That's right but I will say it was not Lurker that was at all close to the MS law, it was the poster he responded to, which is what I think you meant.
Lurker's question is vacuous. I think it was designed to stir uncertainty in the original poster's assertion. This is why I exhibit a serrated edge with Lurker who professes to be a lawyer, but I think he's more of an imposter.
...so the law is roughly toothless
That's right and plenty of news outlets have drawn attention to that fact that this law is unenforceable. Many leftist rags and squawkers have also tried to insinuate that the McDaniel camp was using this law when in fact they are not.
The McDaniel campaign is using a solid law that is easy to enforce. It is that law stating that a person voting in the primary of one party may not crossover and vote in the other party's primary or the other party's runoff. Violation of this law is easily discovered by examining the poll books of both parties. During a runoff, the poll books are supposed to be 'switched'.
For example, a republican runoff polling station is supposed to have a democrat poll book for that precinct so they can see if a voter is ineligible by noting if they voted in the dem primary. They have the dem poll book in front of them to check.
But what the McDaniel team has uncovered is the dem poll books were not provided to the precincts so there is no way to know if the dem voters were eligible to vote or not UNLESS they can inspect the dem poll books and find out. This should have been done at the time of the vote but now they are having to go back and do it themselves and the Cochran-Barbour gang is blocking them. This is why they are in court.
Thanks for quoting the various legal passages.
I commented to Lurker about the "intend to support the party" law, noting that it swings both ways. What about Cochramn backers who are undercutting McDaniel? What are they going to do in the general? No matter how you cut it, those questions just draw the outcome of the primary contest into more doubt. Same outcome for the election contest, the runoff has to be repeated. New outcome for individuals caught in violation of the law.
What did I say that misstated Missisippi law?
Lurker's question is vacuous. I think it was designed to stir uncertainty in the original poster's assertion. This is why I exhibit a serrated edge with Lurker who professes to be a lawyer, but I think he's more of an imposter.
If you are going to accuse a fellow FReeper of misconduct, it's considered polite to ping him to the post where you do that.
In any event, I have been posting on FR since 1998. Anyone is welcome to read my posting history and decide if it reflects any legal knowledge or if I am an imposter.