, the lawsuit argues, the state is to blame for this disenfranchisement, because it is state law that set the primary in January. Therefore, the lawsuit argues, the state should be compelled to hold the Democratic primary in February, when it would not violate national party rules.
Of course, the rebuttal to this is that the state Democratic Party is free to set up February caucuses to choose delegates. But, the plaintiff argues, Florida major parties have never set up caucuses before, and there was no time to organize them.
This lawsuit, or at least the original version filed in state court was also filed on behalf of a Republican voter. The GOP national party has reduced the number of delegates chosen by the Florida primary in half. But the GOP also applied the same penalty to New Hampshire. So if the federal judge in Florida rules on behalf of the Republican voter in Florida, couldn’t a Republican voter in New Hampshire get an injunction against the State of New Hampshire for holding its primary in January? And if the rulings are in conflict, doesn’t this kick it up to the Supreme Court?
Alternatively, the federal court could sever the Republican voter from the case. But since New Hampshire was also in violation of the Democratic Party rules, and was not sanctioned for moving its primary forward, couldn’t the State of Florida argue that they could not and should not be expected to anticipate arbitrary decisions by the Democratic Party. When the New Hampshire Secretary of State moved the New Hampshire primary, the national Democratic party OK’ed it because it was required by New Hampshire law and New Hampshire Democrats had no choice in the matter.