True only if it suits YOUR candidate's purposes. An election held and paid for by the government qualifies as a government institution. A party cannot devise an agreement that subverts the intent of equal protection and the citizenry, i.e. the voting public, was not a party to the agreement. If you think that Florida is going to set back and take this, think again. And don't misunderestimate the Clintons.
How odd to have our chief liberal on BWOT standing on black and white rule interpretation. I sense an oxymoron being born.
The government does not pay for primaries, the parties do. Any governmental cost is reimbursed by them. And "Florida" has little to do with this, a primary is a private affair held by a party, and I would really like you to point out what interests the state has in them. In fact, that is the reason Clinton's suit won't go anywhere, the courts have a long tradition of non-involvement in intra-party squabbles. The state's compelling interest is in the actual elections for public office.
The 14th Amendment essentially transferred the task of guaranteeing the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights from the states, who had done a wonderful job of instituting slavery, legalized rape and murder, but a rather poor job of seeing to it you were not beaten by the local police or denied the right to vote because you didn't own land, among other things, so this got transferred to the Federal Government, mainly because most people were tired of seeing people enslaved. Before that time, one was a resident of the United States, and citizen of say, Georgia. After the passage of the 14th, you became a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Georgia, unless of course you had been killed by the Yankees.
A person chooses a party, an activity not covered by the COTUS, and parties are not set up by The State, they are private organizations of individuals, like corporations or businesses. If they were covered by the 14th Amendment, you would get to sue your boss for not holding elections for company VP. Sorry pal, it just doesn' work that way. If you do not like how a party chooses leaders, you are free to choose another, the same way you are free to choose another job.
For example: If you were, like say Botnst, you would attend a Nazi Party convention and be told there who your candidate was going to be. You might get lucky, and be appointed to a committee that is voting on the party platform, where you could vote "Yea" on invading other countries so we could steal their natural resources. The state would not come running over and complain because Botnst's fellow Nazis did not get to vote for him as a commitee candidate, because how a party chooses it's leaders is not their business, any more than how a company chooses a VP is. Let's say Botnst gets really lucky, and by slavishly following The Party Line and dutifully repeating dishonest bullshit and lies, he gets appointed as a candidate by Dick Cheney. As long as your party fulfilled the state's signature and filing fee requirements, you would then see Botnst's name on the ballot under the Nazi symbol, even though even his fellow Nazis thought he was a nutless wonder.
The Democrats, through caucus and convention, like any other political party, get to say what their rules are. If you look into it, you will find that that is not true in totalitarian countries. The National Convention voted for the primary schedule. The National Convention set up the Super Delegate system, which if you look at it objectively instead of through the eyes of a Right Wing Nut Job, is not much different from the House and Senate. Superdelegates are meant to cool the passions of the mob, just like the Senate's job under the US Constitution.
As far as your "oxymoron" comment goes, I found it rather moronic. Liberals love rules, like not waging agressive war. If you don't believe me, I'll be glad to mail you a copy of the EPA regulations if you pay the freight. The lawless in this society are the Right Wing Nut Jobs who have given us seven years of murder.