Rescheduled Contests Megathread

[Mr. Morden]

DNC warns that states delaying primaries until after June 9th may face penalties:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/17/dnc-memo-primary-delays-could-result-delegate-reduction

A new memo from the Democratic National Committee panel that handles delegate selection for the presidential nomination warns that states that hastily change the “first determining step” of their own process could be subject to penalties – including a 50% reduction in delegates – if they hold primaries after a June cut-off date.

The memo also says the panel is looking at ways to adjust how delegates are selected in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
.
.
.
It continued: “The Delegate Selection Rules provide that each state’s first determining step must take place by 9 June. If a state violates the rule on timing, or any other rule, they could be subject to penalties as prescribed in Rule 21, including at least a 50% reduction in delegates, which will need to be reviewed by the RBC.

“The deadline to elect convention participants is 20 June, so state parties should have plenty of time to elect their delegates, alternates and standing committee members.”

The committee also advised state parties “to follow the recommendations of local health officials and prioritize health and safety of all individuals. We acknowledge the situation is very different in every state and want to give state parties flexibility to adjust their plans to address their own situations and local guidance.”

[W]

DNC warns that states delaying primaries until after June 9th may face penalties:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/17/dnc-memo-primary-delays-could-result-delegate-reduction

A new memo from the Democratic National Committee panel that handles delegate selection for the presidential nomination warns that states that hastily change the “first determining step” of their own process could be subject to penalties – including a 50% reduction in delegates – if they hold primaries after a June cut-off date.

The memo also says the panel is looking at ways to adjust how delegates are selected in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
.
.
.
It continued: “The Delegate Selection Rules provide that each state’s first determining step must take place by 9 June. If a state violates the rule on timing, or any other rule, they could be subject to penalties as prescribed in Rule 21, including at least a 50% reduction in delegates, which will need to be reviewed by the RBC.

“The deadline to elect convention participants is 20 June, so state parties should have plenty of time to elect their delegates, alternates and standing committee members.”

The committee also advised state parties “to follow the recommendations of local health officials and prioritize health and safety of all individuals. We acknowledge the situation is very different in every state and want to give state parties flexibility to adjust their plans to address their own situations and local guidance.”

Wow could y'all imagine if this becomes a reverse 2008 situation?

[cinyc]

DNC warns that states delaying primaries until after June 9th may face penalties:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/17/dnc-memo-primary-delays-could-result-delegate-reduction

A new memo from the Democratic National Committee panel that handles delegate selection for the presidential nomination warns that states that hastily change the “first determining step” of their own process could be subject to penalties – including a 50% reduction in delegates – if they hold primaries after a June cut-off date.

The memo also says the panel is looking at ways to adjust how delegates are selected in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
.
.
.
It continued: “The Delegate Selection Rules provide that each state’s first determining step must take place by 9 June. If a state violates the rule on timing, or any other rule, they could be subject to penalties as prescribed in Rule 21, including at least a 50% reduction in delegates, which will need to be reviewed by the RBC.

“The deadline to elect convention participants is 20 June, so state parties should have plenty of time to elect their delegates, alternates and standing committee members.”

The committee also advised state parties “to follow the recommendations of local health officials and prioritize health and safety of all individuals. We acknowledge the situation is very different in every state and want to give state parties flexibility to adjust their plans to address their own situations and local guidance.”

This is just stupid. The DNC can and should re-write their rules to make the date later in June if necessary.

[Badger]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

[cinyc]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

The Health Commissioner has the authority to do just that during a health emergency. The judge that refused to grant the TRO didn't enjoin her from doing so. Therefore, the Columbus judge's ruling wasn't relevant to whether DeWine could unliaterally postpone. Don't believe me? Read this tweet from the director of election law at The Ohio State University's Law School:

https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1239734740133044226

And again, there's precedent - Pataki unilaterally postponed the New York primary elections statewide on 9/11 by executive order, regardless of the fact that no statute gave him the authority to postpone a primary election. The legislature came in session and set a new date.

