On November 25, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, refused to dismiss the Texas ballot access case Miller v Hughs, w.d., 1:19cv-700. The case challenges virtually all of the Texas ballot access requirements for new and minor parties, and independent candidates.
However, the judge refused to enjoin the new requirement for filing fees for candidates of convention parties. Here is the Opinion.
The New York Daily News has this editorial, criticizing the Commisson on Public Funding for virtually every recommendation it made, including making ballot access more difficult. Thanks to the Institute for Free Speech for the link.
On November 25, the South Carolina Democratic Party filed a federal lawsuit against the law that requires voter registration applicants to disclose their entire social security number. South Carolina Democratic Party v Andino, 3:19cv-3308. The case is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs, an Obama appointee.
The 1975 federal privacy act bars states from requiring the full social security number, but the law doesn’t apply if a state was doing that before that act took effect. The only other states with such a requirement for all voter registration applications are Tennessee and Virginia. The lawsuit depends on the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
On November 25, the New York Public Finance Commission released its recommendation for changing the ballot access laws. It wants the vote test to be 2% of the gubernatorial vote, or 130,000 votes, whichever is greater. Also it wants the vote test to be met every two years, not every four years. Also it wants to increase the statewide independent petition (which would also be used by the nominees of unqualified parties) from 15,000 signatures, to 45,000. The vote was 6-3.
The rationale for the change is utterly bogus. The Commission says if New York is going to have public funding for candidates for state office, to save money it needs to reduce the number of candidates. But New York is in the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit already ruled in a Connecticut case that states are free to have disciminatory public funding. The Connecticut law, which was found constitutional, makes it very easy for nominees of parties that polled 20% of the vote in the last gubernatorial election to get public funding. They just need to raise a fairly small amount of private contributions. But other candidates not only need the small private donations, they also must submit huge petitions to get the public funding.
On November 25, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Thompson v Hebdon, 19-122, back to the Ninth Circuit, and instructed the Ninth Circuit to re-write the decision. The case concerns Alaska’s $500 limit on how much an individual may give to a candidate for state office. The Ninth Circuit had upheld that limit, and also upheld Alaska’s law that makes it very difficult for an out-of-state individual to give any donation at all.
The U.S. Supreme Court remand is unsigned. It says that the Ninth Circuit decision erroneously had said that a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision from Vermont, Randall v Sorrell, is not a binding precedent because no one opinion in that case was signed by a majority of the justices. But the U.S. Supreme Court says the Ninth Circuit should have considered Randall to be a binding precedent. Randall struck down limits of $400. It is now somewhat likely that on remand, the Ninth Circuit will strike down the Alaska limits.
A side effect of the November 25 action is to cast doubt on the campaign finance provisions of the Alaska initiative that also imposes a top-four system.
