Skip to main content

View Diary: McDaniel says 'we're going to be fighting this' ... but how? (154 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This post, and others I've seen today, states (33+ / 0-)

    that a federal judge ruled that the law McDaniel is citing is "unenforceable."

    Does anybody know more about that?  Did the judge rule that it is unconstitutional, or unenforceable for some other reason?

    •  I think (14+ / 0-)

      the problem is that we have secret ballots, ergo you can't invalidate the ballot of a person who voted twice. How do you know they voted for Cochran? All you'd know is that a certain number of voters voted twice. You'd have to invalidate the entire election and hold it all over again, which is not part of the law. I don't believe there's any legal apparatus available to re-create the primary election. Therefore, what you have is just a case against each individual who voted in both primaries. That doesn't help McDaniel a whit.

      •  I'm not sure how it works in Mississippi, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, suzq, dewtx

        but if someone chose a Dem ballot in the original primary, wouldn't there be a record of that?  Not their actual vote, but which ballot?  If that person then voted in the Republican run-off as well, I think that's illegal.  Hopefully the Dems who voted for Cochran are ones who didn't show up for the original primary but I guess that's part of what the McDaniels team is investigating.

        •  That's how it works in every state I've ever lived (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc, patbahn, Bailey2001, Lujane, ColoTim, dewtx

          in.

          What the Right Wing calls "being politically correct" is what my mama used to teach me was "being polite".

          by Walt starr on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:30:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They have open primaries, so there should be no (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bleeding blue, kfunk937

          party affiliation.

          Also, how can it be illegal for Republicans to vote in the run off, but not Democrats, if it's an open primary?

          One could also argue that he or she did vote on June 4th, but did not vote in the Senate race.

          "And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over." - John Masefield

          by mungley on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:37:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is a specific law (17+ / 0-)

            The run-offs are a follow-up to an individual primary.  Just because YOUR party didnt require a run-off does not give you permission to vote twice.

            If you voted in the Dem Primary, that was your primary vote.

            If you voted in the GOP primary, this run-off is a continuation of that contest and you are entitled to participate.

            If you didn't vote in a primary, this run-off is a part of the open-primary season and you are entitled to your vote.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:41:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok. Thanks. With an open primary that makes no (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, dewtx

              sense.

              "And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over." - John Masefield

              by mungley on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:52:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why not? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lujane, dewtx, Nespolo

                You have one-vote and you get to cast in either open primary you want, regardless of registration.

                If both parties went to run-offs, you'd vote once on primary day (in either party) and then once more on run-off day to further decide your selected primary.

                If you didn't vote on primary day, you are free to join in on any run-off, regardless of registration.

                But you don't get to vote in one party primary and then vote again in the other party's run-off.

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:59:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because it doesn't record your vote (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mungley

                  In an open primary, you can vote for anybody.
                  It isn't truly a democratic or republican primary
                  So, how do you determine which republicans crossed over and voted in the democratic primary and thus should be disallowed, vrs democratic voters who voted for a republican in the first election and therefor should be allowed to vote again?
                  States with open primaries should bite the bullet like my crazy state and ignore party affiliations, or require a party based ballot that is recorded, and thus bar splitting your ticket.

                  •  You show up with registration ID. (6+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AnnieR, mmacdDE, Lujane, suzq, dewtx, kfunk937

                    You ask for which party ballot you want (and you are free to pick anyone you want) and you vote.

                    They record your name and which ballot you used.

                    They don't get to know who you voted for.  Just that you voted and which ballot you used.

                    Closed primaries are the same.  Your participation, with proper affiliation, is recorded but your selection is your own.

                    I live in DC, I have to give my name and get checked off a list when I vote.  Same thing....

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:13:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  It's open (7+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AnnieR, mmacdDE, Lujane, ColoTim, dewtx, Nespolo, mungley

                    in the sense you can choose your ballot at the poll.  It is not open in the sense that all of the candidates are on one ballot, and the top two make it to the general election (I think there are at least some districts in CA that do that -- that's how a Republican got elected in a strongly Democratic district).

                    When you arrive at the poll, in other words, you declare which ballot you want to vote, and can vote secretly for any candidate on that ballot.  But the ballot you chose is recorded; if you chose the Democratic ballot in the primary, you can not then go back to the poll and choose the Republican ballot in a runoff.

                    The other part of it -- the claim that you cannot vote in a primary unless you intend to support the candidate -- doesn't make any sense, though.

                  •  It doesn't record who you vote for (7+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lujane, suzq, ColoTim, Ahianne, dewtx, Nespolo, mungley

                    but it will record what primary you voted in.

                    So if you vote in the Dem primary, it will be noted. If you vote in the GOP primary, it will be noted.