[wbrocks67]

PA here - interested to see what they end up doing. We just added new vote by mail abilities this year, but I'm not sure they're ready for primetime, a la the entire state doing it in time

[Badger]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

The Health Commissioner has the authority to do just that during a health emergency. The judge that refused to grant the TRO didn't enjoin her from doing so. Therefore, the Columbus judge's ruling wasn't relevant to whether DeWine could unliaterally postpone. Don't believe me? Read this tweet from the director of election law at The Ohio State University's Law School:

https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1239734740133044226

And again, there's precedent - Pataki unilaterally postponed the New York primary elections statewide on 9/11 by executive order, regardless of the fact that no statute gave him the authority to postpone a primary election. The legislature came in session and set a new date.

Very interesting. Thanks for the information! So I guess that begs the question that if even the wine thought he had this Authority, why bother go to The Courts at all? Surely you wouldn't want just the extra belt and suspenders affirmation of the judicial branch when literally hours we're taking away on the scheduled opening of the poles? Ditto for appealing it to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, it does help convince me that dewine may have had such a thority after all. Still, the timing in which he handled it seem to be extraordinarily clumsy. Based on this tweet, he should have just postponed the election under his apparent Authority, and preferably someone earlier rather than wasting time litigating the matter. Only time will tell whether he was smart and doing this after Illinois, Arizona, and Florida all went to the polls yesterday.

[Green Line]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

The Health Commissioner has the authority to do just that during a health emergency. The judge that refused to grant the TRO didn't enjoin her from doing so. Therefore, the Columbus judge's ruling wasn't relevant to whether DeWine could unliaterally postpone. Don't believe me? Read this tweet from the director of election law at The Ohio State University's Law School:

https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1239734740133044226

And again, there's precedent - Pataki unilaterally postponed the New York primary elections statewide on 9/11 by executive order, regardless of the fact that no statute gave him the authority to postpone a primary election. The legislature came in session and set a new date.

Please don't defend the authority of unelected bureacrats to cancel elections unilaterally.  What a terrible thing unleashed upon our country.

[brucejoel99]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

The Health Commissioner has the authority to do just that during a health emergency. The judge that refused to grant the TRO didn't enjoin her from doing so. Therefore, the Columbus judge's ruling wasn't relevant to whether DeWine could unliaterally postpone. Don't believe me? Read this tweet from the director of election law at The Ohio State University's Law School:

https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1239734740133044226

And again, there's precedent - Pataki unilaterally postponed the New York primary elections statewide on 9/11 by executive order, regardless of the fact that no statute gave him the authority to postpone a primary election. The legislature came in session and set a new date.

Please don't defend the authority of unelected bureacrats to cancel elections unilaterally.  What a terrible thing unleashed upon our country.

Well, that's not what happened here so nobody's defending that.

[Green Line]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

The Health Commissioner has the authority to do just that during a health emergency. The judge that refused to grant the TRO didn't enjoin her from doing so. Therefore, the Columbus judge's ruling wasn't relevant to whether DeWine could unliaterally postpone. Don't believe me? Read this tweet from the director of election law at The Ohio State University's Law School:

https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1239734740133044226

And again, there's precedent - Pataki unilaterally postponed the New York primary elections statewide on 9/11 by executive order, regardless of the fact that no statute gave him the authority to postpone a primary election. The legislature came in session and set a new date.

Please don't defend the authority of unelected bureacrats to cancel elections unilaterally.  What a terrible thing unleashed upon our country.

Well, that's not what happened here so nobody's defending that.

Reschedule, whatever.  It makes no difference to me.  Unelected officials should not have the authority to do either.  It disgusts me.

[brucejoel99]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

The Health Commissioner has the authority to do just that during a health emergency. The judge that refused to grant the TRO didn't enjoin her from doing so. Therefore, the Columbus judge's ruling wasn't relevant to whether DeWine could unliaterally postpone. Don't believe me? Read this tweet from the director of election law at The Ohio State University's Law School:

https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1239734740133044226

And again, there's precedent - Pataki unilaterally postponed the New York primary elections statewide on 9/11 by executive order, regardless of the fact that no statute gave him the authority to postpone a primary election. The legislature came in session and set a new date.

Please don't defend the authority of unelected bureacrats to cancel elections unilaterally.  What a terrible thing unleashed upon our country.

Well, that's not what happened here so nobody's defending that.

Reschedule, whatever.  It makes no difference to me.  Unelected officials should not have the authority to do either.  It disgusts me.

