Stop suing over Florida, you have no case

Yet another lawsuit has been filed trying to force the DNC to sit the Florida delegation. This one by 3 of the delegates themselves. Enough is enough already. Look, this is very simple, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION. NONE. Could I be more clear? The Constitution only applies to state actors. STATE ACTORS. Last I heard the Democratic part was a private party. Not a government. Therefore the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

At this point, given the 2 prior lawsuits failure, I think those filing should be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous action. Even before those suits failed the outcome of any case was quite clear. The Supreme Court has ruled on scores of cases regarding private parties and not a single one has found that you can interfere with their workings, unless, their primary serves as a de facto general election (for instance if insurmountable procedural obstacles were placed in front of all attempting to get on the ballot other than the individual winning the primary). No one is arguing that the Florida primary is a de facto general election. In fact, most people have been talking about the crucial significance of this battleground state and there will almost certainly be a dozen presidential candidates on the ballot. Clearly then this is not merely the general election in disguise but rather a true primary, and therefore these lawsuits are preposterous.

I'm not saying the DNC was right. I'm saying that these suits are getting absurd. Stop grandstanding and using the courts to get your point across. The courts aren't your personal soap box. They serve an important purpose, and this simply isn't it. People seem to forget that the primary process is the process by which PRIVATE parties decide who they want to support. This isn' t an election to a post, its a vote by a group of people to see who they collectively want to spend their money and time supporting. Thats all. Those people are permitted to make whatever rules they want to govern how they will act collectively in support of someone.

I think an example better proves the point. Say a group of neighbors gets together at a block party and decides their votes and money would be much more effective if they all worked as a group. They would stand a better chance of getting someone elected and having their issues addressed. They decide that 1/3 of the block (Group 'A') will vote on Tuesday, 1/3 on Wednesday ('B') and 1/3 on Thursday ('C') and that any ballots cast other than on the assigned day don't count, perhaps with the logic that people may change their minds and thus cannot be bound until their day. As the dates approach A & B vote on their assigned days but C votes on Monday. A & B point to the rules they all agreed upon (and yes, Florida and Michigan voted in favor of the pertinent rules) and say those votes don't count, if you want to vote anytime after Thursday thats fine, but we need the vote count within a week, a rule we also all agreed upon, so that we have time to effectively organize and use our influence. C refuses to revote so A & B ignore the ballots and go forward supporting the winner of their combined elections. Should C now sue for a violation of their Constitutional rights? Of course not, it would be absurd. C can either choose to try to remedy the situation, or simply leave the ensemble they have created to back whatever candidate they would like.

The fact that the Democratic party is bigger than the block doesn't change the Constitutional analysis. It is still merely a group of people who have gotten together to work for better government. If you don't like the rules of the group you can either try to change them from within or join a different group. However, the government has no business whatsoever telling that private party how to handle their affairs. Quite frankly, if the government did step in that would be something to get upset about.

Madison