Opponents of Alaska Severe Campaign Contribution Limits File Brief in Ninth Circuit

On September 10, opponents of Alaska campaign finance limits filed a brief in Thompson v Hebdon, 17-35019. The case concerns Alaska’s cap on $3,000 that any candidate may receive from individuals living outside Alaska. It also concerns the Alaska $500 limit on contributions from an individual to a candidate, or to a party. The Ninth Circuit had recently invalidated these laws, and the state had not asked for a rehearing en banc. But then one full-time judge of the Ninth Circuit (it is not known which judge) arranged to have the panel ask both sides whether the case should be reheard.

Here is the brief of the opponents of the limits, arguing the case should not be reheard.

Michael Madigan Tells U.S. Supreme Court He Doesn’t Wish to Respond in “Sham Candidacy” Case

As reported here earlier, on September 2 Jason Gonzales asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Gonzales v Madigan, 21-352. This is the case in which Gonzales charged that his Democratic primary opponent, Illinois speaker Michael Madigan, in 2016 had recruited two candidates with Hispanic surnames to enter the primary for State House in their contest, so as to split the Hispanic vote. These were two individuals who had no interest in running for the state legislature, and merely filed to assist Madigan. Although this situation may seem an odd reason for a lawsuit, there had been a Seventh Circuit precedent in 1974 that said recruiting “sham” candidates violates the U.S. Constitution. Illinois is in the Seventh Circuit. Nevertheless, Gonzales lost his case in the lower federal courts.

Madigan wasted no time in telling the U.S. Supreme Court that he would not bother to file a response to the Gonzales cert petition; he said so on September 7. Of course, if the U.S. Supreme Court wants a response from Madigan, they can ask for it, and in that case of course Madigan would respond.

North Carolina State Trial Court Invalidates Law Requiring Certain Kinds of Photo ID for Voting

On September 17, a three-judge panel of a North Carolina Superior Court in Raleigh invalidated the state’s photo ID law for voters. Holmes v Moore, 18 CVS 15292. Here is the opinion. The vote was 2-1. The basis was that the law has a racially discriminatory effect. The law would have survived if it had included more forms of photo ID. Thanks to the Election Law Blog for the link.

CATO Institute Files Amicus Curiae Brief in U.S. Supreme Court in Case Over Composition of Ohio Elections Commission

On September 15, the CATO Institute filed this amicus curiae brief in Libertarian Party of Ohio v Crites, 21-226. This is the lawsuit over the composition of the Ohio Elections Commission, which, by law, consists of three Republicans, three Democrats, and one person who is not a member of any party.