but to answer your question about where this was to be found in the law:
look at (b)

TCA
2-7-115. Residence requirements — Primary election voting requirements. —

(a) A voter may vote only in the precinct where the voter resides and is registered, but if a registered voter has, at any time prior to voting, changed residence to another place inside the county, the voter must vote pursuant to the provisions of § 2-7-140. If a registered voter has, within ninety (90) days before a state primary or general election or federal primary or general election, changed residence to another place inside Tennessee but outside the county where the voter is registered, the voter may vote in the polling place where the voter is registered. If the voter has, within ninety (90) days before an election, changed name by marriage or otherwise, the voter may vote in the polling place where the voter is registered or is entitled to vote under § 2-7-140.

(b) A registered voter is entitled to vote in a primary election for offices for which the voter is qualified to vote at the polling place where the voter is registered if:

(1) The voter is a bona fide member of and affiliated with the political party in whose primary the voter seeks to vote; or

(2) At the time the voter seeks to vote, the voter declares allegiance to the political party in whose primary the voter seeks to vote and states that the voter intends to affiliate with that party.

What's most curious about all this to me is that nobody knows who the 700 "illegal" voters voted for. Or at least they're not supposed to. Maybe they voted for Barnes. Or does the TNDP know something different? Maybe they voted for Barnes as a way to torpedo a powerful incumbent Democrat and reduce the party's influence. Who knows?

Regardless, because Republicans didn't run a candidate in the primary, why shouldn't they "cross over" and have a say in who will eventually represent them in the Tennessee Senate?

And why didn't the TNDP contest the election before it was certified? It was certified, correct?

But all that aside, if we have a state law requiring fealty to a party, we should have registration by party to clear up any ambiguities or confusion.

And speaking of state laws, there is apparently also a state law that says elected delegates are to vote for the presidential candidate they are pledged to by the electors. But that didn't happen.

Laws are apparently useful when they fit the narrative, otherwise not so much.

Does anyone really believe that Gray Sasser is in charge of anything? That little boy does exactly what the good ol' boys tell him to do. Kurita pissed me off with her vote, but this election has now been stolen. Voters have been disenfranchised. It's a huge blackeye for Democrats. There's an old saying that in order to find out who committed a crime, you look for the person that benefitted the most from the crime. It's not hard to figure out who benefitted from stealing this election.

The not unpredictable GOP reaction:

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2008/09/let-every-vote-not-count.html

What's most curious about all this to me is that nobody knows who the 700 "illegal" voters voted for. Or at least they're not supposed to. Maybe they voted for Barnes. Or does the TNDP know something different?

Oh, they know damn well different. They pulled voter files. They know who those folks are.

Regardless, because Republicans didn't run a candidate in the primary, why shouldn't they "cross over" and have a say in who will eventually represent them in the Tennessee Senate?

a) When Phil Bredesen encourages "bipartisan support," it's considered political genius.

b) Even if Republicans ran someone in a primary, I have every right as a voter in this state to vote in that primary. In states where there is party registration, you have to go the extra step and change your affiliation. Big whoop. Happens all the time. Let's say that the GOP is running a primary and one of the characters is a Bible-thumping bigot, and the Democrat is running unopposed. I have every right to "interfere" in that primary. (Voting as interference - we're through the looking glass now. Goddamned pesky voters. Stupid democratic process.)

c) Now that I think about it, it especially gets my goat since she got shanked by Harold Ford's legions in 2006, ostensibly because there was this theory that HFJ would have gotten much broader bipartisan support. In that instance, we basically didn't even get to have a primary because the folks in the party knew so much better than the voters themselves. And Ford lost anyway. So much for "party wisdom."

...if we have a state law requiring fealty to a party, we should have registration by party to clear up any ambiguities or confusion.

Ding! The only action that you can take to establish your bona fides or your affiliation is to ask for a ballot with the word "Democrat" circled. (Greg: As a Democrat, if I were to walk into a Knox County polling place, would Knox County election officials require anything from me other than to say, "I want to vote in the Republican primary?" Does my name in the logbook show what way that I normally vote? Is there any other litmus test?)

For that matter, how did Tim Barnes establish his bona fides or affiliation when he said that he was a Democratic candidate in the primary? He just said so. That's all. He's never held public office before.

