Baglia on the case against the DNC

Continuing this post, the ruling also referenced Baglia's legal analysis of the issue. He agrees that the plaintiffs were deficient in proving standing, or "failure to adequately state claims for which relief could be granted." The appeals court affirmed this. The consequence though is that "the defendants, unfortunately, will walk away scot free. Thus providing no deterrence for politicians similar behavior in the future." So apparently my noting the same result was accurate. He recommends some solutions to the very real DNC problem.

"If political party committees are deemed to be private associations, the law should impose the same duties of loyalty and care on committee members that are imposed on corporate directors. [...] On the other hand, if parties are viewed as quasi-governmental actors, state legislatures should implement a uniform statute banning all behavior by political parties, through their committee members, that is done with the intention of manipulating an election."

Think the DNC will go for that unless required to by law? Will corporate state legislators go for it?

After reading some of Baglia's piece I agree that the Wilding lawsuit was defective and that the court had legal precedent for its ruling. I agree with Baglia that his remedies are what's needed. But I still maintain that corporate Dems in those legislatures are not inclined to so enact such policy. Hence an ultimate solution is to vote them out and vote in progressives that will enact such changes. 

In the meantime, will we see a DNC repeat in the '20 election? Per Baglia, the consequence though is that "the defendants, unfortunately, will walk away scot free. Thus providing no deterrence for politicians similar behavior in the future." Can we all agree that this would be unacceptable?