Ninth Circuit Sets Briefing Schedule for Alaska Campaign Finance Case that had been Sent Back by U.S. Supreme Court

Posted on by January 15, 2020
2

On January 13, the Ninth Circuit set a briefing schedule for Thompson v Hebdon, 17-35019, the Alaska campaign finance case that the U.S. Supreme Court remanded on November 25, 2019. The first brief is due February 18, 2020, and all the briefs will be in by March 31.

This is the case that challenged the low limits on how much Alaska individuals may donate to candidates to state office, and to political parties. The case also challenges the Alaska law that makes it very difficult for out-of-state individuals to donate to Alaska parties or candidates. The Ninth Circuit had upheld the donation limits 3-0, and had upheld the barriers for out-of-state givers 2-1. Then the people who brought the lawsuit had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to hear it again. The U.S. Supreme Court remand suggested that the donation limits are too low, but didn’t say anything about the out-of-state issue.

Missouri Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Law on Photo-ID at the Polls

Posted on by January 14, 2020
3

On January 14, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a decision in Priorities USA v State of Missouri, SC97470. The case involved the state’s law on voters showing certain types of government photo-ID when they vote at the polls. The decision did not say the state can’t have a law requiring photo-ID. But it struck down the part of the law that says voters without the right kind of ID could vote provisionally, if they signed a statement saying that they don’t have proper ID. But the ballot wouldn’t count unless the voter returned later to show the correct kind of ID.

Here is the decision, which was 5-2. Thanks to Election Law Blog for the link.

Rocky De La Fuente Withdraws from Some Republican Presidential Primaries

Posted on by January 14, 2020
19

Recently Rocky De La Fuente has withdrawn from the Republican presidential primaries in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, and Utah. This is probably because he expects to petition as an independent, in those states if not as many states as possible, and he wants to avoid any “sore loser” restrictions. Thanks to Jim Riley for this information.

SAM Party Files Federal Lawsuit Against New York Requirement that Parties Poll 130,000 Votes for President

Posted on by January 16, 2020
4

On January 14, the SAM Party of New York filed a lawsuit against the new law that removes parties from the ballot if they fail to poll at least 130,000 votes for President, or 2% of the presidential vote, whichever is greater. The new law went into effect last year even though the legislature did not pass any bill on this subject. It became law because the legislature empowered a new Commission to write new election laws. Here is the Complaint.

The case is SAM Party v Cuomo, s.d., 1:20cv-323. UDATE: it is assigned to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, a Clinton appointee. It points out that the SAM Party does not desire to nominate anyone for president in 2020. It therefore seeks a ruling that requiring a party to run someone for president in order to retain qualified status violates the U.S. Constitution. The only other states that absolutely require parties to make a certain showing for president, to remain on the ballot, are Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, and Washington. Also Tennessee requires a showing for president in years when no U.S. Senate race is on the ballot. New Mexico law is ambiguous.

Most parties that are ballot-qualified in even a single state tend to want to run someone for president, so no lawsuit like this has ever before been filed.

The new law provides that if any part of it is held unconstitutional, then all of it is void. Thanks to Joe Burns for the news.

Florida Secretary of State Files Brief in Eleventh Circuit in Lawsuit Over Order of Candidates on the Ballot

Posted on by January 14, 2020
1

On January 7, the Florida state government filed this brief in Jacobson v National Republican Senatorial Committee, 19-14552. This is the case over the order of candidates on the ballot. Current law puts the nominees of the party that won the last gubernatorial election on the top line.

The state’s brief mostly says the issue is not a fit topic for federal courts. The state says that because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that partisan gerrymandering does not violate the U.S. Constitution, therefore lawsuits on the order of candidates on the ballot can never be considered.

The hearing is February 12.