Does anyone really believe that Gray Sasser is in charge of anything? That little boy does exactly what the good ol' boys tell him to do.

I was pissed off when I wrote this, but I saw him on Nashville's Fox17 saying, in essence, that the DCEC decision restored the integrity and democratic character of the primary by overturning the result of the popular vote.

Given the way that we conduct primaries in this state, I can't think of a statement any more supportive of outright corruption than that.

Word around the campfire has him hanging it up at the end of this term. Bye.

____________________________

the distance between black & white is much further than i would like until now i never noticed that fascism has many disguises -d. boon, 1981

I sat through the 8 hour proceedings, and think it was a travesty of "justice".

"Justice" is all we get anymore.

The Barnes' team tried to make a connection between various efforts reported in the media regarding Republicans supporting Kurita, to a seemingly high number of voters who previously voted in 4 or more Republican primaries before voting in the Dem primary on August 7th.

So, let's get this straight: They established a nexus between the Republicans and the media, so Kurita is out because she may have benefitted from that nexus?

On that basis, we could vacate Bredesen's election.

the election was too clouded to determine the rightful winner

The executive committee saw what it wanted to see. 19 votes is a clear majority. There's nothing clouded about that. The cloud cast was, rather, that this decision had eff-all to do about the will of the residents of Dist. 22. Party hopping in the primary happens. All. The. Time. If there was a challenge to be made about the integrity of the process, Barnes should have had poll watchers stationed in every polling place and should have made the challenges at the time the election took place, not after he didn't get the result that he wanted. There weren't dead people voting, there weren't people falsifying addresses; there was party crossover. This is somehow news to these avowed partisans? They're in such shock and dismay that they need to make this the sample case? Give me a break.

If there's a problem with the way party affiliation is determined at the time, the remedy isn't throwing out the result that they don't like. It means that primaries need to be closed, and people need to vote by the party in which they are registered. Period, end of story.

____________________________

the distance between black & white is much further than i would like until now i never noticed that fascism has many disguises -d. boon, 1981

My take here:

http://www.tennviews.com/node/3882

This is a fight for control of the State Senate.Kurita didnt vote right for Lt Gov last time & the Democratic caucus wants Kurita gone & a Democrat that will vote Democrat for Lt Gov in.

When Barnes decided to challenge the primary by questioning the Democratic "bona fides" of the voters..the Democratic Executive Committee was ready willing & able to knock out Kurita.

Power politics.

As Greg pointed out the TCA allows challenges to party primary voters.

Its the law.

I'm sure its been done.But I've never done it nor have I ever heard of anybody doing it.But I bet we see it in the next party primary.Hell of a way to spend election day..sitting inside a polling place..doing nothing but trying to stop people from voting in your primary.Not my cup of tea.

What makes this dicey is the precedent.

Will we start seeing Knox County Democratic primaries challenged using
the Barnes standard?

Lots of people around here mostly vote in Republican primaries...so it wont be that hard to show Democratic primary voters..have gasp..voted in a Republican primary.

Lose a primary by 200 find out 201 have voted in a Republican primary..boom challenge..Barnes precedent..I win.

dont know the answer.

The Executive Committees of the 3 counties met tonight to decide the Democratic nominee for this seat.Anyone can be placed into nomination but right now it only seams Barnes & Kurita's names will be offered.However,these things have a habit of a few last minute suprises.But no doubt Barnes is a huge favorite & also there is no doubt these partisan county Executive Committee members are still steamed about Kurita's Lt Gov vote.

There are 82 voting delegates.One person was not given credentials because no minutes were taken @ the county executive committee meeting when they were elected as a replacement.That individual cries foul because they were Kurita's county campaign manager in the primary & feels thats the real reason they cant vote @ the convention.

If Kurita doesnt get the Democratic nomination & the odds are pretty steep against that happening she will be running as a write-in.I think she can win.Four years ago,down ballot,Kurita ran just 3,000 votes behind Bush who won the district with 58.6%.

I can think of no reason why the district county Republican Parties would not get behind Kurita & maybe even the state Republican Party & it wouldnt suprise me if a few Republican incumbent senators throw some money in the race behind Kurita.

Like I said this is power politics about controlling the State Senate.Just think a month ago this race was over.No Republican nominee.Now this & suddenly the Republicans could put this race in play & pick up a vote for their caucus in the crucial election for Lt Gov.