Disenfranchisement in New Hampshire

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A quick summary:

• New Hampshire has a state law mandating that the date for their party primaries be earlier than the date of any other state.
• The Democratic National Committee revamped their party's primary schedule, making South Carolina first and establishing a new date range where primaries have to take place.
• Democrats in the New Hampshire state legislature tried to amend their state laws to allow the Democratic primary to happen in the required date range, but this was voted down by the Republican-controlled state legislature.
• As it stands now, the primary being held next week will be considered invalid. New Hampshire will get no delegates at the Democratic National Convention when choosing their presidential candidate.

How a dustup between Joe Biden and New Hampshire Democrats kept him off the primary ballot

Supporters of Joe Biden in New Hampshire will have to write his name in on Jan. 23. Here's why he's not competing in the state's Democratic primary.

www.usatoday.com

Thoughts?

I trust that all the Republicans who were up in arms about the "disenfranchisement" of Trump supporters in Colorado will be similarly upset about the disenfranchisement of every single Democrat in New Hampshire... right?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, but the shifty behavior on both sides exhausts me.

That's why both parties need to go away.

 

[Left Coast]

A quick summary:

• New Hampshire has a state law mandating that the date for their party primaries be earlier than the date of any other state.
• The Democratic National Committee revamped their party's primary schedule, making South Carolina first and establishing a new date range where primaries have to take place.
• Democrats in the New Hampshire state legislature tried to amend their state laws to allow the Democratic primary to happen in the required date range, but this was voted down by the Republican-controlled state legislature.
• As it stands now, the primary being held next week will be considered invalid. New Hampshire will get no delegates at the Democratic National Convention when choosing their presidential candidate.

How a dustup between Joe Biden and New Hampshire Democrats kept him off the primary ballot

Supporters of Joe Biden in New Hampshire will have to write his name in on Jan. 23. Here's why he's not competing in the state's Democratic primary.

www.usatoday.com

Thoughts?

I trust that all the Republicans who were up in arms about the "disenfranchisement" of Trump supporters in Colorado will be similarly upset about the disenfranchisement of every single Democrat in New Hampshire... right?

What a crazy conundrum.

- Why would NH pass a silly law demanding that they be first? Election days should just be national and we can get rid of all this drawn out nonsense with tiny low-population states setting the tone of every election.

- Why would the DNC have changed the primary schedule and not realized their plan contradicted NH state law? Surely there are NH Dems who should have known this. Once they realized there was a contradiction they could have amended their plan, surely? That just strikes me as incompetence, frankly.

 

[Audie]

A quick summary:

• New Hampshire has a state law mandating that the date for their party primaries be earlier than the date of any other state.
• The Democratic National Committee revamped their party's primary schedule, making South Carolina first and establishing a new date range where primaries have to take place.
• Democrats in the New Hampshire state legislature tried to amend their state laws to allow the Democratic primary to happen in the required date range, but this was voted down by the Republican-controlled state legislature.
• As it stands now, the primary being held next week will be considered invalid. New Hampshire will get no delegates at the Democratic National Convention when choosing their presidential candidate.

How a dustup between Joe Biden and New Hampshire Democrats kept him off the primary ballot

Supporters of Joe Biden in New Hampshire will have to write his name in on Jan. 23. Here's why he's not competing in the state's Democratic primary.

www.usatoday.com

Thoughts?

I trust that all the Republicans who were up in arms about the "disenfranchisement" of Trump supporters in Colorado will be similarly upset about the disenfranchisement of every single Democrat in New Hampshire... right?

Thots? Another post about the other guys being
hypocrits.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What a crazy conundrum.

- Why would NH pass a silly law demanding that they be first?

Dixville Notch weirdness: New Hampshire midnight voting - Wikipedia

Edit: wait - I think that's for the general election. In any case, it's a similar idea: New Hampshire wants to be first in the process, so they require their primary before everyone else and they start their election voting as absolutely early as they can.

Election days should just be national and we can get rid of all this drawn out nonsense with tiny low-population states setting the tone of every election.

I see it the opposite way. I think it's absolutely bizarre how much the government in the US (state and federal) regulates internal party affairs like party membership and nomination processes. I think each party should be pretty much free to set their own rules.

- Why would the DNC have changed the primary schedule and not realized their plan contradicted NH state law? Surely there are NH Dems who should have known this. Once they realized there was a contradiction they could have amended their plan, surely? That just strikes me as incompetence, frankly.

The Democratic change doesn't violate any laws. It's more that there's a mismatch: the DNC is saying, effectively, that the New Hampshire primary has to be on a particular date to be the official primary, but the (Republicans in the) state legislature are blocking the party's ability to hold a primary on that date.

