NY Presidential Primary Cancelled

According to multiple reports, Douglas Kellner, co-chair of the New York State Board of Elections, received thousands of emails from Sanders supporters pushing for the primary to continue as planned.

“What the Sanders campaign wanted is essentially a beauty contest that, given the situation with the public health emergency, seems to be unnecessary and, indeed, frivolous,” Mr. Kellner said.

The new NY budget, which my assemblywoman and senator voted against, had a provision that allowed the Board of Elections to cancel the presidential primary (which was originally scheduled today but then postponed to late June to take place with local elections) if there was only one active candidate. This was done after Sanders suspended his campaign though he now says that he wouldn't have done it if he knew such a law would be passed (in his announcement, he still sought to get more delegates via upcoming races).  But, he wasn't the only one who responded strongly against the move (Chris Hayes, Stacey Abrams, Cynthia Nixon, more than one member of the assembly and various others did as well).

Over the years, the race was basically decided when New York voted, but I still wanted a chance to put my vote in. And, most races are not competitive.  Not that competitive race results in broad voter involvement -- only a small fraction took place in the AOC race and a close DA race in Queens (district attorneys not subject to the new city instant run-off voting rule) also led to something like ten percent turnout.  And, unlike the average election, at least one loser does get something here -- Sanders would get delegates, which now would have to somehow be apportioned by DNC rule (per a Washington Post article).

On principle, I was wary about the state cancelling the Republican Presidential Primary, but that was by rule because a candidate other than Trump had to get minimum state-wide support to get on the ballot.  I don't see it too sensible that -- especially if you are going to have an election anyway for the Democrats (at that time) -- a major party would not still get a chance to write-in there.  Here, per the NYT article,  "about 20" (of 62) counties will not have any other primary race (which is a a bit sad; AOC has a primary opponent) on that date, and even beyond that, there might be some who just show up to vote for president.  So, there is some effect here, though you have around forty counties, where there will be a race anyhow.

But, what is the health emergency grounds for doing this?  New York by constitutional rule limits absentee voting, but the governor by executive order determined that the BOE will send an application to each registered voter to request one for cause.  Apparently, just sending a ballot without that is not possible, which is not hard to believe given the state's election rules are still somewhat convoluted.  The problem with using mail-in votes, again noting 2/3 of the counties will still have elections, to allow everyone registered who wishes to vote for president is unclear.

It will to some extent require more staff hours, but is that really that problematic?  Again, even there, it is unclear how much more effort it really will entail since many of the most populated areas like NYC will already have races in many places. The importance of allowing people to vote -- call it a bit irrational to care if you like -- here seems rather high too.  There is a chance apparently that there will now be a court battle. That too requires resources.  And, the distrust this advances should generally be avoided, if all possible.  Yes, this is not like cancelling the November election or something though even a tiny aid to trolls there is also not good.

I rather hope that this is changed though yes I won't be too crushed if my chance to vote for Elizabeth Warren (like my chance to vote for Dean or Edwards) is taken away from me.  Anyway, with lots of elections (other than Puerto Rico, at least for now officially scheduled) back-loaded to June with a few in May, today is when Ohio turned out to officially vote instead of March.  There will be very limited in person voting, but mostly by mail.  But, the complete official results will not be known until early May.

Voting is a special act, even if the person you vote for will not win. Protest votes there at times are ridiculed (the whole third party deal), but again, it isn't even merely symbolic here. In these times, basic republican (small 'r') acts are if anything more precious.  Thus, e.g., we have many PSAs on filling on the census.  Letting each person, by mail if warranted (if opening polling places just for this purpose is seen as frivolous), to submit their primary vote for president here to me is something each voter has the right to ask. I hope this decision is changed.

Andrew Yang has sued over New York along with seven registered NY voters pledged to him.  The lawsuit in federal court starts with the famous Benjamin Franklin quote on us having a republic, if we can keep it.  Part of the concern here is that the people involved are running to be delegates to the Democratic National Convention, which again is not simply a "beauty contest."  It argues a federal lawsuit is the most practical approach.  It notes the counties with no other races are more thinly populated areas that are less liable to get the virus anyhow.  And, it argues that the move will suppress the vote in other races, races that tend to be less supportive of mainstream party members.

I think they have a good case but probably an uphill battle. There is time especially since I saw one reference that ballots will be mailed late May for the late June election. Though Puerto Rico, for one, did not reschedule their presidential election yet, no other state so far is doing this. This is not just burdening voters (Wisconsin) but cancelling while was going on, again denying candidates the chance for delegates and delegates a chance to represent the party.  And, the voters. 

[I added the lawsuit information and put the Ohio results in another post.]