Jill Stein Files Brief in U.S. Court of Appeals Over Primary Season Matching Funds

On June 28, Jill Stein filed this brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, in her lawsuit over 2016 primary season matching funds. Stein v FEC, 21-1213. The FEC has demanded that Stein repay $175,272. It says the FEC overpaid her and it wants the repayment back.

Stein disputes that she was overpaid. She raises a constitutional challenge to the period during which a minor party candidate is eligible. Generally a presidential candidate seeking the nomination of a party, or various parties, can have the FEC match the money she or he has raised, until after all those nominations are settled. But there is an additional rule that the FEC relies on, that regardless of whether all the relevant minor party nomination contests are settled, the period stops when both the major parties have had their national conventions.

That latter rule was not a problem in 2012, the first year Stein ran. The two major parties had not finished their national conventions until September 6, 2012. That was so late, all the nominations Stein was seeking (Peace & Freedom, Green) had been settled by late August. But in 2016, the two major parties made a drastic change in their national convention dates. Both major parties had finished their national conventions by July 28, 2016, so the FEC disallowed all the money Stein had raised between July 28, 2016, and late August 2016, when the Peace & Freedom convention was over. Stein argues that the major party convention dates should be irrelevant.

There are other, non-constitutional issues in this case also.

People’s Party Asks U.S. District Court Judge to Reconsider Denial of Ballot Access Injunction

On June 30, the People’s Party of Florida asked for reconsideration in its ballot access case, People’s Party of Florida v Florida Department of State, m.d., 8:22cv-1274. The brief is very convincing. It points out that the Florida law, requiring a candidate to have been a registered member of a party for 365 days before filing for office, bans new parties from having any nominees in its first election. This is clearly unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court several times has banned discrimination against new parties, relative to old parties.

Ohio Supreme Court Gives Deadline Relief to Candidates Who Wanted to Run in August Primary

On June 24, the Ohio Supreme Court granted deadline relief to some candidates for various Ohio offices. Ohio is holding two primaries this year, one held in May for U.S. House and statewide office, and one on August 2 for legislative candidates and candidates for party office who are elected from legislative districts. No one expected the August primary to be held, and it is being held because the districts had been invalidated a few months ago. Despite the surprise of new legislative districts and a later primary for some offices, the Secretary of State had refused to relax the candidacy deadline of February 2.

The Ohio Supreme Court extended the deadline for those offices to May 4. The vote was 4-3. State ex rel De Mora v LaRise, 2022-Ohio-2173. Here is the decision.

UPDATE: a lower state court granted relief to another candidate on June 29. See this story.