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."

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 Voterschapter.

"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

"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less