Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democratic efforts to cancel a democratic N.Y. primary rebuffed by federal judge

Andrew Cuomo

Gov. Andrew Cuomo was behind the plan to scrap only the presidential portion of the June 23 primary.

Al Bello/Getty Images

The unique effort by top Democrats in New York to outright cancel their presidential primary looks to be over after just 10 days, ending an extraordinary challenge by the party to the bedrock democratic principle that contested elections are never called off.

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered election officials to conduct the primary as planned on June 23, with all qualifying candidates on the ballot.

The ruling halts a plan to drop the presidential contest, ostensibly over concerns about the coronavirus, while nonetheless proceeding with nomination elections for all other down-ballot offices. That inconsistency prompted progressive groups, especially, to accuse Gov. Andrew Cuomo of a shameless attempt to help presumed nominee Joe Biden while trampling the electorate's fundamental rights.


New York's decision had exposed Cuomo and the Democrats to criticism they were no fairer in administering the presidential contest than Republicans, who called off their presidential primaries in five states last fall even when President Trump's renomination was being opposed by three nationally known if extremely longshot challengers.

"I'm glad that a federal judge agreed that depriving millions of New Yorkers the right to vote was wrong," said Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate who sued to restore the primary. "I hope that the New York Board of Elections takes from this ruling a newfound appreciation of their role in safeguarding our democracy."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Officials at the board, which is controlled by Cuomo allies, said they were reviewing the decision but were poised to appeal. The governor said the state would follow the court's ruling for the time being but also didn't rule out the possibility of an appeal.

Although the board had cited the state's spot in the center of the nation's public health emergency when it canceled the presidential part of the primary on April 27, District Judge Analisa Torres said that excuse was not valid in light of Cuomo's decision several weeks earlier to suspend the state's usual requirements for having a specific excuse to vote absentee.

"Protecting the public from the spread of Covid-19 is an important state interest," she wrote. "But the court is not convinced that canceling the presidential primary would meaningfully advance that interest — at least not to the degree as would justify the burdensome impingement" on the rights of voters and candidates alike.

The cancelation had drawn particular outrage from the allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who suspended his presidential bid in April but said he wanted to remain on primary ballots and accrue convention delegates who could shape a platform more progressive than what would be expected from Biden, the former vice president.

The judge agreed. Removing presidential contenders from the primary ballot "deprived Democratic voters of the opportunity to elect delegates who could push their point of view in that forum," she said. "The loss of these First Amendment rights is a heavy hardship."

Sanders' campaign called the decision "an extraordinary victory for the democratic process here in New York, a state much in need of something to cheer about."

The board said an essentially meaningless contest for 274 delegates might have drawn an extra 1.5 million to local polling places. Candidates for Congress, the Legislature and other offices didn't dispute that — arguing that without Biden and Sanders on the ballot the turnout for their races would be unduly minimized.

The judge's ruling, if it stands, will assure higher turnout and is a positive for New York voters, said Jennifer Wilson, deputy director of the state's League of Women Voters chapter.

"From an administrative point of view, it's going to be a much bigger lift for the county boards of elections to pull this off," she said. "But generally this is more positive than negative. It's certainly something voters really wanted."

Read More

Independent Voters Gain Ground As New Mexico Opens Primaries
person in blue denim jeans and white sneakers standing on gray concrete floor
Photo by Phil Scroggs on Unsplash

Independent Voters Gain Ground As New Mexico Opens Primaries

With the stroke of a pen, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham enfranchised almost 350,000 independent voters recently by signing a bill for open primaries. Just a few years ago, bills to open the primaries were languishing in the state legislature, as they have historically across the country. But as more and more voters leave both parties and declare their independence, the political system is buckling. And as independents begin to organize and speak out, it’s going to continue to buckle in their direction.

In 2004, there were 120,000 independent voters in New Mexico. A little over 10 years later, when the first open primary bill was introduced, that number had more than doubled. That bill never even got a hearing. But today the number of independents in New Mexico and across the country is too big to ignore. Independents are the largest group of voters in ten states and the second-largest in most others. That’s putting tremendous pressure on a system that wasn’t designed with them in mind.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.

Getty Images, Grace Cary

Stopping the Descent Toward Banana Republic Elections

President Trump’s election-related executive order begins by pointing out practices in Canada, Sweden, Brazil, and elsewhere that outperform the U.S. But it is Trump’s order itself that really demonstrates how far we’ve fallen behind. In none of the countries mentioned, or any other major democracy in the world, would the head of government change election rules by decree, as Trump has tried to do.

Trump is the leader of a political party that will fight for control of Congress in 2026, an election sure to be close, and important to his presidency. The leader of one side in such a competition has no business unilaterally changing its rules—that’s why executive decrees changing elections only happen in tinpot dictatorships, not democracies.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote" pin.
Getty Images, William Whitehurst

Most Americans’ Votes Don’t Matter in Deciding Elections

New research from the Unite America Institute confirms a stark reality: Most ballots cast in American elections don’t matter in deciding the outcome. In 2024, just 14% of eligible voters cast a meaningful vote that actually influenced the outcome of a U.S. House race. For state house races, on average across all 50 states, just 13% cast meaningful votes.

“Too many Americans have no real say in their democracy,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano. “Every voter deserves a ballot that not only counts, but that truly matters. We should demand better than ‘elections in name only.’”

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand Placing Ballot in Box With American Flag
Getty Images, monkeybusinessimages

We Can Fix This: Our Politics Really Can Work – These Stories Show How

As American politics polarizes ever further, voters across the political spectrum agree that our current system is not delivering for the American people. Eighty-five percent of Americans feel most elected officials don’t care what people like them think. Eighty-eight percent of them say our political system is broken.

Whether it’s the quality and safety of their kids’ schools, housing affordability and rising homelessness, scarce and pricey healthcare, or any number of other issues that touch Americans’ everyday lives, the lived experience of polarization comes from such problems—and elected officials’ failure to address them.

Keep ReadingShow less