                    And if you didn't vote in EITHER, you can vote in the run-off of either, if there is one.

                    It could have worked the other way if the Dem primary had gone to a run off. Any GOP voter who hadn't voted in the GOP primary would be able to vote in the Dem run off.

                    It's not closed, so it doesn't matter how you're registered, just what primary you voted in.

                    But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that changes pretty damn fast.

                •  but you could vote in Dem primary and Repub (0+ / 0-)

                  run off, if there were two run-offs.

                  And clearly Democrats were allowed to vote this week.
                  If it was 'open' primary and 'closed' run-off that would make sense, but obviously that is not how it was handled by the state.

                  I walk into a precinct. I am given a ballot and I vote for one candidate in each race listed on the ballot.

                  "And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over." - John Masefield

                  by mungley on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:11:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you have to ask which ballot you want. (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mungley, Lujane, ColoTim, dewtx, Nespolo

                    You get to vote in either one, regardless of your registration.

                    You a Dem and want to vote in GOP Primary.. you are free to do so.  But you can't say "I want to vote in the Dem Primary"... elect Childers (and other down ballot candidates presumably) and then decide "I also want to vote again in the other party's second round".

                    I dunno... doesnt seem strange to me.  I thought it was a good thing that non-voters are allowed to enter in at the run-off point and not be excluded outright since they didn't vote in the first round.

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:16:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh. That makes more sense. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lujane, dewtx

                      I guess we had something like that a decade or so ago here.

                      I was thinking of CA where we are top 2 vote getters for now.

                      "And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over." - John Masefield

                      by mungley on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:28:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  it is... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mungley, sknutson415, Lujane

            illegal to vote in both the original Dem and GOP primary, but is it explicitly illegal to vote in both the original DEM primary and the GOP RUNOFF primary?

            Is not the runoff a "new" election?

            "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

            by JackND on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:49:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  But once you vote, your name is taken off the roll (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mungley

            for the next election.

            You can't vote in two primaries, whether those primaries are held on the same day or not.

            That's the way it worked in VA when they had open primaries.

            •  SoO it should have been a closed primary. (0+ / 0-)

              If it was, and only people who selected Republican ballots or didn't vote the first time voted in the run off, then there is nothing for McDaniel to complain about.

              "And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover, And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over." - John Masefield

              by mungley on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 09:45:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I AM a Mississippi resident (8+ / 0-)

          And a registered Democrat, but I voted in the primary and in the runoff for Cochran.  Defeating McDaniel was more important than casting a vote for Travis Childers, who was a lock to get the Democratic nod.  

          The way it works, after signing in you request a Democratic or Republican ballot.  If anyone made a note of which ballot I took, I didn't see it.  I didn't sign anything but my name on the voter roll.

      •  Voters in my state (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, suzq, ColoTim

        must sign in when they come to vote, on the "roll" (more like a computer printout notebook) kept by the sign-in worker. Every night throughout early voting - which we have here for a couple more years, anyway - those voters' names are entered into the state BoE database, to which another poll worker is displaying live at the voting place, which indicates clearly that a given voter has already voted. They will NOT get to vote again.

        I presume Mississippi has a similar BoE database. Even though their primaries are held on different days, any voter who has already voted will not be allowed to vote again. It's really a simple program, and backed up with those sign-in roll books.

        What I don't get is how (as McDaniel is quoted as saying in the diary) Mississippi can have a 'statute' that requires any primary voter to support the candidate they vote for in the primary (presumably in the general). How the hell is THAT enforceable? Do they not have secret ballot as well as an open primary system? The very idea is ridiculous.

        There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

        by Joieau on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:51:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think you are looking at the wrong law. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, ColoTim, sharman, Ahianne

        Yes, if you vote in the Democratic primary, you cannot vote in the Republican runoff, but that should be easily enforceable- even prosecutable.

        Mississippi has a law that says you IF you vote in a party primary, you are bound, by law, to vote for that party's nominee in the general.  That is easy to see how that is unenforceable.

    •  You Can't Possibly Enforce a Law... (29+ / 0-)

      ...that prohibits people from changing their mind about a candidate between the primary and general.

      •  In MS if the voters are black and democrats (6+ / 0-)

        I think the law could be enforced. After all the Tea Party desire is to have slavery reinstated. So if one can reinstate slavery one can certainly try and convict 35k or so democrats on no evidence.

        This is MS and it has changed some, but they are hellbent on reverting back to 1959.

        And I am Kilrain of the 20th Maine. And I damn all gentlemen. Whose only worth is their father's name And the sweat of a workin' man Steve Earle - Dixieland

        by shigeru on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:15:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well I Know They Would TRY (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shigeru, ColoTim, Ahianne

          That's the whole reason they have the law in the first place - the parties are too cheap to pay for a closed primary and they want the state to try to give them one anyway.

