I understood the comment to refer to the bureaucratic insistance on having the voter lists. That does not involve the judge in any CT. It is merely to point to teh judge's ruling, explain how that causes a technichal difficulty in the Party, and then dragging one's feet t prevent any re-vote.
That is what I took the allegation to mean. That would be no CT. That woul d just be using parlimentary procedures to kill an unwanted political initiative. That's called politics.
Which, as observed, ain;t beanbag.
And it is sorta of encouraging, as we want to know our untimate candidate is a fighter!
It is merely to point to teh judge's ruling, explain how that causes a technichal difficulty in the Party, and then dragging one's feet t prevent any re-vote.
It sounds to me like the judge found not the whole election to be "unconstitutional" but rather just the provision of the Michigan law that only made the list of who voted in each primary available to the party involved in that primary. It was that provision which created a problem because clearly the DNC rules say that people who vote in the Republican primary can't vote in the Democratic one.
If both primaries are held together and you have to select one ballot or the other this issue takes care of itself. But if you decide you want to have a revote then you really need the list of voters in the Republican primary to enforce the rule.
So now the judge has said that the part of the Michigan election law that says that list is only made available to the Republican party in unconstitutional. But what would be the remedy for this? Could the Michigan Democratic party petition the state to get the list of voters in the Republican primary and prevail on the grounds that provision limiting the availability of that list to the Republican party in unconstitutional?
The suit the judge ruled in might have just asked for a declaratory judgment and if that is all the judge did then the next step would be for the Democrats to demand the list. Of course this all may well be moot since the Michigan lawmakers seem to have rejected the idea of a revote. However if the problem with knowing who had voted in the Republican primary was the real reason they had rejected a revote I suppose they might want to reconsider.
But I don't see how Hillary's demand the Barak somehow get involved adds much.
The judge decided that small parties should have had the same access to voting information as the larger parties. And will not allow this information to be made available to the Democratic party for potential use this year.
Since that did not happen, Michigan must change its primary system looking forward. Most likely they will hold their primaries on the same date like most primary states do. In that case they vote in one primary or another, but only one vote per person. It is not necessary in that case to have such lists made available.
But the result of the elections was not overturned and there is no guidance as to how the Democratic Party should handle it's Michigan problem other than that they won't be able to access these lists.
And so, it's still the Democratic Party's problem, but there are now less options on how it can be fixed.
