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

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less