No, it is not required.
The federal government has no say in how party primaries were run. They can govern general elections.
You're wrong about this.
From a letter sent to Marc Ambinder:
I am a former Senior Attorney (career, not a political appointee) with DOJ's Voting Section. I am now in private practice. I am unaffiliated with any political campaign. In response to the issue about whether DOJ must "preclear" Michigan and Florida's proposed do-over primary or caucus, the answer is yes. There is no question about this. Portions of Florida and Michigan are "covered" by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This coverage means that "changes affecting voting" in these covered parts of the two states must be precleared or approved by DOJ or the federal trial court in Washington, D.C. before they take effect. Failure to preclear these changes makes them illegal under federal law. By way of background, in 2004, when the Michigan Democratic Party proposed Internet voting for its presidential primary, this was a "change affecting voting" and had to be precleared. No political party in Michigan had previously conducted an election over the Internet so the proposed 2004 Internet voting was a voting change. I was the DOJ attorney who discussed this issue with the Michigan Democratic Party, reviewed the party's submission to DOJ, and recommended preclearance. DOJ approved the change and the state party's Internet voting in the 2004 primary election proceeded. The do-over elections being discussed for Michigan and Florida would similarly be "changes affecting voting" since they would be new elections held on previously unscheduled election dates. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, these changes must be precleared by DOJ or the federal trial court in Washington, D.C. By law, DOJ has 60 days to approve, reject or request more information about any changes affecting voting after DOJ receives a request to preclear the change. You are correct that the federal court in DC would take much longer.
In response to the issue about whether DOJ must "preclear" Michigan and Florida's proposed do-over primary or caucus, the answer is yes. There is no question about this.
Portions of Florida and Michigan are "covered" by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This coverage means that "changes affecting voting" in these covered parts of the two states must be precleared or approved by DOJ or the federal trial court in Washington, D.C. before they take effect. Failure to preclear these changes makes them illegal under federal law.
By way of background, in 2004, when the Michigan Democratic Party proposed Internet voting for its presidential primary, this was a "change affecting voting" and had to be precleared. No political party in Michigan had previously conducted an election over the Internet so the proposed 2004 Internet voting was a voting change.
I was the DOJ attorney who discussed this issue with the Michigan Democratic Party, reviewed the party's submission to DOJ, and recommended preclearance. DOJ approved the change and the state party's Internet voting in the 2004 primary election proceeded.
The do-over elections being discussed for Michigan and Florida would similarly be "changes affecting voting" since they would be new elections held on previously unscheduled election dates. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, these changes must be precleared by DOJ or the federal trial court in Washington, D.C.
By law, DOJ has 60 days to approve, reject or request more information about any changes affecting voting after DOJ receives a request to preclear the change. You are correct that the federal court in DC would take much longer.
Things don't look good for a mail-in vote in FL. It is doubtful that it would happen in time for the June deadline.
Just take a 50-50 split and be done with it. Hell, let's give Clinton a 55-45 split in BOTH states so that her supporters won't complain as much. It won't matter to Obama in the end.
Really, a DOJ attorney decided that a completely unlike case needed preclearance? Without any federal case law to back it up?
That's really definitive.
A party-run primary organized by a private company would provide no nexus for any federal government action to block it.
Private organizations like the MI Dem Party organize vote-by-mail internal elections every year for their officers without ever consulting DOJ because they are not state run contests or elections for public office. Literally thousands of these elections take place every year in MI and FL. Mountains of case law support the practice.
I'm not arguing that it will or won't be approved but upthread I linked to a court decision which I think may show that the DOJ and section 5 would apply. I can't be sure as it is all very lawyerly and I'm not lawyerly at all. :D
But basically, because the party is treated under different rules by the state for appearing on the general ballot than third party candidates, the process in selecting the nominee falls under section 5 (as long as it applies to the region). So because the state grants them special rights they must abide by the same rules as the state.
I think.
Looks not to matter anyways.
Fla. presidential primary re-do unlikely Fla. Vote-By Mail Primary Re-Do Unlikely Because of Concerns BRENDAN FARRINGTON AP News Mar 13, 2008 12:49 EST The chairwoman of Florida's Democratic Party has said the proposed presidential primary do-over is unlikely to go forward because of concerns about the combined mail-in/in-person election. Still, Karen Thurman said Thursday she is asking Democratic leaders, the national party and Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to consider the option as the best way to resolve a delegate dispute. The disagreement was created when the state violated party rules by holding an early primary. Thurman will review comments from Democratic leaders and make a decision by Monday on whether to proceed with the do-over. But she said based on what she's already heard, it's unlikely to happen.
Fla. Vote-By Mail Primary Re-Do Unlikely Because of Concerns
BRENDAN FARRINGTON AP News
Mar 13, 2008 12:49 EST
The chairwoman of Florida's Democratic Party has said the proposed presidential primary do-over is unlikely to go forward because of concerns about the combined mail-in/in-person election.
Still, Karen Thurman said Thursday she is asking Democratic leaders, the national party and Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to consider the option as the best way to resolve a delegate dispute. The disagreement was created when the state violated party rules by holding an early primary.
Thurman will review comments from Democratic leaders and make a decision by Monday on whether to proceed with the do-over. But she said based on what she's already heard, it's unlikely to happen.
Per TPM
I am actually against a revote but once it was out there I think it really needed to happen for the benefit of whoever the nominee ends up being as well as for the Dem party reputation. Now voters are more riled up (heck most of them had no idea before this last round of press) and the price for all this mess will be higher.
There are already 2 polls showing a backlash among Florida Dem voters. And the Repubs have barely begun to use this issue.
Pardon me, but where exactly did you get your JD. ?
