Comments on: Lawsuit Against Nevada Democratic Party to be Heard January 17 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/16/lawsuit-against-nevada-democratic-party-to-be-heard-january-17/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:51:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=8309 By: Olga Gray http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/16/lawsuit-against-nevada-democratic-party-to-be-heard-january-17/comment-page-1/#comment-213419 Olga Gray Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:01:40 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/16/lawsuit-against-nevada-democratic-party-to-be-heard-january-17/#comment-213419 Let's stop these Caucus games, they are unfair! I want the privelege of VOTING in a PRIMARY for my candidate. So many people were either turned away, couldn't get an answer to where they were supposed to vote. Let's do it the AMERICAN way, by secret ballot. Let’s stop these Caucus games, they are unfair! I want the privelege of VOTING in a PRIMARY for my candidate. So many people were either turned away, couldn’t get an answer to where they were supposed to vote. Let’s do it the AMERICAN way, by secret ballot.

]]> By: Bob L http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/16/lawsuit-against-nevada-democratic-party-to-be-heard-january-17/comment-page-1/#comment-208432 Bob L Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:16:13 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/01/16/lawsuit-against-nevada-democratic-party-to-be-heard-january-17/#comment-208432 The initial filing claims that the caucus is a Nevada State event. The Democratic party is running these caucuses and paying for them, and is in charge without any state supervision or sanction. There is a real question whether the US District Court has any jurisdiction here. Second issue is called laches - when a party has been negligent in making a claim for some relatively long period of time. It can be a basis for turning down a request made at the last minute. The caucus rules were approved by the Nevada Democratic party in March, 2007 and by the party nationally in August. The suit was brought one week before the caucus date. But the real issue is whether Bush's 2002 appointee, Judge Mahan, wants to intervene or not. Obviously an attempt to close down caucus sites can be called voter suppression. It worked for Karl Rove and it may work just as well for Hillary. The initial filing claims that the caucus is a Nevada State event. The Democratic party is running these caucuses and paying for them, and is in charge without any state supervision or sanction. There is a real question whether the US District Court has any jurisdiction here.

Second issue is called laches – when a party has been negligent in making a claim for some relatively long period of time. It can be a basis for turning down a request made at the last minute. The caucus rules were approved by the Nevada Democratic party in March, 2007 and by the party nationally in August. The suit was brought one week before the caucus date.

But the real issue is whether Bush’s 2002 appointee, Judge Mahan, wants to intervene or not.

Obviously an attempt to close down caucus sites can be called voter suppression. It worked for Karl Rove and it may work just as well for Hillary.

]]>