Michigan's too-early Primary struck down.

[SirNitram]

AP through TPM.

KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN
AP News

Nov 17, 2007 05:16 EST

A state appeals court on Friday dealt a blow to Michigan political leaders' hopes of holding a presidential primary on Jan. 15.



In a 2-1 ruling, Judges Patrick Meter and Donald Owens objected that a law recently passed by the Legislature setting up the primary would let the state political parties keep track of voters' names and whether they took Democratic or GOP primary ballots but give no public access to that information.

Michigan had at one time tentatively scheduled Democratic caucuses for Feb. 9, but state officials and Gov. Jennifer Granholm have tried to push up the date to Jan. 15. If no primary is held, Republicans will make their choices at a Jan. 25-26 party convention. Democrats also could move up their caucuses, although no date has been set.

The weeks-long logjam involving the courts has delayed scheduling of the nation's first primary. New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner says he won't set the date of his state's primary until it's clear what's going to happen with Michigan. New Hampshire law says it must go first in the nation.

A spokesman for Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said no decision had been reached on whether to take the case to the state Supreme Court.

"We're disappointed with the court's decision," Matt Frendewey said.

Michigan lawmakers could change the law so it would pass legal muster, but so far they have failed to do so and they don't have much time left. Clerks need to start sending absentee ballots to overseas Michigan voters by Dec. 1, so a new primary election law would have to be approved in the next two weeks.

Guess the Dems and Reps punishing the state for it's too early primary is rather moot now.

[Dark Silver]

one thing I don't get.......is why does New Hampshire get to have it's caucusses first....just because it's state law says so?

I know it's always been done that way, I'm just asking because that lil part of the article baffled me right there.



Anyway, yeah, Michigan was trying to go against everyone else's wishes but it's own...so glad their struck down.

Let us hope now for the Democrats to chose Obama for their canidate and not Edwards or Clinton.....

[SirNitram]

one thing I don't get.......is why does New Hampshire get to have it's caucusses first....just because it's state law says so?

I know it's always been done that way, I'm just asking because that lil part of the article baffled me right there.



Anyway, yeah, Michigan was trying to go against everyone else's wishes but it's own...so glad their struck down.

Let us hope now for the Democrats to chose Obama for their canidate and not Edwards or Clinton.....

Tradition. Also they'll hold their breath until people obey them.

Basically, it's become engrained in the American political pysche to let Iowa and New Hampshire decide the candidate. Within the reality-warping, sanity-destroying barrier of the Beltway, it is inconceivable that you could win without these two.

For those of us interested in such things, the gigantic firestorm that erupted when Dean tried to move some other states up and dethrone Iowa and New Hampshire was a thing to behold. These were full on temper tantrums from State legislatures.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Wasn't part of the idea to force candidates to go to and campaign in states with few electoral votes, thus ensuring that the residents of those states' views were represented by candidates' platforms and preventing the small state from being entirely ignored?

[SirNitram]

Wasn't part of the idea to force candidates to go to and campaign in states with few electoral votes, thus ensuring that the residents of those states' views were represented by candidates' platforms and preventing the small state from being entirely ignored?

And what would be the salve for all the small states that are not Iowa or New Hampshire?

It's nothing so sensible.