Well then, I'm sorry you believe that making it easier & safer for voters to exercise their constitutional right to vote is disgusting.

[Green Line]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

The Health Commissioner has the authority to do just that during a health emergency. The judge that refused to grant the TRO didn't enjoin her from doing so. Therefore, the Columbus judge's ruling wasn't relevant to whether DeWine could unliaterally postpone. Don't believe me? Read this tweet from the director of election law at The Ohio State University's Law School:

https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1239734740133044226

And again, there's precedent - Pataki unilaterally postponed the New York primary elections statewide on 9/11 by executive order, regardless of the fact that no statute gave him the authority to postpone a primary election. The legislature came in session and set a new date.

Please don't defend the authority of unelected bureacrats to cancel elections unilaterally.  What a terrible thing unleashed upon our country.

Well, that's not what happened here so nobody's defending that.

Reschedule, whatever.  It makes no difference to me.  Unelected officials should not have the authority to do either.  It disgusts me.

Well then, I'm sorry you believe that making it easier & safer for voters to exercise their constitutional right to vote is disgusting.

It was made neither safer, nor easier.

[brucejoel99]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

The Health Commissioner has the authority to do just that during a health emergency. The judge that refused to grant the TRO didn't enjoin her from doing so. Therefore, the Columbus judge's ruling wasn't relevant to whether DeWine could unliaterally postpone. Don't believe me? Read this tweet from the director of election law at The Ohio State University's Law School:

https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1239734740133044226

And again, there's precedent - Pataki unilaterally postponed the New York primary elections statewide on 9/11 by executive order, regardless of the fact that no statute gave him the authority to postpone a primary election. The legislature came in session and set a new date.

Please don't defend the authority of unelected bureacrats to cancel elections unilaterally.  What a terrible thing unleashed upon our country.

Well, that's not what happened here so nobody's defending that.

Reschedule, whatever.  It makes no difference to me.  Unelected officials should not have the authority to do either.  It disgusts me.

Well then, I'm sorry you believe that making it easier & safer for voters to exercise their constitutional right to vote is disgusting.

It was made neither safer, nor easier.

Yeah, because squeezing people into polling places & potentially killing people in a pandemic is somehow less safe than not doing so? Give me a break.

[catographer]

Universal vote-by-mail could solve this. Or if we ever invent secure online voting in the future...

[Badger]

While I was looking forward to voting today, and wish I had taken the opportunity Charlie Vogt when I was near my County Board of Elections last week, I'm perfectly fine with this President. This President is, well, without precedent. Unless someone can correct me with evidence that we didn't delay elections during the 1918 influenza plague.

Remember, we're talking about delaying primaries 4 elections to be held in November. While it is less than optimal to have a delay in selection of candidates for the general election, considering the, again, unprecedented magnitude of this outbreak, it seems like a wise choice.

That said, while I have been generally favorable of Mike dewine handling this crisis, is attempting to cancel the election at literally the 11th and 3/4 hour was just abysmal. I realized it the situation with his pandemic is changing literally by the hour and he may not have received firm advice to cancel from his health professionals until shortly before the decision, but even then it was quite the klusterfuk.

Even more concerning is the very strong implication that Dwayne was ready to say screw the judges refusal to Grant a temporary restraining order delaying the election, he was going to unilaterally do so himself with or without judicial branch approval. That is extremely troubling, and is not mitigated by the severity of this crisis

It happened in New York on 9/11. While voting was underway. Statewide.

And denial of a TRO is not the same as a court order to hold an election. The Ohio parties and Supremes sided with DeWine, too.

That's not pertinent to what I said. Before The Supremes ruled, DeWine more than an implied he was going to cancel the elections notwithstanding judicial or executive authority to do so

The Health Commissioner has the authority to do just that during a health emergency. The judge that refused to grant the TRO didn't enjoin her from doing so. Therefore, the Columbus judge's ruling wasn't relevant to whether DeWine could unliaterally postpone. Don't believe me? Read this tweet from the director of election law at The Ohio State University's Law School:

https://twitter.com/Nedfoley/status/1239734740133044226

And again, there's precedent - Pataki unilaterally postponed the New York primary elections statewide on 9/11 by executive order, regardless of the fact that no statute gave him the authority to postpone a primary election. The legislature came in session and set a new date.

