I don't agree that they need the lists because of the rule. The rule can be satisfied in a number of ways.
For example, if the state had a procedure that required voters to sign a pledge, under penalty of perjury, stating that they hadn't voted in the Republican primary in January, my educated guess is that the DNC would deem that to be a satisfactory procedure.
heh. well as the very diary we are commenting in seems to point out.
the Michigan democratic party disagrees and feels that they DO need those lists before they will do a re-vote.
and honestly how will they check the pledges? then EVERYONE would just vote because the judge just ruled that the lists of people who voted can't be released
so how do you actually prove who committed perjury? since the only way to prove it can't be released!
Well, perjury is a crime that's prosecuted by the state, and the state obviously has access to the lists.
I don't believe that most people would choose to engage in voter fraud, when the penalties are severe, and your vote has only a minute impact on the election.
I wouldn't necessarily take Brewer's statement as the final word on the subject. They may not have talked through these other options yet, or they may have decided a revote is dead regardless and it would behoove them to point the finger at a federal judge instead of taking the heat themselves. It's worth waiting to see how this shakes out.
honestly I think its that the state doesn't want to go through the hassle of a revote so they will point fingers at the judge and this rule and say see we can't do a revote.
I mean you have to then get the State and the DNC to agree on how they won't violate the rule
so then you basically have to get the lists released now, and I am not even sure of all the legal hassles but they just cant release it thats what this judgement states
so then we are talking about an appeal and what not
this is time and money that I doubt Michigan wants to go through (remember the polls they did show that only 33% want a re-vote) that is alot of time and money when only 33% of 1 of the parties in the state even want it.
...actually, as I re-read the article, I see Brewer pointing the finger of blame at the ACLU. Heh!
basically because of all this and that comment below mine
a re-vote is dead.
unless everyone in MI has no problem with their party preference being made public, but I do see this happening do you :-P
The DNC need to maintain this rule-- it is part of why they challenged the blanket primary in CA (CA v Jones 2000). If they concede about allowing people to vote in the other party's primary they could be ceding ground on this question.
