Why the Court Supported Nevada Voting Rights

[ProSense]

Why the Court Supported Nevada Voting Rights

U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan has dismissed the lawsuit filed against the at-large precincts at the casino hotels.

In order to make this a full diary, I'll post the now-irrelevant piece I'd written up. Hopefully my reasoning as to why the lawsuit would fail turns out to be accurate (the press release doesn't say):

Update: Mahan's reasoning mirrors my prediction:

Mahan said the Nevada Democratic Party had a constitutional right to write its rules for nominating its candidates.

"State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said.

"I don’t want to set a precedent that is not warranted."

"The parties have a right to determine how they’ll apportion delegates to their conventions."

Why the Nevada Lawsuit Lacks Merit

There are many, many reasons to be disgusted by the lawsuit filed over the at-large precincts established for the Nevada Democratic caucus on Saturday. But this outrage, and indeed the lawsuit itself, misses the point.

more

[lapfog_1]

1. Excellent.

The "Karl Rove" tactic to suppress the vote in Nevada goes down.

How anyone defended the Clintons over this blatant attempt at voter suppression is simply beyond me.

Everyone should be allowed to vote, even culinary workers at casinos.

I hope the workers all remember who tried to stop them from voting.

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

3. Kick! n/t