Posted on 03/18/2008 2:19:07 PM PDT by SmithL
Lansing, Mich. (AP) -- One of the sticking points holding up a possible do-over election in Michigan is a rule that would ban anyone who voted in the Republican presidential primary from voting again.
That ban would apply even to Democrats or independents who asked for a GOP ballot because Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only major candidate left on the Jan. 15 Democratic ballot.
To cast a ballot, voters would have to sign a statement that they hadn't voted in the GOP primary.
The effect of blocking those voters could be greatest on Sen. Barack Obama, since his supporters were more likely than Clinton's to have crossed over to vote in the GOP primary. The national party had punished Michigan for holding a primary before Feb. 5, stripping it of all its delegates. Clinton's name was on the ballot, but Obama and several other Democratic candidates took their names off to avoid angering other early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.
Obama has had more success than Clinton in attracting the votes of independents and Republicans in states where they're permitted to vote in Democratic contests.
A group of Democratic leaders from Michigan is trying to set up a June 3 do-over primary so the state can get its delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention — an event that looked less likely on Tuesday.
Seventeen Democratic state House members said Tuesday they have several concerns about holding another election.
State Rep. Matt Gillard said he's worried about disenfranchising the Democrats who voted in the Republican primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Alright, where’s the Ha Ha kid?
dailykos told dems to vote for romney in michigan so this could affect a lot of people
I voted for Fred Thompson. He is not longer a candidate. Am I disenfranchised now?
When did signing an oath ever stop Dems from doing something?
So, let me get this straight. People who not only were allowed to vote, but actually did so, now are considered “banned” because they chose, of their own free will to vote in the other primary?
I must not understand the meaning of the word banned.
What? That's an outrage. Of course they'll lie and claim they didn't vote in the first primary. First they tampered with our election, now they want to cheat and vote for Nobama. That's so typical of them anyway, the have no shame to just change the rules in the middle of the game.
Hillary should just concede now & let's get on with the McCain v. Obama race for the White House...
How much weight does this statement hold in a court of law, if this is a Democratic Party run primary? A person can lie on this statement and not face any legal repercussions, couldn't they?
So, what you’re telling me is that all the Dems (who were up in arms two weeks ago over Republicans crossing over and voting for Hillary) forgot to look in the mirror first?
Say it isn’t so.
Dems: We tote a living and breathing agenda so credence in an oath is against what we stand for.
Hey, I did too! I demand a new ballot.
Are you black?
Are you a democrat?
If you answered 'yes' to either of the above then you are disenfranchised. Otherwise, get to the back of the cheese line.
How could anyone be told of a "re-do that was going to happen in June" at the time of the first vote?
-PJ
It depends upon what one's definition of a lie is.
Sound familiar?
A living, breathing oath!
LOL!
Narrowed down, an oath to be "finger in the wind" inconsistent and pliable.
Are you a democrat?
If you answered 'yes' to either of the above then you are disenfranchised. Otherwise, get to the back of the cheese line.
You forgot to include the dead....
YOU just disenfranchised the dead with your statement...bad, bad, boy! /snicker
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.