Home Uncategorized Hawaii Democratic Party Files Final Brief in Open Primary Case
formats

Hawaii Democratic Party Files Final Brief in Open Primary Case

On July 3, the Hawaii Democratic Party filed this reply brief in Democratic Party of Hawaii v Nago, in the Ninth Circuit. The issue originally was whether the party has a right to close its primary to just members. On appeal, the issue is whether the Hawaii law, telling all qualified parties that they must have open primaries, is unconstitutional on its face, or just as applied to parties that don’t want an open primary. The reply brief deals with that issue.

Unlike most legal briefs, it has relatively little reference to precedents, and instead depends on logic, and examples, to make its points. The brief has a very interesting analogy to a hypothetical law establishing one particular religion as a state religion. Even if you don’t normally read briefs, consider reading this one.

3 Responses

  1. Demo Rep

    How stupid are the SCOTUS morons ??? i.e. the Jones 2000 case.


    There are PUBLIC nominations of PUBLIC candidates by PUBLIC electors — according to PUBLIC laws.

    Sorry – some x percent factions of all electors are NOT independent empires with the power to dictate how elections operate.

    i.e. ALL electors nominate (top 2 regimes) or SOME electors nominate (other regimes – closed, open, whatever type primaries) — according to PUBLIC laws.
    —-
    NO primaries.
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

  2. Jim Riley

    Once the government intervenes in the nomination process, whether it is merely to recognize certain nominees as “official”, funding the nomination process, dictating the manner of the nominating process, dictating who may participate in the nomination process, etc., it is interfering with a restricting the political association rights of private citizens.

    If the Democratic Party apparatus wants to be able to identify who votes in its primary, doesn’t it have a right to demand to know who they voted for, demand a fee to participate, demand an exhibition of knowledge about party positions, or to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age (over 18), previous condition of servitude, or length of residence in Hawaii?

    Surely they do.

    But once the government intervenes, the Democratic Party loses their liberty to engage in political association. If the Democratic Party said they wanted to know who members voted for, a court is going to say the State of Hawaii is denying the right to a secret ballot.

    If the Democratic Party demands to exercise its other rights, a court is going to rule that the State of Hawaii is imposing a poll tax or literacy test, or violating the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, or 26th amendments.

    May the State of Hawaii provide funding to all religious organizations, so long as they demonstrate a modicum of support? May the State of Hawaii require that citizens attend weekly services at a religious institution of their choice, or pay a tax?

  3. Demo Rep

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_primaries

    Good luck to any folks in trying to go back to the EVIL past.

    The white primaries were an obvious violation of the 15th Amdt and not the 14th Amdt.

    How many New Age top Donkeys are communists whose cult / religion is 100 percent control freak STATISM — i.e. everybody will be a slave except such top monsters ???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>