Please don't defend the authority of unelected bureacrats to cancel elections unilaterally.  What a terrible thing unleashed upon our country.

Well, that's not what happened here so nobody's defending that.

Reschedule, whatever.  It makes no difference to me.  Unelected officials should not have the authority to do either.  It disgusts me.

Well then, I'm sorry you believe that making it easier & safer for voters to exercise their constitutional right to vote is disgusting.

It was made neither safer, nor easier.

Fwiw, speaking as one of those individuals whom yesterday had their much anticipated right to vote, and who passionately opposes governmental attempt to weaken voters ability to get to the polls, I'm glad this decision was made, even if I'm someone put off at the somewhat clumsy last-minute nature in which it was implemented.

[cinyc]

Very interesting. Thanks for the information! So I guess that begs the question that if even the wine thought he had this Authority, why bother go to The Courts at all? Surely you wouldn't want just the extra belt and suspenders affirmation of the judicial branch when literally hours we're taking away on the scheduled opening of the poles? Ditto for appealing it to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, it does help convince me that dewine may have had such a thority after all. Still, the timing in which he handled it seem to be extraordinarily clumsy. Based on this tweet, he should have just postponed the election under his apparent Authority, and preferably someone earlier rather than wasting time litigating the matter. Only time will tell whether he was smart and doing this after Illinois, Arizona, and Florida all went to the polls yesterday.

Yes, DeWine did this clumsily. He should have postponed the election earlier.

I think the government admitted in the answer to the Supreme Court lawsuit that they put up the plaintiffs in the Columbus case. DeWine wanted a clear order from that trial court that he could postpone, but didn't get it. But the judge never said the Health Commissioner couldn't order all polls closed. And the Ohio Supremes refused to issue an order to force open the polls after the Health Commissioner did.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/1240704638082416642

Everyone's probably going to end up in June at this pace.

[Mr. Morden]

Rhode Island likely to move to June 2nd as well:

https://frontloading.blogspot.com/2020/03/rhode-island-moving-toward-presidential.html

The Rhode Island state Board of Elections voted 6-1 on Tuesday, March 17 to recommend to Governor Gina Raimondo (D) delaying the presidential primary in the Ocean state and scheduling it for June 2. The impetus for the change was the threat of further spread of coronavirus, but the Board also argued that the potential delay would allow them more time to better prepare for a possible all-mail ballot, something that Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea (D) argued for in a letter to the Board.

The one dissenting vote on the Board sided with Gorbea on not only to shifting to an all-mail ballot but to continuing with the April 28 date. Gorbea cited concerns about the date change's impact on the preparations for the September primary for other offices and the general election.

But for the time being it appears as if Rhode Island will be on the move. Legal counsel for the Board was preparing a draft emergency executive order for the governor to issue to override the state law.

[Storebought]

The DNC should put a rule that says that if states postpone their primaries to a date so close to the convention (within ten weeks or so) that it guarantees disorderliness, then those states should forfeit their delegates and the number needed for a majority should accordingly drop.

[brucejoel99]

The DNC should put a rule that says that if states postpone their primaries to a date so close to the convention (within ten weeks or so) that it guarantees disorderliness, then those states should forfeit their delegates and the number needed for a majority should accordingly drop.

As if not perpetuating a nationwide public health emergency is less important than guaranteeing an orderly convention?

[Storebought]

The DNC should put a rule that says that if states postpone their primaries to a date so close to the convention (within ten weeks or so) that it guarantees disorderliness, then those states should forfeit their delegates and the number needed for a majority should accordingly drop.

As if not perpetuating a nationwide public health emergency is less important than guaranteeing an orderly convention?

That's a false dichotomy.

The states pushing their primaries back (which is acceptable if given at least a two-weeks notice) to just a few weeks to a convention is irresponsible and should be penalized. But the penalty shouldn't come at the expense of the states that already went through their elections under poor conditions -- which is why I reject the notion that it's somehow "perpetuating" it.

[brucejoel99]

The DNC should put a rule that says that if states postpone their primaries to a date so close to the convention (within ten weeks or so) that it guarantees disorderliness, then those states should forfeit their delegates and the number needed for a majority should accordingly drop.