          And in Mississippi--as you suggest--they "know" what a Democrat "looks like."

          I'm just saying actually proving intent after someone has cast a secret ballot, let alone then proving that their intent didn't change later for their own purposes, are not things that any authority could ever do...

          •  Based on pure logic, I agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

            However, this is MS and historically logic has been a rare commodity down there, except for figuring out how to get on the Federal gravy train.

            And I am Kilrain of the 20th Maine. And I damn all gentlemen. Whose only worth is their father's name And the sweat of a workin' man Steve Earle - Dixieland

            by shigeru on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:15:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  This was already challeneged (8+ / 0-)

        and ruled unenforceable in 2008.

        Teabaggers are, as usual, a little light on the facts.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:44:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  and I don't... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ditsylilg

        see how you can limit participation in a runoff only to those who voted in the original. They are two distinct elections.

        "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

        by JackND on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:51:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Especially since any who voted in the original (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim

          presumably voted already and were allowed to vote again.  This issue is whether or not their were people who voted in the democratic primary and then crossed over to the republican primary.  Since there is no indication that MS tracks whether one takes a democratic or republican primary ballot, it is not enforceable.  No data to measure...

          "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

          by ditsylilg on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:18:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, they do track voting (8+ / 0-)

            The Mississippi poll workers had been given lists of registered voters who had already voted in the Democratic primary and thus made themselves ineligible. It still remains to be seen if any poll workers slipped up and allowed someone to vote in the Republican primary run-off after already voting as a Democrat in the Democratic primary, but the instructions were quite clear and some people were in fact turned away for that reason. It seems doubtful that even if there were errors made there could possibly be enough of them to make any difference to the outcome.

            The non-enforceable statute is something else entirely. MS Code 23-15-575 states:

            "No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in which he participates."
            However, that was essentially struck down--made inoperative--in 2008 after Democrats tried to use it to challenge Republicans voting in Democratic primaries. The irony is delicious.

            My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
            --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

            by leftist vegetarian patriot on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:40:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Also: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        suzq, TooFolkGR

        McDaniel can't have the results of the runoff invalidated based upon what he assumes those voters will do in the general election. As long as those Dem voters cast just one primary ballot, those votes are legit, and McDaniel is sunk.

    •  There's the "intent to support" clause but also (7+ / 0-)

      McDaniel is claiming lots of people voted in the dem primary and then in the repub runoff, which is illegal and isn't challengeable. It is highly unlikely this is true however: many dems didn't vote in their own Senate primary and were therefore eligible to vote in the repub runoff.

    •  Here are the details-- (2+ / 0-)

      Here's a link to the 2008 5th Circuit decision:

      http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/...

      Here are two good links discussing the decision:

      http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...

      http://www.clarionledger.com/...

      •  The REALLY amusing thing, (6+ / 0-)

        as I commented in another thread, is that the 2008 decision that effectively made that Mississippi statute inoperative was in response to a 2003 legal challenge by the Mississippi State Democratic Party, which asserted a First Amendment right to exclude non-Democrats from participating in Democrat primaries (First Amendment in that it contravened "freedom of association").

        I trust none of us are even slightly surprised that when Mississippi Democrats were upset by the prospect of Republicans interfering in Democratic primaries, this was not a Republican cause célèbre.

        Also, as Vyan points out in his excellent diary The Right's Ugly Racial Freakout over Thad Cochran's Runoff Win, Rush Limbaugh, who is so very, very horrified by the irregularity of black people voting in a Republican primary, was the prime instigator of "Operation Chaos" in 2008, which encouraged Republicans to vote for Sen. Clinton in state Democratic primaries. But that inconsistency is not so much amusing as inevitable, I suppose.

        My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
        --Carl Schurz, remarks in the Senate, February 29, 1872

        by leftist vegetarian patriot on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:11:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Secret Ballots. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, ER Doc, Nespolo

      You cannot prove intent with a secret ballot.

      Plus, if you intend to vote one way in a primary, you are free to change your mind the moment after you cast your vote.

      What the Right Wing calls "being politically correct" is what my mama used to teach me was "being polite".

      by Walt starr on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:29:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

        There may even be McDaniel supporters who are so angry at Cochran that they vote for the Democrat in the general election.  At least I hope there are...

        "We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis

        by Nespolo on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:22:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If they are talking about the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ditsylilg

      "loyalty clause", it would be unenforceable even if ballots weren't secret. It's a "reasonable expectation" standard.

      I'll always be...King of Bain...I'll always be...King of Bain

      by AZphilosopher on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:49:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site