The situation we have now - where the primarily will be held on New Hampshire's specified date but New Hampshire won't get any delegates at the conference - is technically legal.

I don't think this is something where the DNC can be beholden to the states, since it would be easy for two or more states to all pass laws saying that their primary has to be first.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What a crazy conundrum.

- Why would NH pass a silly law demanding that they be first? Election days should just be national and we can get rid of all this drawn out nonsense with tiny low-population states setting the tone of every election.

- Why would the DNC have changed the primary schedule and not realized their plan contradicted NH state law? Surely there are NH Dems who should have known this. Once they realized there was a contradiction they could have amended their plan, surely? That just strikes me as incompetence, frankly.

One of the things I like most about Canada -- Parliament is dissolved (there is no more House of Commons, the legislative centre), and the writs are issued by Elections Canada. By law, the election must be a minimum of 37 days, and a maximum of 51. No election campaigning or spending is permitted before the election begins, nor after it ends.

 

[Left Coast]

Dixville Notch weirdness: New Hampshire midnight voting - Wikipedia

Edit: wait - I think that's for the general election. In any case, it's a similar idea: New Hampshire wants to be first in the process, so they require their primary before everyone else and they start their election voting as absolutely early as they can.

I see it the opposite way. I think it's absolutely bizarre how much the government in the US (state and federal) regulates internal party affairs like party membership and nomination processes. I think each party should be pretty much free to set their own rules.

I tire of our election cycles lasting so long and low-population states having outsized influence. Which has to do also with the electoral college but this bizarre thing of certain random states needing to be "first" just strikes me as arbitrary and silly.

The Democratic change doesn't violate any laws. It's more that there's a mismatch: the DNC is saying, effectively, that the New Hampshire primary has to be on a particular date to be the official primary, but the (Republicans in the) state legislature are blocking the party's ability to hold a primary on that date.

Right, but that mismatch should have been recognized before this became a problem. When the DNC had meetings to discuss changes to their primary schedule, reps from NH in the room should have known, hey gee, this is going to violate our state law if SC goes first.

The situation we have now - where the primarily will be held on New Hampshire's specified date but New Hampshire won't get any delegates at the conference - is technically legal.

Again, this is sonething state party leaders should have known, then. Republicans are being dicks here, no doubt, but this was an unforced error.

I don't think this is something where the DNC can be beholden to the states, since it would be easy for two or more states to all pass laws saying that their primary has to be first.

Which is why such state laws should be done away with and we should have a nationally set schedule, IMO.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good grief.

Biden's Big New Hampshire Blunder​

A not so subtle blend of Musical Chairs and a Circular Firing Squad.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I tire of our election cycles lasting so long and low-population states having outsized influence. Which has to do also with the electoral college but this bizarre thing of certain random states needing to be "first" just strikes me as arbitrary and silly.



Right, but that mismatch should have been recognized before this became a problem. When the DNC had meetings to discuss changes to their primary schedule, reps from NH in the room should have known, hey gee, this is going to violate our state law if SC goes first.



Again, this is sonething state party leaders should have known, then. Republicans are being dicks here, no doubt, but this was an unforced error.

It was known. The change was a deliberate attempt to shake things up.

DNC votes to shake up presidential primary calendar

The moves elevates South Carolina to the first-place position in the primary calendar, replacing the Iowa caucuses.

www.politico.com

And considering how often the New Hampshire primary ends up supporting a Democratic non-incumbent, the cynical part of me has to wonder whether Biden decided that the risk that New Hampshire's primary results could be nullified is a risk that could work out in his favour.

Which is why such state laws should be done away with and we should have a nationally set schedule, IMO.

Like I said: I see these decisions as internal party business that should be left to the parties to decide as they see fit.

 

[Left Coast]

It was known. The change was a deliberate attempt to shake things up.

DNC votes to shake up presidential primary calendar

The moves elevates South Carolina to the first-place position in the primary calendar, replacing the Iowa caucuses.

www.politico.com

And considering how often the New Hampshire primary ends up supporting a Democratic non-incumbent, the cynical part of me has to wonder whether Biden decided that the risk that New Hampshire's primary results could be nullified is a risk that could work out in his favour.

Oh gosh, well if that's the case then the DNC has nothing to complain about. If I were a NH Dem I'd be pissed at them.

Like I said: I see thesd decisions as internal party business that should be left to the parties to decide as they see fit.

If they're gonna make decisions that contradict state laws and shoot themselves in the foot, though, they're gonna deal with the consequences of those voluntary decisions.