Next week, a California Judge will Hear the Independent Voter Project’s Case to Determine whether the State’s Presidential Primary Rules Violate the Constitutional Rights of its 5.6 Million “No Party Preference” (NPP) Voters.
This Case's Fundamental Question: Does the Right to Vote Derive from Joining a Political Party, or does the Right to Vote Derive from Citizenship?
They and I Believe that Voting is a Nonpartisan Right of Citizenship.
That’s why they are in the Courtroom to Defend the Right of Independent Voters to have Equal Access to the Ballot Box in the Taxpayer-Funded Election Process.
Some Key Takeaways:
- Forcing Voters to Choose a Party Ballot as a Condition of Voting is a Violation of an Individual Voter’s Right of Non-Association. The very Same Right the Democratic Party Asserted in the 2000 Case, Democratic Party v. Jones.
- If Political Parties have the Right to Not Associate with Voters who Don’t Join their Party, don’t Independent Voters have a Right Not to Associate with Political Parties as a Condition of Voting in a Taxpayer-Funded Primary Election?
- The Rules Serve to Suppress Voter Turnout among California’s 5.6 Million Voters by denying these voters an Equal Opportunity to Participate in the Greatest drive of Voter Turnout, the Presidential Primaries.
- This Voter Suppression has a Drastic Effect on NPP Representation Up and Down the Ballot, as Studies show, Resulting in more Partisan, Less Diverse, and Less Representative election Outcomes.
- Cases including: Gray v. Sanders, the Right to Vote includes the Primary Election; Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, Invidious Barriers, like a Poll-Tax, Violate the Fundamental Right to Vote; and Reynolds v. Sims, Every Voter must be Treated Equally, Support the Position that forcing Some Voters to Choose a Party’s Ballot as a Condition of Voting is an Unconstitutional Burden on the Right to Vote.
Some say Primary Elections belong to Political Parties, so that’s why The Independent Voter Project Offered a Simple Solution: Just give Nonpartisan Voters their Own Ballot.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
3 comments:
The purpose of presidential primaries is to select delegates to national conventions. The proposed ballot listing the presidential candidates of all parties would be nothing more than a government-funded public opinion poll, not an actual election.
So would a court say the primary/caucus for president is a right of association issue a party can use to close it to members?
Yes, although that's no reason to deny the plaintiffs what they are seeking. I am just trying to say that what the plaintiffs are seeking is the right to cast a vote that has absolutely no power. A vote cast on the ballot the plaintiffs want would not actually affect any outcome. It would be like a government-funded opinion poll of independent voters who choose that ballot instead of a Democratic ballot.
The independent voters who choose a Democratic ballot would be participating in an actual election. With their vote, they would be helping one Democratic presidential candidate. But the independent voters who chose the all-candidate ballot would not be actually affecting anything. I would have to say, independent voters who declined the Democratic ballot in favor of the plaintiff-desired ballot are sacrificing the chance to cast a meaningful vote.
Post a Comment