As if not perpetuating a nationwide public health emergency is less important than guaranteeing an orderly convention?

That's a false dichotomy.

The states pushing their primaries back (which is acceptable if given at least a two-weeks notice) to just a few weeks to a convention is irresponsible and should be penalized. But the penalty shouldn't come at the expense of the states that already went through their elections under poor conditions -- which is why I reject the notion that it's somehow "perpetuating" it.

Those states did perpetuate it. Yes, turnout was lower, but that's on them because they still chose to hold elections when it was already apparent that doing so would further the likelihood that people could get this virus. At least the states that are postponing &/or replacing in-person aspects with vote-by-mail aren't. States making smart decisions shouldn't be penalized because dumb states chose to make dumb decisions.

[Storebought]

The DNC should put a rule that says that if states postpone their primaries to a date so close to the convention (within ten weeks or so) that it guarantees disorderliness, then those states should forfeit their delegates and the number needed for a majority should accordingly drop.

As if not perpetuating a nationwide public health emergency is less important than guaranteeing an orderly convention?

That's a false dichotomy.

The states pushing their primaries back (which is acceptable if given at least a two-weeks notice) to just a few weeks to a convention is irresponsible and should be penalized. But the penalty shouldn't come at the expense of the states that already went through their elections under poor conditions -- which is why I reject the notion that it's somehow "perpetuating" it.

Those states did perpetuate it. Yes, turnout was lower, but that's on them because they still chose to hold elections when it was already apparent that doing so would further the likelihood that people could get this virus. At least the states that are postponing &/or replacing in-person aspects with vote-by-mail aren't. States making smart decisions shouldn't be penalized because dumb states chose to make dumb decisions.

That's the issue: those states especially in the South that are postponing their primaries aren't replacing them with a vote-by-mail or online voting or even just plain paper ballots that are safer to handle than touch-screen machines. (I don't want to discuss the disease aspects of this because my concern is just to end this primary season quickly -- but there is no indication that warm weather will make the virus go away).

Can the DNC proclaim Biden the presumptive nominee for states to avoid hosting toxic primaries altogether? Can the November election be postponed for the same reason if a stay-at-home order is still in place by then?

[cinyc]

The DNC should put a rule that says that if states postpone their primaries to a date so close to the convention (within ten weeks or so) that it guarantees disorderliness, then those states should forfeit their delegates and the number needed for a majority should accordingly drop.

As if not perpetuating a nationwide public health emergency is less important than guaranteeing an orderly convention?

That's a false dichotomy.

The states pushing their primaries back (which is acceptable if given at least a two-weeks notice) to just a few weeks to a convention is irresponsible and should be penalized. But the penalty shouldn't come at the expense of the states that already went through their elections under poor conditions -- which is why I reject the notion that it's somehow "perpetuating" it.

Those states did perpetuate it. Yes, turnout was lower, but that's on them because they still chose to hold elections when it was already apparent that doing so would further the likelihood that people could get this virus. At least the states that are postponing &/or replacing in-person aspects with vote-by-mail aren't. States making smart decisions shouldn't be penalized because dumb states chose to make dumb decisions.

That's the issue: those states especially in the South that are postponing their primaries aren't replacing them with a vote-by-mail or online voting or even just plain paper ballots that are safer to handle than touch-screen machines. (I don't want to discuss the disease aspects of this because my concern is just to end this primary season quickly -- but there is no indication that warm weather will make the virus go away).

Can the DNC proclaim Biden the presumptive nominee for states to avoid hosting toxic primaries altogether? Can the November election be postponed for the same reason if a stay-at-home order is still in place by then?

You simply cannot snap your fingers and move to all-mail voting. It requires supplies, staff and counting machines, among other things. In some states, it is literally impossible without amending the state constitution.

Online voting is not secure and cannot be done.

[Storebought]

It's not a question of it can't be done as it won't be done -- as the contests in the west coast primarily have been done successfully with absentee or mail-in ballots.

The states postponing elections aren't extending the time period of absentee voting in the meanwhile -- they're simply holding back the date to June or something and holding an ordinary, presumably just as contagious, in-person vote then.

The DNC has little control over how states manage the mechanics of the primary election itself, but this comment

In some states, it is literally impossible without amending the state constitution.

strikes me as dubious.