2nd Circuit Reverses U.S. District Court, Says Constitution Permits Massive Discrimination Against Minor Parties and Independent Candidates in Public Funding

On July 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the U.S. Constitution permits a state to provide public funding to parties that polled 20% for Governor in the previous gubernatorial election, and not to independent candidates or new political parties unless they submit massive petitions.  The majority upheld Connecticut’s law, in a decision written by Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, and signed by Judge Peter W. Hall, a Bush Jr. appointee.  Judge Amalya Kearse, a Carter appointee, dissented.

The plaintiffs were the Green and Libertarian Parties of Connecticut.  The decision says that strict scrutiny does not apply to this issue.  The decision also says that because the U.S. Supreme Court upheld somewhat discriminatory treatment for minor party and independent candidates for President in 1976 in Buckley v Valeo, anything goes.  The decision does not mention that the federal law upheld in Buckley v Valeo was strictly neutral as to presidential candidates in the primary season.  The federal law allows all presidential candidates to obtain public funding if they raise $5,000 from residents of each of 20 states.  The federal law only discriminated in the general election, limiting general election funding to nominees of parties that had polled 5% of the vote in the preceding presidential election.

One reason the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld discriminatory funding in the general election is that no minor party or independent candidate had managed to even place second since 1912.  By contrast, a minor party nominee, Lowell Weicker, was elected Governor on the “A Connecticut Party” ticket in 1990.  Weicker had testified in this case that if discriminatory public funding had been in place in Connecticut in 1990, he could not have won.  The law would have required him to submit a petition signed by 20% of the last vote cast.  The decision mentions Weicker in only two places.  Footnote 13 on page 33 says “Putting aside the sui generis candidacy of former Governor Lowell Weicker, no minor-party candidate in Connecticut has won any election in recent memory.”  This is erroneous.  The Working Families Party and the Green Party have both won partisan municipal elections in Connecticut for their own nominees (not the cross-endorsed nominees of major parties) in the last few years.

Page 37 also similarly errs when it says, “The only time in recent memory that a minor-party candidate has won an election in Connecticut was the election of Governor Lowell Weicker in 1990.”

The panel also struck down the part of the Connecticut public funding law that is unrelated to discrimination against minor party and independent candidates, and which gives extra public funding to candidates who have well-funded privately-financed opponents.  The 2nd circuit did not determine if this part of the law can be severed from the remainder of the law, and asked the U.S. District Court to make a speedy determination about that.  If the U.S. District Court rules that that part is not severable, then the entire public funding law would be void in any event.  This part of the decision acknowledges in footnote 19 on page 49 that the 9th circuit recently came to a different conclusion about extra public funding for candidates with well-funded privately-funded opponents, but says “we are not persuaded by the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.”

In a separate decision, the same panel also affirmed the lower court’s decision upholding restrictions on the ability of government contractors to make contributions to candidates.  But it struck down such restrictions on members of their family.

Footnote 18 of the 2nd circuit decision on minor party and independent candidates says, on page 42, says, “We acknowledge that winning an election is not the only reason that citizens choose to run for office, and we do not mean to diminish the important role that minor-party candidates play in espousing minority views and shaping public debate.  There is, however, insufficient evidence in the record to show that minor-party candidates need public money to perform that role.”

Footnote 14 on page 33 is perhaps the most amazing part of the decision.  In response to all the evidence that a petition signed by 20% of the last vote is impossible to meet, at least for a statewide candidate, the decision says the petition alternative isn’t even constitutionally required, and that the Connecticut law would be constitutional even if there were no means for a candidate to get public funding, unless that candidate were the nominee of a party that had performed well in the previous election.  But, a new party could not possible have performed well in the previous election, nor could an independent candidate have done so if the candidate were running as an independent for that office for the first time.

The decision cannot even acknowledge that the law does discriminate in favor of the two old major parties.  Every time it uses the word “discrimination” or “discriminate”, the decision puts the word in quotes.  Thanks to Mike de Rosa for the news.  It is likely that this case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and that the Court would accept this case, although it is also somewhat likely that plaintiffs will ask for rehearing en banc before all the judges of the 2nd circuit, a step that would be taken before any appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.


2nd Circuit Reverses U.S. District Court, Says Constitution Permits Massive Discrimination Against Minor Parties and Independent Candidates in Public Funding — 11 Comments

  1. Pingback: Divorce Without Court: A Guide to Mediation & Collaborative Divorce | postdivorce

  2. The Greens and Libertarians were the primary losers, but all of us should recognize that this is a devastating, bleak loss for everyone who wants free elections and a level playing field for all candidates. I hope that this hideous ruling is reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal.

    So far two federal judges (the district court judge and
    the Carter appointee on the appeals court) have voted for free elections, but the other two voted to sustain a (two) party state that is not all that dissimilar to the (one) party state in the People’s Republic of China. Awful, awful decision.

  3. Yes, and they almost certainly will. It is somewhat plausible that the full 2nd circuit would grant a rehearing, since the vote from this panel was 2-1.

  4. The three judges ought to reconsider this case.

    And make sure they read the consitution before
    issuing a ruling.

    Thanks and Good Luck

  5. Pingback: Court tosses part of Conn. campaign funding law – The Associated Press | FinanceMoz.com

  6. Again and again and again —

    1. Separate is NOT equal — Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954

    2. Each election is NEW and has ZERO to do with any prior election

    — regardless of MORON lawyers and even worse super-MORON judges — especially the party hack SCOTUS folks — unable to detect the EQUAL in the EQUAL protection clause in 14th Amdt, Sec. 1 in their MORON so-called brains.

  7. The root problem is the different path candidates must follow in order to be elected, with different procedures for independents, major party and minor party nominees.

    If all candidates simply qualified on the basis of being “candidates” then any public funding would be more equitable, since it would be based on actual performance such as matching contributions or signatures, etc.

    But the system of partisan primaries and nominations currently in place in 48 States (soon to be 47) prevents this from happening.

  8. Arizona and Maine have public funding for all candidates for state office, and all candidates are treated exactly alike, regardless of their partisan affiliation or lack thereof. But Arizona and Maine still have nomination by parties. It is easy to write a public funding law that treats all candidates equally, and still preserve nomination by political parties.

  9. #9 In Arizona, independent candidates are not treated the same as partisan candidates. The section of the pamphlet explaining the program for independent candidates actually refers to partisan candidates as “traditional opponents”.

    The scheme proposed by Proposition 15 in California did not even treat candidates from all parties equally, and was extremely complicated. While it might have been easy to write a fair law, the California legislature failed to do so. Under the Top 2 Open Primary that will go into effect on January 1, 2011, it would be extremely difficult to write a public funding law that was not fair.

  10. Pingback: Wellington.scoop.co.nz » Undernews For July 17, 2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *